Too many dystopias - the world needs utopian Star Trek

[Makarov]

Yeah it's from reading the books. But that is apparent in the first episode of the show as well, the tension between planets and belters has already been introduced.

So being more scientifically plausible is being more pessimistic?

Depends on point of view but in this case I'd say so, because they can't just warp around between places, there's limitations and it's a pretty unpleasant ride compared to Trek's warping around.

Then later he tried to explain that their society moved past the greedy mindsets which led to another world war

How do you figure? Star Trek has never established the cause of the third world war, all we know is the ultimate fatality numbers and the approximate year it ended.

What could lead you to believe that "greedy mindsets" was even a minor factor?

You're right it may have nothing to do with it, I'm assuming fighting over resources was part of it but there's nothing to support that. That's my assumption on what might realistically lead to WW3 but you're right.

Still if the accumulation of money was truly not the driving force of people anymore, it's natural for Picard to point out how they've moved past it. We'd do the same if some ancient person showed up and acted weird.

 

[Overgeeked]

I would love to see Trek return to something of a utopia as the background setting for the Federation, but, as others have said, you need conflict to create drama. But when people say you need dystopias for drama what they're really talking about is melodrama. You can still have drama in a utopia, you just need two people or two groups with opposing or conflicting goals. Conflict is rife when one culture is a democratic socialistic utopia and other cultures are exploitative, capitalistic, opportunistic, expansionistic, and militaristic.

The Federation can be a utopia, but that doesn't mean everyone in the Federation agrees about everything all the time in every situation.

But then, strictly speaking, you can't have a true utopia when there are other cultures out there to be in conflict with. See the Maquis as a great example. Any government that would trade away planets to keep the peace with an aggressive and opportunistic enemy isn't a utopia.

I remember a quote from Alan Moore on the topic of utopias. He said basically that "utopia, if it means anything, is a verb." From Prisoners of Gravity.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Any government that would trade away planets to keep the peace with an aggressive and opportunistic enemy isn't a utopia.

Perhaps not, but it is realistic.

You wouldn't have preferred flat-out war with Cardassia, would you? What else was the Federation supposed to do?

 

[fireproof78]

I would love to see Trek return to something of a utopia as the background setting for the Federation, but, as others have said, you need conflict to create drama. But when people say you need dystopias for drama what they're really talking about is melodrama. You can still have drama in a utopia, you just need two people or two groups with opposing or conflicting goals. Conflict is rife when one culture is a democratic socialistic utopia and other cultures are exploitative, capitalistic, opportunistic, expansionistic, and militaristic.

The Federation can be a utopia, but that doesn't mean everyone in the Federation agrees about everything all the time in every situation.

But then, strictly speaking, you can't have a true utopia when there are other cultures out there to be in conflict with. See the Maquis as a great example. Any government that would trade away planets to keep the peace with an aggressive and opportunistic enemy isn't a utopia.

I remember a quote from Alan Moore on the topic of utopias. He said basically that "utopia, if it means anything, is a verb." From Prisoners of Gravity.

This was a point Spock made in "Way to Eden" that not every part of the population agrees with the structure of Federation society.

That's just as interesting as the society itself if not more so.

 

[Trekkin]

]And sure, the main cast of Trek was only three people, but no one argued that all the TNG players should be in conflict with each other at the same time.

If you want the same amount of conflict in TNG that there was in TOS, then you need the whole main cast to be conflicting with each other just as much. As there was more than double the amount of central characters in TNG that there were in TOS, then all of them have to be in conflict.

A moot point, because no one ever asked that. They just wanted more conflict.

As for the rest, according to whom? Even if you wanted to entire cast involved (which you don't need. A 5 minute scene of one person arguing with Picard is exactly the same raw amount of conflict as a 5 minute scene of Spock telling Kirk his plan is stupid.), all you'd have to do is have the issue divide the group into sides. And say for arguement sake that you're right about TOS only having 2 main characters who conflict, in what universe does 2/3 = 7/7?

As for the rest - just no. Not in the least because you're wrong about the tone (no quotes today, I haven't got time), because said tone doesn't actually matter to addressing what I was claiming, and because I never said the recurring day-players argued with Kirk a lot - just more than TNG's main cast did in their corresponding first three seasons.

 

[IndyMac]

Yeah, I keep seeing TV critics (admittedly not the most intelligent group) calling The Expanse a dystopia, but I can't see how it is. It's not any darker or more dystopian than DS9 was during the Dominion War. The only difference is Star Trek sticks pointy ears, forehead ridges, neck bones, and robotic appendages on the competing factions so that "humans" are no longer the ones fighting each other.

There's more than that which makes it a darker story, but even that itself is a huge difference that can't be glossed over imo.

Humans are no longer fighting each other (and friendly with a lot of other worlds) vs. humans brought all their shit into space and on the verge of wiping itself out. A lot of The Expanse is more pessimistic about humanity's future compared to Trek, even down to how space travel would be.

With Trek you have to pick and choose which series to believe in order to argue that humanity still sucks, but there's no doubt about it in the Expanse.

I don't think The Expanse is pessimistic about humanity's future, and I don't think it argues that humanity sucks. Both Star Trek and The Expanse have humans using airlocks as torture chambers. Both have humans that manipulate nations into wars. Both have humans that instigate coups using a terrorist attack.

 

[Anwar]

A moot point, because no one ever asked that. They just wanted more conflict.

The complaint is that TNG should have had as much conflict as TOS did. Since TOS had the entire main cast in conflict, then that means to match that TNG's entire main cast had to also be in conflict.

As for the rest, according to whom? Even if you wanted to entire cast involved (which you don't need. A 5 minute scene of one person arguing with Picard is exactly the same raw amount of conflict as a 5 minute scene of Spock telling Kirk his plan is stupid.), all you'd have to do is have the issue divide the group into sides.

Since the show was an ensemble, that means they had to find a way to include every member of the main cast into every single story in equally important roles. If said cast was to be in conflict each and every episode the way Kirk/Spock/McCoy always were (with all 3 against each other most of the time) then to replicate that conflict every member of the ensemble had to similarly all be opposed to every other member of the ensemble. Otherwise it's not the same as TOS' conflict.

And say for arguement sake that you're right about TOS only having 2 main characters who conflict, in what universe does 2/3 = 7/7?

No, TOS had all main characters in conflict. Just that most of the time it was just Kirk and Spock as the only Mains featured and sometimes McCoy was around.

 

[Drone]

Star Trek makes it quite clear that undesirable jobs have basically bean eliminated by labour saving devices (another potentially radical statement). I'm sure the Federation inspector who has to tour Chicago's robot-cleaned nano-composit-lined sewer's in a fully protected environmental suit docent mind doing this once a year to keep his city running - after all, most of the advances in labour came from giving worker's extra safety and comfort.

This is what I mean about paying attention. We've seen waiters, we've seen manual labourers, we've seen cargo couriers, we've seen resort staff, we've seen miners, we've seen Baryon sweep staff, we've seen countless examples of people doing work that no one would realistically describe in any way as... bettering.

There are quite a lot of people who would disagree with you there, but we are clearly on a different page, so I don't think pointing it out will really help resolve anything - needless to say, not everyone finds those jobs completely unfulfilled - its a matter of values. I mean, I can clearly see a reason why running a baryon sweep on a Starship might be fulfilling, but not everyone shares my values. Also, for all we know, there are extra benefits to employment, above and beyond the Finland-style 'basic income' or guarantee of a good life provided to all citizens.

I offered once in a post that the possible reasons that people might find being waiters, or the example offered above, resort staff, in short, service personnel of some sort, might be that they find their current life, while comfortable and assured, to be isolative. Individuals that find the level of personal interaction they have is limited because the ubiquity of communications that makes no demand on physically seeing anyone else, or but rarely, and enables their own disinclination to engage in interpersonal relationships. For such folks, the idea of being in direct contact with others, while rendering a service, might be a way of bringing themselves to embrace that personal touch, The fact that the labor that makes this possible lacks prestige, might very well seem irrelevant compared with the benefit.

As for physically demanding/dirty occupations, similarly there may be a cohort of the population of wherever, that feels that their life lacks any taxing or bodily challenging aspects, and as long as such occupations as mentioned above have augmented safeguards to allay the concern of injury or danger, being a miner, cargo courier, or simple labourer, might provide an invigorating respite from an existence that has eliminated the necessity to be active, because very little has to be actually produced by the average individual, the lure of viewing what the galaxy has to offer can be easily viewed from one's home, and the state of contemporary medicine likely can greatly mitigate the dangerous health implications of living a very sedentary lifestyle.

 

[Trekkin]

A moot point, because no one ever asked that. They just wanted more conflict.

The complaint is that TNG should have had as much conflict as TOS did. Since TOS had the entire main cast in conflict, then that means to match that TNG's entire main cast had to also be in conflict.

As for the rest, according to whom? Even if you wanted to entire cast involved (which you don't need. A 5 minute scene of one person arguing with Picard is exactly the same raw amount of conflict as a 5 minute scene of Spock telling Kirk his plan is stupid.), all you'd have to do is have the issue divide the group into sides.

Since the show was an ensemble, that means they had to find a way to include every member of the main cast into every single story in equally important roles. If said cast was to be in conflict each and every episode the way Kirk/Spock/McCoy always were (with all 3 against each other most of the time) then to replicate that conflict every member of the ensemble had to similarly all be opposed to every other member of the ensemble. Otherwise it's not the same as TOS' conflict.

And say for arguement sake that you're right about TOS only having 2 main characters who conflict, in what universe does 2/3 = 7/7?

No, TOS had all main characters in conflict. Just that most of the time it was just Kirk and Spock as the only Mains featured and sometimes McCoy was around.

Anwar, I made the complaint (or quoted the complaint from a doco.) The suggestion was 'make it more like TOS.' Not 'make TOS.'

And sure, TNG had to give its ensemble a decent amount of screen time each Ep. I'm sure that would be news to half the cast, but let's go with that.

McCoy was a lead for 2/3 seasons. Kelley's name is right there in the opening credits under 'starring.'

 

[Anwar]

Anwar, I made the compliant (or quoted the complaint from a doco.) The suggestion was 'make it more like TOS.' Not 'make TOS.'

And having every member of the main cast be in conflict with one another in every episode with none of them ever developing past said conflicts is making it more like TOS.

McCoy was a lead for 2/3 seasons. Kelley's name is right there in the opening credits under 'starring.'

And despite that, a lot of the time the stories were still mainly about Kirk and Spock.

 

[Overgeeked]

Perhaps not, but it is realistic.

You wouldn't have preferred flat-out war with Cardassia, would you? What else was the Federation supposed to do?

No, but that realism is partially my point. That bargain was realistic whereas a utopia is not. Which is exactly the problem with conflict in a utopian setting. Star Trek may be closing in on a utopia for humans within the Federation, but if the entire universe becomes a utopia there's literally no conflict left.

I'd much rather have the struggle toward utopia depicted than either a state of achieved utopia (some early TNG) or apparent chaos (2009).

This was a point Spock made in "Way to Eden" that not every part of the population agrees with the structure of Federation society.

That's just as interesting as the society itself if not more so.

I think exploring not only the Federation society itself but the culture and how both interact with other societies and cultures is far more interesting than an hour-and-a-half of explosions and screaming Vulcans.

 

[fireproof78]

^^

It is possible to have both, you know

Also, societal explorations are interesting, but character explorations are much more my enjoyment.

As a larger comment, this might be why I don't always get onboard with either utopias or dystopias. The extreme sides of either one often emphasize the setting or the extremes of human behavior rather than their interactions.

Star Trek, for me, is neither utopian or dystopian. I'm sure it is many things for others, but for me, it is about characters and their response to the society at large. If Earth is "paradise" then there will be implications of that fact, both sociological and psychological that can be explored. So, explore them. I don't think it is necessary to insist that it is a "utopia" or if it doesn't present "utopia" it somehow isn't "Star Trek" for it to explore those implications.

Personally, I don't buy in to Federation being more "evolved" without having a proper definition of what that means. And, from this discussion, it means different things to different people, so it may be less clear than it sounds on the surface. Picard may give a great speech, but that doesn't make it immediately identifiable to me.

I think that is why many individuals gravitate more towards dystopia than utopia. Dystopia is more identifiable, or may have been personally experienced, while utopia is more nebulous or attainable.

I think that Star Trek has a better view with optimism about humanity's future, that humanity is reaching towards becoming better, rather than is better and looks down upon past societies.

 

[Trekkin]

Anwar, I made the compliant (or quoted the complaint from a doco.) The suggestion was 'make it more like TOS.' Not 'make TOS.'

And having every member of the main cast be in conflict with one another in every episode with none of them ever developing past said conflicts is making it more like TOS.

McCoy was a lead for 2/3 seasons. Kelley's name is right there in the opening credits under 'starring.'

And despite that, a lot of the time the stories were still mainly about Kirk and Spock.

Characters don't develop without conflict, Anwar. If only the villains ever have a problem with them, then obviously they're perfect in every way and don't need to. Also, we've already covered that the TOS characters did develop. I even provided quotes showing how McCoy and Spock did through the years. Especially 'Half a century in the franchise bitches!' Spock.

Conflict does not have to be characters trying to tear out each other's throats with their teeth. It can be as simple a thing as Scotty rolling his eyes at Chekov's 'made in Leningrad', to bigger stuff like Worf refusing to give a blood transfusion and the various disapproving/supportive ways other characters react to it. No fighting (mostly), just different but equal POV's being put forward. TNG was capable of it, because we did occasionally see them pull it off with aplomb. The criticism was just that they (and some of the other Berman era series) didn't do it enough in their early years. Allow me to reiterate - this is what the writers and actors of TNG itself were saying about their own work.

In three seasons (and as a lead for only two) McCoy had as many focus episodes as Crusher and Troi, including being the second lead in one of the films. Make of that what you will.

I think we're derailing the thread, so I'm gonna leave it there (that's advice about what I'm going to do, not an attempted instruction to you). I have a feeling we're boring everyone else.

 

[T'Girl]

we've seen resort staff

We've seen resort staff who job is to have sex with anyone who buys a certain statue, this is how you "better" yourself?

 

[Kor]

^ I thought that was more of a cultural thing, rather than just "their job."

Kor

 

[Overgeeked]

People join Starfleet because they want to. People work on a resort planet because they want to.

Chances are their grasp of healthy sexuality is equally advanced of our own.

 

[T'Girl]

People work on a resort planet because they want to

Or people work on a resort planet because that's how they make their living.

Chances are their grasp of healthy sexuality is equally advanced of our own

Sound more like what they have is protitution.

You pay for the token (the statue purchased by Picard) and display it, soon a young woman comes by to provide the sex you paid for.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Then again, the Risan concept of sex is probably unique. Otherwise, why would people go to Risa to partake of it, as opposed to just using a holodeck?

 

[Overgeeked]

People work on a resort planet because they want to

Or people work on a resort planet because that's how they make their living.

Chances are their grasp of healthy sexuality is equally advanced of our own

Sound more like what they have is prostitution.

You pay for the token (the statue purchased by Picard) and display it, soon a young woman comes by to provide the sex you paid for.

And? So what? What's wrong with prostitution when both parties consent? As long as the pro isn't forced into that life by addiction or desperation (two things all but eliminated in the Federation) then I don't see a problem with it. And again, as I said above, their views on healthy sexuality are probably just as advanced from our time as their technology is advanced.

As the great man once said: Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?

 

[T'Girl]

why would people go to Risa to partake of it, as opposed to just using a holodeck?

Because Risa is real, and a holodeck/suite is fake. When you enter a holodeck, you know you're on a holodeck.

What's wrong with prostitution when both parties consent?

It not about concent, it about sexually servicing anyone (anyone at all) who buys a certain statue.

And you thought your job sucked (no pun intented).