Too many dystopias - the world needs utopian Star Trek

[T'Girl]

And we've seen a notable reduction in racism and homophobia over the last 50 years. What technology allowed that to happen?

Communications in general, and recently the internet.

What (if not technology) do you feel is the cause of the change you noted?

 

[Deks]

Utopia is a concept that cannot exist in reality.
It implies one has achieved the pinnacle of evolution and that you can do no better.
Life seems to be in a constant state of change, as such, the Federation as it was portrayed in the 24th century for example (no money, far better/civilized behaviour, striving for exploration of the galaxy, expansion and sharing of knowledge, technology, resources, ideas, etc.).

I'm sick of dark 'undertones' all over the place.
The Federation was appealing because it showed technical and social progress.
It needs to do away with many prohibitions and see far more frequent technical progression among other things.
Also... if the Federation is 'challenged' by other species in a conflict, it shouldn't really suddenly go back to previous forms of behaviour.
Given the kind of society it is, they would actually strive to surpass all that and move boldly forward while not losing anything from their ideals and goals.

As for which technology allowed reduction in racism and homophobia (for example) in the last 5 decades... indeed, I think it was a lot to do with the Internet (or living in the information age).

Humans effectively behave in accordance to what they know... the less they know and question, the more subject to manipulation and being used by others they are.

 

[Tim Walker]

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.
.

Agreed, cultural evolution is important. From history we know that over generations/centuries a culture can develop in ethics/values/institutions.

 

[fireproof78]

Utopia is a concept that cannot exist in reality.
It implies one has achieved the pinnacle of evolution and that you can do no better.
Life seems to be in a constant state of change, as such, the Federation as it was portrayed in the 24th century for example (no money, far better/civilized behaviour, striving for exploration of the galaxy, expansion and sharing of knowledge, technology, resources, ideas, etc.).

I'm sick of dark 'undertones' all over the place.
The Federation was appealing because it showed technical and social progress.
It needs to do away with many prohibitions and see far more frequent technical progression among other things.
Also... if the Federation is 'challenged' by other species in a conflict, it shouldn't really suddenly go back to previous forms of behaviour.
Given the kind of society it is, they would actually strive to surpass all that and move boldly forward while not losing anything from their ideals and goals.

As for which technology allowed reduction in racism and homophobia (for example) in the last 5 decades... indeed, I think it was a lot to do with the Internet (or living in the information age).

Humans effectively behave in accordance to what they know... the less they know and question, the more subject to manipulation and being used by others they are.

There was an interesting article I read recently that stated that sometimes humans become more skeptical and less cooperative and willing to change when faced with too much information. They start to become skeptical of anything that counters their beliefs and actively fight against new information. Quite interesting facet of human psychology.

As with all things, there is such a thing as moderation.

 

[eyeresist]

Other aspects of modern civilisation - democracy, universal education, rule of law - are not technology-dependent. So where did they come from?

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.

And we've seen a notable reduction in racism and homophobia over the last 50 years. What technology allowed that to happen?

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.

You haven't demonstrated the connection. How does a secure source of cleaning drinking water lead to "I don't hate gays anymore"? Conversely, how would reduced access to technology lead to increased racism?

 

[USS Triumphant]

You haven't demonstrated the connection. How does a secure source of cleaning drinking water lead to "I don't hate gays anymore"? Conversely, how would reduced access to technology lead to increased racism?

Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! Pick me! Pick me!

The more time you have to spend on survival, the less time you have to learn and to communicate with other people and learn more about how they live, what is true and not true about them. Technology increases free time, and on top of that, facilitates communication. So people with technology that is useful to them are, on the whole, less likely to be bigots or racists.

(I said "to them" because it IS of course possible for technology to be used for a propaganda machine, too - think FUD memes that are shared on Facebook, all the way up to a Big Brother state. But mostly, the overall effect of technology is positive in this regard.)

 

[eyeresist]

You haven't demonstrated the connection. How does a secure source of cleaning drinking water lead to "I don't hate gays anymore"? Conversely, how would reduced access to technology lead to increased racism?

Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! Pick me! Pick me!

The more time you have to spend on survival, the less time you have to learn and to communicate with other people and learn more about how they live, what is true and not true about them. Technology increases free time, and on top of that, facilitates communication. So people with technology that is useful to them are, on the whole, less likely to be bigots or racists.

I agree increased leisure and decreased anxiety may play a part.

However, anthropologists seem to find most hunter-gatherer tribes welcoming and accepting (don't know if there are any papers written on the tribes who told Margaret Mead to fuck off). There is an argument that civilisation makes people more oppressed and hostile.

 

[Drone]

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?

No, I don't think it's a coincidence, but at the same time has nothing to do with the lack of technology or prevalence of poverty in these areas. I believe the reason for the non-acceptance of these trends is rooted in long held cultural, religious, and sociological values. For a lot of the countries that you would include in this group, I think that there is more attention given to the practices that are commonplace in the regard of women and gays, in the first world that is passing judgement on their inequality, discrimination, and persecution, than in the countries themselves, where they may very well be considered as absolute givens, largely irrelevant, and certainly immune to the consideration of any substantive change.

Now, if an argument would be made that technology and its byproducts would make some of these areas more prosperous and create a significant middle class where none exists currently, carrying with it somehow a leavening impact on some of these retrograde beliefs, I think it would be very dubious that one would see any real changes just because more people would be living in secure comfortable structures rather than mean hovels. Even with the connection to the wider world that the accoutrements of living in better conditions would likely afford, there is no realistic rationale that core social values that have endured through century upon century would be reflexively discarded. A number of African nations right now have a very high percentage of their citizens who own and utilize cell phones and more, if the existing infrastructure will support it. Pakistan has a very significant middle class, to say nothing, obviously of India, and Saudi Arabia, as well as most of the other affluent Gulf states, where hypocrisy of personal practices abroad is legion but does not conceal a genuine belief in the liberalization of societally restrictive and controlling norms, that are so conspicuous in their absence at home, are all examples where the connection that you are advocating doesn't seem to adhere.

Utopia is a concept that cannot exist in reality.
It implies one has achieved the pinnacle of evolution and that you can do no better.
Life seems to be in a constant state of change, as such, the Federation as it was portrayed in the 24th century for example (no money, far better/civilized behaviour, striving for exploration of the galaxy, expansion and sharing of knowledge, technology, resources, ideas, etc.).

I'm sick of dark 'undertones' all over the place.
The Federation was appealing because it showed technical and social progress.
It needs to do away with many prohibitions and see far more frequent technical progression among other things.
Also... if the Federation is 'challenged' by other species in a conflict, it shouldn't really suddenly go back to previous forms of behaviour.
Given the kind of society it is, they would actually strive to surpass all that and move boldly forward while not losing anything from their ideals and goals.

As for which technology allowed reduction in racism and homophobia (for example) in the last 5 decades... indeed, I think it was a lot to do with the Internet (or living in the information age).

Humans effectively behave in accordance to what they know... the less they know and question, the more subject to manipulation and being used by others they are.

There was an interesting article I read recently that stated that sometimes humans become more skeptical and less cooperative and willing to change when faced with too much information. They start to become skeptical of anything that counters their beliefs and actively fight against new information. Quite interesting facet of human psychology.

As with all things, there is such a thing as moderation.

You could also attribute such behavior to something much more rooted and older than this very recent phenomenon of information overload. It is the well documented verity, both in quantitative studies as well as sociological essays, of the common anti-scientific and intellectual strain of thought that so permeates our society. The diminishment of the value of study and research for its own sake, as well as how it manifests itself in conclusions that run counter to religious doctrine, resistance to cultural change, or just the plain "common sense" of the average citizen has been prevalent for decades, and indeed can be seen throughout various periods of our nation's history. One can look at just a single example, global climate change, perhaps not the most illustrative, but certainly rather instructive in the virulent rejection that accompanies its discussion in so many quarters.

I'd concede that the super abundance of data that we get from technologically advanced modes has left a mark on this current of thought, but one that on the whole might make its attractiveness and apparent native sensibility even more accessible. That would be because of the innumerable sources of information available, there are so many that traffic in misinformation, illogic, and falsehoods and these can be very strengthening conduits for people who already reject open-mindedness to be even more convicted in their rectitude.

 

[fireproof78]

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?

No, I don't think it's a coincidence, but at the same time has nothing to do with the lack of technology or prevalence of poverty in these areas. I believe the reason for the non-acceptance of these trends is rooted in long held cultural, religious, and sociological values. For a lot of the countries that you would include in this group, I think that there is more attention given to the practices that are commonplace in the regard of women and gays, in the first world that is passing judgement on their inequality, discrimination, and persecution, than in the countries themselves, where they may very well be considered as absolute givens, largely irrelevant, and certainly immune to the consideration of any substantive change.

Now, if an argument would be made that technology and its byproducts would make some of these areas more prosperous and create a significant middle class where none exists currently, carrying with it somehow a leavening impact on some of these retrograde beliefs, I think it would be very dubious that one would see any real changes just because more people would be living in secure comfortable structures rather than mean hovels. Even with the connection to the wider world that the accoutrements of living in better conditions would likely afford, there is no realistic rationale that core social values that have endured through century upon century would be reflexively discarded. A number of African nations right now have a very high percentage of their citizens who own and utilize cell phones and more, if the existing infrastructure will support it. Pakistan has a very significant middle class, to say nothing, obviously of India, and Saudi Arabia, as well as most of the other affluent Gulf states, where hypocrisy of personal practices abroad is legion but does not conceal a genuine belief in the liberalization of societally restrictive and controlling norms, that are so conspicuous in their absence at home, are all examples where the connection that you are advocating doesn't seem to adhere.

Utopia is a concept that cannot exist in reality.
It implies one has achieved the pinnacle of evolution and that you can do no better.
Life seems to be in a constant state of change, as such, the Federation as it was portrayed in the 24th century for example (no money, far better/civilized behaviour, striving for exploration of the galaxy, expansion and sharing of knowledge, technology, resources, ideas, etc.).

I'm sick of dark 'undertones' all over the place.
The Federation was appealing because it showed technical and social progress.
It needs to do away with many prohibitions and see far more frequent technical progression among other things.
Also... if the Federation is 'challenged' by other species in a conflict, it shouldn't really suddenly go back to previous forms of behaviour.
Given the kind of society it is, they would actually strive to surpass all that and move boldly forward while not losing anything from their ideals and goals.

As for which technology allowed reduction in racism and homophobia (for example) in the last 5 decades... indeed, I think it was a lot to do with the Internet (or living in the information age).

Humans effectively behave in accordance to what they know... the less they know and question, the more subject to manipulation and being used by others they are.

There was an interesting article I read recently that stated that sometimes humans become more skeptical and less cooperative and willing to change when faced with too much information. They start to become skeptical of anything that counters their beliefs and actively fight against new information. Quite interesting facet of human psychology.

As with all things, there is such a thing as moderation.

You could also attribute such behavior to something much more rooted and older than this very recent phenomenon of information overload. It is the well documented verity, both in quantitative studies as well as sociological essays, of the common anti-scientific and intellectual strain of thought that so permeates our society. The diminishment of the value of study and research for its own sake, as well as how it manifests itself in conclusions that run counter to religious doctrine, resistance to cultural change, or just the plain "common sense" of the average citizen has been prevalent for decades, and indeed can be seen throughout various periods of our nation's history. One can look at just a single example, global climate change, perhaps not the most illustrative, but certainly rather instructive in the virulent rejection that accompanies its discussion in so many quarters.

I'd concede that the super abundance of data that we get from technologically advanced modes has left a mark on this current of thought, but one that on the whole might make its attractiveness and apparent native sensibility even more accessible. That would be because of the innumerable sources of information available, there are so many that traffic in misinformation, illogic, and falsehoods and these can be very strengthening conduits for people who already reject open-mindedness to be even more convicted in their rectitude.

I think that it is not as simple as well held beliefs, though that has a role in it. I know, for me, that I often research numerous topics to address my point of view or educate myself before continuing on. All that said, the time and effort that can be required to understand a single topic leaves many skeptical as to the value of such data. I research it because I enjoy it, but that doesn't diminish my friend who would rather spend that time working or a hobby that is more enjoyable.

Access to information has given rise to the concept that if there is a problem it can be overcome through education, therefor knowledge is our weapon. You don't understand this? Here is a pamphlet on it. You don't make enough money? Here's a class about resume writing. So on and so forth.

So, I don't really fault individuals for opting towards holding on to preconceived ideas or beliefs. I get the frustration, but, as you pointed out, the various conduits of information has led to the increase avenues for misinformation, propaganda and the like.

More on topic, the idea that more information leads to a more utopian attitude works only if individuals are willing make the effort to understand their choices. Now, the idea of technology giving individuals more time to research their beliefs and positions may lead to better education.

All that said, I understand both sides, because often times education is wielded as the fix-all for problems with no regard for individual needs but also can provide greater understanding of personal belief.

 

[hux]

You haven't demonstrated the connection. How does a secure source of cleaning drinking water lead to "I don't hate gays anymore"? Conversely, how would reduced access to technology lead to increased racism?

A basic common sense demonstrates the connection. Affluent society = greater propensity for democracy, universal education and rule of law.

Unless you're suggesting that we in the west (where feminism and gay rights have made an impact) are somehow just... you know... better than the people in countries where the impact has not been as strong. Isn't that Picard's argument? "Hello humans of the past, we're better than you. We just are."

No, I don't think it's a coincidence, but at the same time has nothing to do with the lack of technology or prevalence of poverty in these areas. I believe the reason for the non-acceptance of these trends is rooted in long held cultural, religious, and sociological values.

I'm not sure I've ever heard so much gash. And what of the long-held cultural, religious and sociological values of the west? Why did we overcome them while they apparently can't?

Again, we're on very shaky ground here of suggesting that... there is just something better about us in the west. We're just "more evolved."

No, we got lucky. We developed technogies that benefited us and produced a prosperous, affluent society. In turn, our societies changed.

Even with the connection to the wider world that the accoutrements of living in better conditions would likely afford, there is no realistic rationale that core social values that have endured through century upon century would be reflexively discarded.

Except for the fact that this is exactly what happened in the west. Again, why are we special? Why can we do what they can't?

] A Number of African nations right now have a very high percentage of their citizens who own and utilize cell phones and more, if the existing infrastructure will support it.

But do they make mobile phones? Do they see the enormous wealth of that technolgy flooding into their countries? Are they at the vanguard of that technology?

Pakistan has a very significant middle class, to say nothing, obviously of India, and Saudi Arabia, as well as most of the other affluent Gulf states, where hypocrisy of personal practices abroad is legion but does not conceal a genuine belief in the liberalization of societally restrictive and controlling norms, that are so conspicuous in their absence at home, are all examples where the connection that you are advocating doesn't seem to adhere.

Again, they're not at the forefront of the technology though; they sit waiting for the west to send it over. Most of the affluence in those examples is not societal, it is a select minority where the trickle effect doesn't occur. Secondly, I think those oil-rich countries are the ones that are most likely to struggle to maintain that culture. Their wealth, combined with the Internet is forcing those countries to embrace new ideas.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

You're inventing a lot of contradictions and false imperatives here. Just because there are problems and evil people now doesn't mean it's a contradiction to suggest that in the future they may not.

The contradiction is in wanting to see an idealized world portrayed while demanding that the stories comment on real-world problems.

You know, the problems that don't exist for the characters in the idealized fictional world.

That was pretty clear the first time.

In any event, I've no interest in seeing a return of modern Trek/24th century "evolved humanity." Give me the contemporary people living in the future that TOS portrayed - stories that recognized the existence of every kind of contemporary human failing, pettiness and evil and in fact depended upon those things in order to tell stories.

Fortunately, I doubt that Kurtzman wants to dig up the '80's/'90's approach to the Franchise.

Which is why I'm psyched for this series, even if I have to buy the Blu-Ray boxed set because I can't get the streaming service here in Canada. And it's set in the universe of the new movies, so I'm twice happy.

 

[Makarov]

Trek's society starts to change for the better from a mindset change while they're still rebuilding after wars, not from sudden access to replicators. It happens while they're not too comfortable. A pretty far cry from being just lucky benefactors of advancements in technology. So yeah Picard's society is better than the previous one that led them to blow each other up.

 

[T'Girl]

Trek's society starts to change for the better from a mindset change while they're still rebuilding after wars, not from sudden access to replicators.

Kirk's era was separate from the thrid world war (if this is to what you're referring) by two centuries, the people of the 23rd century are us, the change "after the wars" still hadn't happened. The utopian mindset that we observe in Picard's era wasn't present.

In Kirk's era there were no gays in evidense, few women rose above the rank of Lt.

In someways they're behind us today.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And it's set in the universe of the new movies, so I'm twice happy.

Actually we have no idea which universe the new series is set in. Could be prime, could be Abrams, could be a completely new timeline.

 

[hux]

Trek's society starts to change for the better from a mindset change while they're still rebuilding after wars, not from sudden access to replicators. It happens while they're not too comfortable. A pretty far cry from being just lucky benefactors of advancements in technology. So yeah Picard's society is better than the previous one that led them to blow each other up.

I understand that this is what we're meant to believe but the issue continues to be, how? Global conflict is not new. If the mass murder of six million Jews didn't eradicate racism (and it didn't) then why should we assume that another global conflict would have such an impact? Why would it radically change the basic nature of how human beings work? (their prejudices, their resentments, their greed, their anger, their jealously etc etc). I'm still not hearing any argument that explains why all that just leaves humanity.

Additionally, don't the people in Picard's era still go to war? The contrived difference is that we don't go to war with each other anymore (we're too evolved for that and go to war with Johnny Alien instead).

 

[Shaka Zulu]

And it's set in the universe of the new movies, so I'm twice happy.

Actually we have no idea which universe the new series is set in. Could be prime, could be Abrams, could be a completely new timeline.

My bet is, it's the same universe as the new movies; Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman aren't going to go back the the original continuity after a great deal of time and hard work constructing a new one. Most possibly, they're going to use the sets, uniforms, devices, spacecraft designs, etc., of the movies as the basis for the new series, and also refer to the characters and events of the movies as well. It's been high enough time for the fans to deal with and accept that the original continuity isn't (and shouldn't) be coming back.

 

[Makarov]

Part of the reason is probably the discovery they weren't alone in the universe. But I don't know, this is a fantasy where humanity came together for an optimistic future, it's not realistic. But looking for the cracks in the writing order to view Trek's future as not much different than ours is reading too much into it imo.

Trek's society worked together to develop technology instead of just going to war over it. When the federation is focused on attaining resources or becomes too war heavy they are cast as bad guys or traitors (Insurrection, Into Darkness). So that stuff is even in JJ's movies.

 

[eyeresist]

You haven't demonstrated the connection. How does a secure source of cleaning drinking water lead to "I don't hate gays anymore"? Conversely, how would reduced access to technology lead to increased racism?

A basic common sense demonstrates the connection. Affluent society = greater propensity for democracy, universal education and rule of law.

Correlation is not causation. If one thing has caused the other, how has it done so? Saying "it's obvious" is not an argument.

 

[hux]

Correlation is not causation. If one thing has caused the other, how has it done so? Saying "it's obvious" is not an argument.

To someone with common sense, it is.

If the affluence of the western world and the cultural and social consequences of that affluence are not apparent to you, then I really can't help you. Try the library.

If you do not recognise affluence as a major cause of the changes in western cultural attitudes and social norms then you haven't been paying attention to planet Earth.

 

[eyeresist]

Correlation is not causation. If one thing has caused the other, how has it done so? Saying "it's obvious" is not an argument.

To someone with common sense, it is.

Ooh, point to Hux.