Too many dystopias - the world needs utopian Star Trek
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
- Status
Even archaeologists know that they can go home again. And while some expeditions would probably rough it, I can't honestly imagine most 24th century Federation digs not bringing along a replicator.
And archaeology digs tend to happen in relatively isolated places. It's not like Picard would be associating with regular people in regular settings.
Even when he was posing as Ro's "customer" he had to be reminded to at least pretend to pay.
Except the utopian society they've got isn't based just on beneficial technology. People have learned to work together. Their society actually has evolved. Give those "cavemen" the same technology and they'd just wipe each other out with the advancements in weaponry or hoard the food. So they probably should feel insulted or accept that they have a lot of work to do until they reach the point where people are working together.
There's like this head canon going on that Starfleet and humanity in trek is just as flawed as modern man by finding these bits and pieces of the show that might show a flaw in their society, but that's definitely not what they were trying to convey imo. They've actually solved issues to the point where it's a paradise compared to today.
They've learned to work together... because of the technology, not in spite of it. Plus, Picard isn't talking to a caveman, he's talking to people from the 20th century. He patronises them with this bùllshit about evolving into better people. That's not how evolution works. The idea that we stopped having the same basic emotions, urges, thoughts etc is moronic.
The fact that they say we should just accept this isn't good enough. Accept the idea that there's a machine that can transport me somewhere else? OK fine but the idea that I should just accept that we have somehow evolved into a life-form that doesn't work the same way that it has for the last hundred thousand years, is where you lose me.
Either explain how this nature-defying leap in evolution occurred or admit that it was the technology that produced your utopia.
The point is people haven't, this is what Lily was forcing Picard to see, Picard (the future man) was in no way different than Lily's 21st century peers.
Picard's carefully cultivated veneer of urbane demeanor and evolve sensibilities, was tissue thin.
And if Picard is the shining example of 24th century Human society, what does that say about that society?
Right so to you guys, Star Trek is about people who aren't any wiser than we are here in modern day, they've simply got better tech. The entire utopia and mankind working together is simply a result of replicators & other tech. That's never been what it is to me and I think it's obviously not in line with the writers intentions, but to each his own.
I agree with the OP on this one...
A lot? If Picard isn't an example of an improvement of sensibilities, I don't know what would qualify. There's an entire seven seasons of TNG where we can see him demonstrate that.
I agree with the OP on this one...
Or just admit to ourselves that we're watching Star Trek which is a fantasy where humans grew and learned to become better people in a very positive view of the future.
A lot? If Picard isn't an example of an improvement of sensibilities, I don't know what would qualify. There's an entire seven seasons of TNG where we can see him demonstrate that.
Last edited:
That's the impression Picard gives, but I don't think it's what he actually meant. He's not talking about actual physical evolution, he's talking about evolution of a sensibility, which is a social, psychological, philosophical thing. As a contemporary example, a modern civilised person thinks that tyranny and dictatorship are bad; however, people of the past (and some of the present) believe dictatorship is good, because the only imaginable alternative is chaos. Patterns of thought change, and "ideas have consequences".
Picard is in denial. With the Fed's focus on positive outlook and mental health, he's trying to claim that therefore negative emotions are not a problem for him, don't even exist for him. It's obvious that he's wrong, and you know he wouldn't even try this "evolved" pose if he was talking to a contemporary.
I'd suggest he also talks himself into this position because he is trying to impress Lily. He's shown her all the techno marvels, and he's given her the "We don't have money, we work to better ourselves and humanity" spiel. Now she's caught him with his pants down (emotionally speaking!) and his ego won't let her have the satisfaction.
Well... if psychology and sociology are sciences, then applied techniques from those could be what you are talking about, so... still beneficial technology. It's just that not every technology has to manifest as a device. And showing this on the shows would be compounded by the same problem that whatever the advanced financial system is that they are using has - you can't show it if we don't actually know the science behind it yet. If you could, we'd be using it, so it wouldn't be futuristic anymore.
Star Trek is a action adventure series that takes place in the wild frontier of outer space.
It's full of ray gun fights, weird aliens, endless wars and technobabble.
Yes but the condescending way he speaks to Ralph, makes it clear that he genuinely believes that that change in sensibilities came about through the high-minded ideals and beautiful humanity of modern man rather than through technology. That this change came "after" technology produced a prosperous, comfortable, space-exploring society is total coincidence to him.
He blatantly wants modern humanity to take credit for this change.
We.
We (the mighty Human) did this.
Nope, technology did it.
I think you guys have gotten too hung up on the definition of "utopia" and how utopian the United Federation of Planets and/or Earth is.
The OP's real point was that most of the current popular fiction on TV takes a pessimistic view of humanity's future and/or human nature. Regardless of how utopian you perceive the UFP to be in previous Star Trek series, it is unassailable that a primary intent of Roddenberry and everyone who has worked on Star Trek has been to portray a positive and hopeful future for humanity.
The OP's real point was that most of the current popular fiction on TV takes a pessimistic view of humanity's future and/or human nature. Regardless of how utopian you perceive the UFP to be in previous Star Trek series, it is unassailable that a primary intent of Roddenberry and everyone who has worked on Star Trek has been to portray a positive and hopeful future for humanity.
What technology ended racism, bigotry, hatred, sectarian violence, etc., in the Star Trek universe?
I'm going to ignore the obvious question of who created the technology that alleviated hunger, want and need for possessions and that technology does not spontaneously spring into existence.
There is no guarantee that they would use their technology to achieve those ends. We are capable today of producing enough food to feed everyone on Earth, and yet starvation and hunger still exist throughout the world, including in the "first world".
Advanced technologies are just tools of society, no different really than the plow or the mule. It is what a civilization does with those tools that defines it. It was a conscience and deliberate decision by the society in Star Trek to eliminate hunger, and not just an inevitable result of technological advancement.
Firstly, you're suggesting that human beings who wanted to end racism, hatred, sectarian violence etc, didn't exist before the utopia? Nonsense. Secondly, the more prosperous and equal a society becomes (through technology), the easier it is to affect those changes. Doesn't mean the people have evolved a superior sensibility. Take away that technology and comfort... let's see how long their evolved sensibilities last.
It was invented by the same people who invented racism, hatred, sectarian violence etc. And while some might argue that those unsavoury human qualities going into decline as the technologies arrived is pure coincidence, I would say... nope.
Which requires immense effort, work, compassion, thinking, negotiation and logistics yet we do try. Despite these problems, we work towards it, people volunteer, charities exist and an end to those problems is sought.
What evidence that the privileged replicator generation of Trek would actually give it shit about their fellow man should their technology fail them? Saying... they just would because they said so, isn't good enough.
Just as it is today; and while we have a greater difficulty achieving this, we none the less try.
Meanwhile, what effort do the privileged Trek utopians make to ensure equality, freedom and the alleviation of hunger? Picard claims that we no longer care about possessions. Well why don't we take away his replicators, his transporters, his cure-everything medical tech, his warp drive and his private vineyard... and see what happens.
The entire purpose of the prime directive suggests societies have to learn & evolve until the point they are ready to use the technology. If technology was the answer they could just go around dropping replicators everywhere.
How about any of the many episodes where they are stranded without their tech? Inner Light for example, Picard lives an entire life without his federation advantages but he still shows his sensibilities by trying to help that planet prevent disasters. Then you have the entire series of Voyager where they uphold federation principles despite being stranded.
Yeah there were individuals trying to end racism/wars/world hunger, but Star Trek suggests in the future that mankind as a whole has grown to catch up with them. And not just due to technology - the borg shows a society valuing technology above everything else.
Not sure how such a pessimistic view of Trek's humans can come about - this isn't BSG.
We can all survive a night in the woods. I'm talking about ongoing hardships (for the entire planet). Do you honestly believe we wouldn't revert to type?
I'll let Quark explain
And my question continues to be... how did that change occur? I say technology. Those who say it wasn't technology need to offer a better alternative than... because it just did.
That's like asking the writers to explain how their financial system works, it's fiction. Somehow trek's society managed to pull itself out of the dark ages after some pretty bad wars and finally learn to work together. However bad it might get if federation earth lost all it's technology, it would be much worse if it happened to modern man that hasn't reached that level.
We already have the technology, and the knowledge to feed the world, end hunger, and with that, propably a lot of wars and conflicts. We don't use these things to the fullest extend, because, well money and all. We are trapped in century old constructs of politics and power and so on. So, no, it's not just a question of technology. You still have to find ways to break through old cycles and implemend new things to the benefit of everyone. In Star Trek, it happend through world war III and the vulcans
Riker: "You get to make first contact with an alien race, and after you do, everything begins to change."
Troi: "It unites humanity in a way no one ever thought possible when they realise they're not alone in the universe. Poverty, disease, war. They'll all be gone within the next fifty years.
I suggested absolutely no such thing.
As I said, you are assuming that those changes are an inevitable result of technological advancement. It is not inevitable. The emancipation of blacks slaves, women's suffrage, and the social security system in the United States were not inevitable, nor were they the result of technological advancement.
Here, you are are making the argument yourself that technology is not the ultimate solution. We currently have the technology to produce enough food to feed everyone, and yet people still starve and go hungry. Sure, some people work to alleviate hunger, but we as a society have chosen not to do so.
We regularly ask that question.
I simply don't believe that. We have not changed as a species in the space of 300 years. It is simply silly to pretend that we have.
That's what Trek tells us certainly but I am simply not convinced... at all. The religious extremists... where are they? The criminals? The sex offenders? The paedophiles? The power hungry? The people who just snap and cause problems? The greedy? The selfish? And let's not forget, the good old fashioned arse hole.
You want me to believe that they all just... went away.
Well that's lovely but I don't believe it.
Those successes were limited (and continue to be). We're talking about universal, Federation-wide, total anhiliation of all unpleasant human qualities and urges. While I say this is nonsense and Trek society only appears that way (because of technological comfort) you say, it's true... just because.
I don't believe technology is a solution. I believe it's a means of sweeping the problem under the carpet and having the appearance of a solution (That being my description of the Trek utopia). The problem in this instance being human-nature and it's often unpleasant consequences. While we are both happy to agree that human beings are capable of wonderful, good, selfless things (both now and in the Trek future). Where we differ is that you seem incapable of accepting that dickheads will continue to exist in the (Trek) future. They'll just go away.
I say no.
- Status
