Too many dystopias - the world needs utopian Star Trek
- Thread starter INACTIVEUSS Einstein
- Start date
- Status
There's exceptions to the rule but there's more examples to the contrary. Lily was arguing against Picard continuing a pointless fight against the borg due to revenge and Sisko recognizes that earth is a paradise... in any case humanity had "evolved" past wars on it's home planet. Big step forward compared to past humans.
No, as stated the technology didn't come into being all by itself, the people who create and brought the tech into existence were the responsible parties, they are the one's to be celebrated.
But they themselves would not be superior to those living outside that society.
Sure he does, he's Picard.
Kirk did a fair amount of exploring, but was also sent into war situations as well, and there was frequent combat.. Picard did surprisingly little exploring. Sisko almost no exploring, but plenty of war.
Janeway's mission was to track down a Maquis raider, she had no mandate to explore.
So the enormous number of Starfleet officers who fought the dominion war were villains. Because they were definitely making war.
You think that if "past Humans" could have fought wars off of their home planet (as Starfleet so often does) that they wouldn't?
.
It's not uncommon to encounter the attitude expressed in our culture, especially over the last century plus, whether it be in sociological studies, novels, or popular non-fiction, that the previous generation(s) were the good old days, the halcyon golden era. My sense is that these sentiments were expressed as a longing for pleasurable traditions that have drifted away, an appreciation of a slower paced life, and the satisfaction of doing some things by the work of one's own hands, amongst a number of examples. But I don't think that the arguments were predicated on the notion that the innate qualities, sensibilities, morals, and ethics of the people that lived during those bygone eras made them superior to contemporary individuals.
I wonder though, that now there are a significant number of folks, and not just aging Luddites, that may find that interpretation not only plausible, but likely. Their point being that the advancement of some forms of technology has had a baneful impact on the nature of civility, understanding, respect, and tolerance in what we expect to be able to gain for ourselves and a corresponding lack of concern for others.
This darker vision can be pointed to by the greater distance our advanced communications allows between people and the isolation that is encouraged even when they are physically together, a factor that can lead to the diminution of the ability to appreciate and exercise even the commonest of sociable behaviors and connectedness. Although its effects have been widely debated, the thought that ever more realistic, violent scenarios on gaming platforms as well as other entertainment forums have led to a anesthetizing effect on the latitude that many, and not just the young, accept as unexceptional scenarios of inter-personal ugliness and brutality, and even terminal behavior. The ubiquitousness of the panoply of uninformed, inherently biased/prejudicial opinions, as well as plain venom that is prevalent on the Internet has played a huge role in devolving civil discourse into rabble, the need to listen to diverse points of view into unquestioning acceptance of highly ideological standpoints, and the continuing bifurcation of the public into rigid camps of thought that brook no thoughtful reflection. To say nothing of the celebrity obsessed and sensationally motivated nature of much mass media that turns many many individuals away from the consideration of meaningful topics that have much more relevance to the actual disposition of people's lives.
All of this despite the seemingly contrapuntal tidal wave of change as regards lives that heretofore were always in the shadows and the forces that have been so rapidly engendered as a consequence, such as gay marriage, the move to women's full involvement in the military, and non-controversial absorption of alternate lifestyle and familial arrangements that were rarely seen in the not too distant past. But these exceptions are hardly universally taken as the new truth of a united society, but are prey to the same type of depredation that is doled out on unquestionably partisan issues. One can also say with some confidence that the regard for the racial Other, has regressed with the ease of falling back on stereotypes that have resisted enduring dissolution.
It is interesting to consider that a significant cohort of the population finds that those golden days of yore may have been able to marshal less information and seemingly progressive change in a number of realms, but in many ways was a less confused and divisive one that contained much lower of a retrograde quality to its development and in fact represented a superior version of the exceptionalism possible in so many phases of human endeavor and behavior.
I wonder though, that now there are a significant number of folks, and not just aging Luddites, that may find that interpretation not only plausible, but likely. Their point being that the advancement of some forms of technology has had a baneful impact on the nature of civility, understanding, respect, and tolerance in what we expect to be able to gain for ourselves and a corresponding lack of concern for others.
This darker vision can be pointed to by the greater distance our advanced communications allows between people and the isolation that is encouraged even when they are physically together, a factor that can lead to the diminution of the ability to appreciate and exercise even the commonest of sociable behaviors and connectedness. Although its effects have been widely debated, the thought that ever more realistic, violent scenarios on gaming platforms as well as other entertainment forums have led to a anesthetizing effect on the latitude that many, and not just the young, accept as unexceptional scenarios of inter-personal ugliness and brutality, and even terminal behavior. The ubiquitousness of the panoply of uninformed, inherently biased/prejudicial opinions, as well as plain venom that is prevalent on the Internet has played a huge role in devolving civil discourse into rabble, the need to listen to diverse points of view into unquestioning acceptance of highly ideological standpoints, and the continuing bifurcation of the public into rigid camps of thought that brook no thoughtful reflection. To say nothing of the celebrity obsessed and sensationally motivated nature of much mass media that turns many many individuals away from the consideration of meaningful topics that have much more relevance to the actual disposition of people's lives.
All of this despite the seemingly contrapuntal tidal wave of change as regards lives that heretofore were always in the shadows and the forces that have been so rapidly engendered as a consequence, such as gay marriage, the move to women's full involvement in the military, and non-controversial absorption of alternate lifestyle and familial arrangements that were rarely seen in the not too distant past. But these exceptions are hardly universally taken as the new truth of a united society, but are prey to the same type of depredation that is doled out on unquestionably partisan issues. One can also say with some confidence that the regard for the racial Other, has regressed with the ease of falling back on stereotypes that have resisted enduring dissolution.
It is interesting to consider that a significant cohort of the population finds that those golden days of yore may have been able to marshal less information and seemingly progressive change in a number of realms, but in many ways was a less confused and divisive one that contained much lower of a retrograde quality to its development and in fact represented a superior version of the exceptionalism possible in so many phases of human endeavor and behavior.
I think there has been enough variety to say there is still a mixture of opinions. Kirk identifies himself as a "soldier" and Sisko is certainly not one to balk from combat.
Picard may have been more diplomatic at times, but he was also combat oriented when the need arose. I don't think Picard stopped fighting against the Borg because they shouldn't be fought against, but that he realized his motivation had driven him to take extreme measures. I don't think that is a flat judgment against war itself, given Starfleet's common adversarial relationships with several interstellar powers.
Also, the fact that war has ended on Earth seems rather interesting, given the fact that technology has provided that change, as well as a focus upon maintaining an interstellar political machine. What impact does the goal of going out in to the stars have upon cooperation among humans?
Riight now they aren't even explorers? We're way off the message of Trek at this point.
There's combat on the show but that doesn't mean humanity is meant to be as violent as today. Of course it all depends on the episode and writers but that definitely doesn't seem to be the intention in general. Into Darkness - the guy pushing for better weapons and war was the villain, Insurrection - the greedy federation trying to get the resource was given a moral beat down by Picard until he flip flopped.
I'm cool with other interpretations but to focus on the combat and say humanity hadn't evolved, the federation is just the same war mongering greedy people we are today is more of a fan theory. It's like saying the empire were the good guys in Star Wars - to each his own though, just my opinion and I'll leave it at that.
Last edited:
There is a unsupportable theory among some fans that somehow Starfleet isn't Earth's and the Federation's military.
Yes they explore, when they're not defending and protecting. And not on diplomatic missions. And not obtaining natural resources. And not patrolling the borders. And not setting up colonies. And not doing rescue missions.
Sure they explore then, it's just not at the top of the list.
Too bad none of them bothered hitting him right in the core of his argument by pointing out how vicious Ancient Vulcans were and how Humans were never THAT barbaric.
Honestly, after all the "You stupid barbarians!" stuff they got during TOS from practically ever alien they ran into I don't blame the TNG Humans for turning the tables a bit.
As for the crew's attitude towards the 20th Century people in "The Neutral Zone", keep in mind they were also investigating a potential Romulan Invasion so they were a bit on edge there.
I don't know. The crews general attitude towards the 20th century seems rather dismissive in that episode. Being on edge doesn't really seem to explain their overall demeanor.
What is also funny to me is despite TNG humans insisting they are more evolved they are still fascinated by different eras in human history. This is not a criticism, since contemporary humans certainly enjoy recreating historical events (reenactments, SCA, and apparently a WW2 one a coworker just found) but an interesting observation.
Well the writers specifically point out in Into Darkness that Scotty "thought we were explorers" in contrast to the evil military operation they're sent on. Voyager's mission wasn't to explore yet they do it for the entire seven seasons. And military or not doesn't mean their society hasn't improved.
The same guy who once said and quote "The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank"?
That Scotty?
aka going after a dangerous fugitive.
Which was stupid since they were lost in space with limited supplies.
You have it backwards. Their primary mission is to explore, and they have defensive capabilities as a secondary thing. They will defend the Federation when forced to, but only as a last resort. Their primary mission is to explore space.
"Starfleet is not a military organization, its purpose is exploration."
- Jean-Luc Picard, Peak Performance
Exploring is definitely the top of their list. Combat is at the absolute very bottom.
They had to do something for 7 seasons.
Whose primary mission? Every single ship that Starfleet builds?
These would be the same ships that are built with shields, phasers and photon torpedoes and staffed by military trained officers? Yes? The same ships that turn up in suspiciously large numbers whenever Earth is under threat (far more than is out exploring space).
I see nothing that suggests exploration is Starfleet's primary objective. It's certainly part of their remit but their primary objective? Nah.
If the navy of a major world power turned up on my shore with their massive gun-heavy warships and told me their primary goal was exploration... I'd probably nod politely (you know, cos they've got massive guns pointed in my face).
Yes, the primary mission is science/exploration. I believe that the first starship built that was not primarily designed for science was the USS Defiant in Deep Space Nine, because of the Borg.
The starships have weapons and shields because space is dangerous. Aside from defense, we have seen many times where shields are used to protect from radiation or other space hazards, and phasers are often used to destroy asteroids, etc. Starfleet is not naïve enough to send its heavily-populated starships out exploring unknown regions of space without the capability to defend themselves.
You see nothing? Have you ever even watched Star Trek? "It's continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before". Which part of that mentions that their mission is military in nature?
The starships have weapons and shields because space is dangerous. Aside from defense, we have seen many times where shields are used to protect from radiation or other space hazards, and phasers are often used to destroy asteroids, etc. Starfleet is not naïve enough to send its heavily-populated starships out exploring unknown regions of space without the capability to defend themselves.
You see nothing? Have you ever even watched Star Trek? "It's continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before". Which part of that mentions that their mission is military in nature?
- Status
