This would seem to be germane to the subject of the thread.
It kind of is assailable, the hopeful future of the TOS era was that Humanity survived at all, that was basically it. There was no suggestion of a "utopian existence."
Too many dystopias - the world needs utopian Star Trek
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
- Status
Not only that, but that they went away in the 71 years between TUC and TNG. (TOS humanity wasn't that different from the 20th and 21st century humanity.)
So not only has humanity evolved into near perfect people despite it going against 100000 years of history, they did so in only a few decades.
I mean, you don't have to believe that this kind of progress in elimating those problems is realistic. But that's undeniably what Star Trek is portraying in it's future. To imagine that Picard is out of touch, humanity is still just as corrupt as today, just held up by technological advances is an interesting theory but it's kind of a fan fiction imo since it's not all that supported by the show.
There's some kind of rehabilitation for criminals but how exactly they've reduced crime so much, we don't know. Probably goes along with how there's less emphasis on material possessions. There's a bunch of episodes exploring crime & punishment.
TOS earth was at peace and the crew with different backgrounds all working together. That alone is portraying a utopian view of the future compared to modern day and back when the show came out. TNG comes out and they just continued what TOS started.
Sisko's description of earth:
Last edited:
Glad we agree, although you seem not to have realized it.
But is it?
TNG was the only show in the franchise to really push this extreme utopianism. TOS never did and DS9 positively showed us that the utopia established by Picard and that whole doing things to "better ourselves" philosophy just wasn't true at all. Was Cassidy working as cargo courier to better herself? Were Ezri's family running a depressing mining operation because it bettered them?
I think humanity has obviously made great strides but Picard? Yeah, I think the evidence (taken directly from the shows) definitely supports that he is perhaps out of touch. I tend to think he was showing off with Ralph and the other two (and with the woman in the film).
You're implying that technology is not a factor in the lack of general human dickishness. That we have simply become nicer people. I'm explaining that you're wrong. It would be convenient for you if I had misrepresented your position but I don't think I have.
It's not just technology, but it's part of it. Look at the progress the world has made over the last few hundred years (or even over the last few decades). There have been technology advances all over the globe (albeit some areas definitely have progressed faster than others), but cultures have also advanced alongside it to become more fair and peaceful.
Hux is correct that the technology played a big part, but it definitely did not do it alone. As others have stated, if that was purely the case then the Prime Directive wouldn't exist, if advanced technology was the cause of cultural evolution.
I believe that is it too, it is cultural evolution rather than physical. People are still the same individually as they were and always have been, but as a group have improved. Right now our society is at a state driven by short-term profit and greed. Eliminating scarcity would greatly change this, but not by itself. Plus, in Star Trek this changed before the replicator was invented.
Even by Kirk's time, many things were eliminated on Earth: war, greed, racism, etc. This is specifically called out in many occasions during the original show. Consider "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" as a prime example of how humans in the 23rd century do not understand the concept of racism. This did not come about by replicators or transporters.
Hux is correct that the technology played a big part, but it definitely did not do it alone. As others have stated, if that was purely the case then the Prime Directive wouldn't exist, if advanced technology was the cause of cultural evolution.
I believe that is it too, it is cultural evolution rather than physical. People are still the same individually as they were and always have been, but as a group have improved. Right now our society is at a state driven by short-term profit and greed. Eliminating scarcity would greatly change this, but not by itself. Plus, in Star Trek this changed before the replicator was invented.
Even by Kirk's time, many things were eliminated on Earth: war, greed, racism, etc. This is specifically called out in many occasions during the original show. Consider "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" as a prime example of how humans in the 23rd century do not understand the concept of racism. This did not come about by replicators or transporters.
Which is bullshit if you pay attention, they just don't seem to engage in it with other humans.
Plus in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" they seemed to get the concept alright they just seemed to think the racism in question had an even more idiotic basis than usual.
I thought we were discussing whether the future human society depicted in Star Trek was just the inevitable result of their advanced technology, which is what you have argued. My position has been that it was not inevitable and that technology is just a tool of society.
On the other hand, you now seem to think we are discussing whether or not there are individuals who are assholes in the Star Trek future.
Some people are arguing that we naturally "evolved" away the racism, sexism, homophobia and being a dick from out natures (in the space of 300 years). I am arguing that the comfort and ease that technology has afforded everyone is a far more likely candidate for explaining why those unwanted traits are less common.
It should be noted, I'm not saying that technology is the reason we are nicer to each other, I'm saying technology (and the wonderful lives it has given us) has simply made it look like we're being nicer to each other (because we are distracted so).
To use a more simplistic model. I'm a bit of a dick (don't worry, girls seem to like it). If my life consists of working in a job I hate, living a life I don't want and not having the same opportunities as other more privileged individuals... I might be inclined to let that dickishness out.
On the other hand, If I could travel the world, do anything I wanted with my life, explore space, eat the finest foods, drink the finest wines, shag the hottest aliens (in real life or even just on the holodeck), live life on my own terms every single day... I might be less inclined to let that dickishness out.
Fundamentally, the question is... should that technology (and the lives it gives us) be taken away from us, would this so-called "evolved" sensibility continue or would it crumble?
I would submit for consideration the idea, that as a representative of the Federation, which is always interested in adding new members to its club, couldn't Picard be simply selling a version of the truth, of life on Earth at least, that while perhaps not snake oil, is heavy on the optimism, evocations of a philosophically idyllic existence, and one where the idea of want of any kind has no place, to help expedite winning over the potential initiates to making the "right" decision?
I'm not necessarily suggesting that there is a playbook, or rather script, that all command officers who are integral in making these contacts and presenting an appealing image of the Federation are bound to follow, but it would certainly seem sensible that the most attractive aspects of life on Earth, as an example, would be emphasized. After all, how much of that existence have we actually been shown? Please fill in the gaps that I'm inevitably missing, but what else of the contemporary version has been illustrated other than San Francisco, some vineyards, a bar in Marseille, New Orleans, and..... I'm not saying that there are significant overt conflicts going on elsewhere, but what is day to day life like for the vast majority of the planet's population, what inner motivations or desires drive their behavior, and does a pacific attitude extend to nearly all? It's been speculated before that there might be a globally accepted educational model that would be likely to inculcate the ideals that Picard espouses, but we don't really know about that, and certainly if such is the case, how many of its students sanguinely accept that philosophy and implement it in their lives as they grow up?
I guess I'm essentially saying that Starfleet is compelled to be the spit and polish image of what the implications of what they present as talking points realistically represent, but we can't actually verify that with ironclad assurance.
I'm not necessarily suggesting that there is a playbook, or rather script, that all command officers who are integral in making these contacts and presenting an appealing image of the Federation are bound to follow, but it would certainly seem sensible that the most attractive aspects of life on Earth, as an example, would be emphasized. After all, how much of that existence have we actually been shown? Please fill in the gaps that I'm inevitably missing, but what else of the contemporary version has been illustrated other than San Francisco, some vineyards, a bar in Marseille, New Orleans, and..... I'm not saying that there are significant overt conflicts going on elsewhere, but what is day to day life like for the vast majority of the planet's population, what inner motivations or desires drive their behavior, and does a pacific attitude extend to nearly all? It's been speculated before that there might be a globally accepted educational model that would be likely to inculcate the ideals that Picard espouses, but we don't really know about that, and certainly if such is the case, how many of its students sanguinely accept that philosophy and implement it in their lives as they grow up?
I guess I'm essentially saying that Starfleet is compelled to be the spit and polish image of what the implications of what they present as talking points realistically represent, but we can't actually verify that with ironclad assurance.
The technological society that they've built (like our own) is a very artificial entity, it would disappear if not perpetuated.
IF it were the people which had changed, and it wasn't just people acting a certain way when enjoying a comfortable life, then what would happen if large measures of the "comfortable life" disappeared? If reduce to early twentieth century levels, would the people basically stay the same?
Your position IndyMac, if I understand it, is yes.
As I mentioned above their society, the social construct, is artificial. If it wasn't maintained it would begin to dissolve. Maintaining the "lifestyle of the future" is certainly done with their machines.
That's like saying that an athlete is immediately going to turn into a couch potato, once you take his training equipement away. But that won't change his attitude, the desire to get to the top. He will just choose another training method to get back to greatness. The way he does it is just one that suits his best.
^ For that analogy to work, you would need the entire planet to be athletes... and then take their equipment away.
Under those circumstances, would "some" of them become couch potatoes? Very probably.
The problem with the Trek utopia is that it tries to suggest that "all" racists, sexist, homophobes, dicks etc, have gone away. That's the bit that's unrealistic. Firstly, I tend to believe that life is so good, they simply aren't vocal about their prejudices (technology takes credit). Secondly, we see that the reactionary qualities that can produce unpleasant human traits are still very much with us.
Look at how Leyton reacts to the Dominion threat. He brings in martial law and wants to acquire dictatorial powers and conspire to take control of the planet. Human dickishness clearly still exists. So with that in mind, why are we to believe that other forms of dickishness have all just gone away?
Under those circumstances, would "some" of them become couch potatoes? Very probably.
The problem with the Trek utopia is that it tries to suggest that "all" racists, sexist, homophobes, dicks etc, have gone away. That's the bit that's unrealistic. Firstly, I tend to believe that life is so good, they simply aren't vocal about their prejudices (technology takes credit). Secondly, we see that the reactionary qualities that can produce unpleasant human traits are still very much with us.
Look at how Leyton reacts to the Dominion threat. He brings in martial law and wants to acquire dictatorial powers and conspire to take control of the planet. Human dickishness clearly still exists. So with that in mind, why are we to believe that other forms of dickishness have all just gone away?
No, you would not. You would just need people with that mindset in the right places. And... well, there's at least a whole fleet out there with people as such. And they are just the ones going out into the unknown. There are surely many more with the right attitude, and it really does not matter if they are athletes, artists, scientists, or cooks.
Some. Sure. All? I doubt it.
Mankind obviously already was at a low point after world war III (without tech and all). They could have build the old world all over again. They did not. They choose to build a better world - with the help of the vulcans of course. Still, they had to have the desire to do it.
Look at Bajor. That's another good example. The bajorans were a peaceful lot. Then the cardassians came crashing in. Some (not all) of the bajorans fought back. The cardassians went away and the bajorans... struggled for a while and in the end, they got back to their peaceful lifestyle. They did NOT turn into raping vikins, roaming the galaxy.
I never got that impression at all.
Look at how grandpa Sisko reacts to the dominion thread. He did not turn into a raping viking as well. He called the starfleeters out on their bullshit.
For the athlete analogy to work, yes you would. Otherwise it's flawed. One athlete might continue to work hard. A billion however, might not
We have that desire today too but making it a reality has proved difficult. Simply saying that it... eventually worked out and we all became much nicer isn't good enough, especially when we see countless examples in the shows of humanity not being any better or more altruistic at all.
Bajorans are an unknown quantity. We don't really know much about their history regarding racists, sexism, homophobia etc. This discussion is about humans; a very well-known race to most of us here.
We've already established that nice people exist. The issue is wether the unpleasant human traits that result in racism, sexism, homophobia etc are still part of the human condition or if they have just gone away and if so, for what reason?
Unrealistic maybe but a lot of things about the show are unrealistic. We just have to think about the intent of the show. Are we meant to think that Kirk / Picard & their crews would regress if their comfort was taken away? That if the federation had problems they would abandon their ideals and human nature would take over.
You'd be watching a lot of the morality plays in every series with this in the back of your mind - "these guys preach but they're just privileged with a cushy lifestyle." Not exactly what I imagined the writers had in mind.
Lily's line to Picard showed that in that moment he wasn't acting with the evolved sensibilities, but that doesn't meant their entire society is flawed, just that Picard was acting out of personal revenge in that moment. Then he snaps out of it and orders the evacuation.
Yeah, I was going to mention that. Technologically we are able to eliminate a number of terrible things, including famine, but we don't, for social reasons. The existing remedial programs have only a tiny effect, because the political will is lacking, and because most people who aren't directly affected by famine don't really care. Technology may allow social advancement, but it doesn't cause it - that's still up to us.
Other aspects of modern civilisation - democracy, universal education, rule of law - are not technology-dependent. So where did they come from?
And we've seen a notable reduction in racism and homophobia over the last 50 years. What technology allowed that to happen?
They came from affluence. Where did that affluence come from? Improved farming techniques, water that didn't kill you, communication technology, global travel technology, technolgy to increase food production, medical advancements, improved living and communal services.
You think it's purely a coincidence that feminism hasn't quite had the same impact in the third world? That the gay movement hasn't quite taken off in poverty stricken, developing nations?
Again, the technology that allowed affluence. Those things have reduced... in the very rich parts of the world. Plus who says they truly went away? Let's bankrupt America and force them to queue for bread and see how long it takes for the racists who went away... to very quickly come back.
- Status
