Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence?
- Thread starter Cepstrum
- Start date
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
Capitalism is an economic tool, and like many tools it can be dangerous if handled poorly. Just like a chainsaw is a magnificent tool for cutting down trees, it is also dangerous and requires safety features to stop people accidentally cutting their own arm off.
Okay, I'll give you Belarus, that country is still pretty much a dictatorship.
And some will lose everything they own. Sometimes its their own fault, some people gamble all their money away, other times it is less fair, such as medical bills for a genetic illness. Capitalism has just as many drawbacks as it does advantages, but capitalism's main advantage is a big one: competition breeds innovation. Free markets tend to drive scientific and technological research better than singular state control, and the better technology you have the more likely you are to win in conflict.
Capitalism is an economic tool, and like many tools it can be dangerous if handled poorly. Just like a chainsaw is a magnificent tool for cutting down trees, it is also dangerous and requires safety features to stop people accidentally cutting their own arm off.
In what universe are you living where Canada and Europe are oppressive?
Okay, I'll give you Belarus, that country is still pretty much a dictatorship.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
The same way McMurdo, Antarctic is a town of 1,200 people politically outside of America, but still is an American town.
Really? In WWII games I'm always on the side of the Allies.
The Sappora system has the same name as the fifth-largest city in Japan, New Sydney has a similar name to the largest city in Australia. There are a lot of Humans and Trills living there. It might not be a Federation member, but I believe I was correct in referring to it as a Federation planet. Referring to the culture of the people, not political allegiances.
The same way McMurdo, Antarctic is a town of 1,200 people politically outside of America, but still is an American town.
Captain Kirk was seen frequently signing fuel reports, I believe one of the reasons Captain Picard would hesitate to operate the Enterprise D above a certain warp factor had to do with antimatter fuel consumption. They might not mass produce antimatter to the degree you think they do. And there no sign that they use antimatter to produce power on planets or that their planets have "unlimited energy resources." If you want to say they should have unlimited energy, that's one thing, but there's no clear indication they do.
One of the biggest advantages of capitalism is that it's been shown to work over a protracted period of time under a variety of economic circumstances and as part of large economic systems. Long before the word was coined, maybe 2,500 years, capitalism has been in existence. Systems like socialism, regardless if you love it, hasn't been around for a couple millenniums and hasn't been tested (and fine tuned) to the extent that capitalism has.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
Anyway, my quote was directed at jojolimited who is under the bizarre impression that Canada and Europe are oppressive socialist regions, so I was assuming that his interpretation of capitalism is a far-right version, and that most certainly has not existed for thousands of years, it's a relatively modern invention.
My education is admittedly western-centric, but capitalism has not existed in Europe for thousands of years, the feudal systems that ruled over most of Europe during the Middle Ages were not capitalistic. And if you think capitalism has been fine tuned then I'd like to invite you to Ireland because our engine has been on the brink of cutting out for 2 years and there's no sign of it sorting itself in the near-future. We've only managed to keep it going by injecting billions of euros of taxpayer's money into the banking system. The only way to save capitalism in this country was to inject a little socialism.One of the biggest advantages of capitalism is that it's been shown to work over a protracted period of time under a variety of economic circumstances and as part of large economic systems. Long before the word was coined, maybe 2,500 years, capitalism has been in existence. Systems like socialism, regardless if you love it, hasn't been around for a couple millenniums and hasn't been tested (and fine tuned) to the extent that capitalism has.
Anyway, my quote was directed at jojolimited who is under the bizarre impression that Canada and Europe are oppressive socialist regions, so I was assuming that his interpretation of capitalism is a far-right version, and that most certainly has not existed for thousands of years, it's a relatively modern invention.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
I was referring to Assyria merchant capitalism, not specifically anything European.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
To quote Picard, "Sophistry!"
Jake used similar language because the same writer was making a joke. Boo to him for not being more creative, but to say it implies a totally antithetical system is wrong.
To quote Picard, "Sophistry!"
Jake used similar language because the same writer was making a joke. Boo to him for not being more creative, but to say it implies a totally antithetical system is wrong.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
FWIW,
I was reading through some of the Ronald D. Moore AOL comments. Someone asked him about the money thing. Ron said he and the other writers thought it made no sense, but they had to abide by it because of Roddenberry's wishes. They just tried to be vague about it.
FWIW,
I was reading through some of the Ronald D. Moore AOL comments. Someone asked him about the money thing. Ron said he and the other writers thought it made no sense, but they had to abide by it because of Roddenberry's wishes. They just tried to be vague about it.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
In Canada and many places in Europe, there is no real freedom of speech. In Canada, you can go to jail if you say something offensive about Gays or other specially protected groups in public. That is oppressive, at least to most Americans. I"m sure Canadians are alright about it, but it's their country and they are entitled to feel what ever they want.
High taxes, certain professions are taxed more heavily than others...Triage when it comes to health care.
I prefer the imperfections of the USA over the nanny societies of Canada and Europe.
I know we need to revamp our health care system, but it has to be an American answer, not a system that seems to work somewhere else.
No hate on Canadians, or anyone else. Just don't like their Goverments. Just like they don't like mine. hehehe.
My education is admittedly western-centric, but capitalism has not existed in Europe for thousands of years, the feudal systems that ruled over most of Europe during the Middle Ages were not capitalistic. And if you think capitalism has been fine tuned then I'd like to invite you to Ireland because our engine has been on the brink of cutting out for 2 years and there's no sign of it sorting itself in the near-future. We've only managed to keep it going by injecting billions of euros of taxpayer's money into the banking system. The only way to save capitalism in this country was to inject a little socialism.One of the biggest advantages of capitalism is that it's been shown to work over a protracted period of time under a variety of economic circumstances and as part of large economic systems. Long before the word was coined, maybe 2,500 years, capitalism has been in existence. Systems like socialism, regardless if you love it, hasn't been around for a couple millenniums and hasn't been tested (and fine tuned) to the extent that capitalism has.
Anyway, my quote was directed at jojolimited who is under the bizarre impression that Canada and Europe are oppressive socialist regions, so I was assuming that his interpretation of capitalism is a far-right version, and that most certainly has not existed for thousands of years, it's a relatively modern invention.
In Canada and many places in Europe, there is no real freedom of speech. In Canada, you can go to jail if you say something offensive about Gays or other specially protected groups in public. That is oppressive, at least to most Americans. I"m sure Canadians are alright about it, but it's their country and they are entitled to feel what ever they want.
High taxes, certain professions are taxed more heavily than others...Triage when it comes to health care.
I prefer the imperfections of the USA over the nanny societies of Canada and Europe.
I know we need to revamp our health care system, but it has to be an American answer, not a system that seems to work somewhere else.
No hate on Canadians, or anyone else. Just don't like their Goverments. Just like they don't like mine. hehehe.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
we are talking about humans evolving. Which invariably leads to discussions about ethnic and cultural differences on how that will happen. No body is calling anybody else names here. Just healthy debate.
we are talking about humans evolving. Which invariably leads to discussions about ethnic and cultural differences on how that will happen. No body is calling anybody else names here. Just healthy debate.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
Nah, that's quite normal here.
Nah, that's quite normal here.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
I can't speak for Canada, I don't know what the laws are there, but here's Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
The United States constitution, while technically worded freer, has many of the same restrictions; the First Amendment apparently does not cover obscenity, imminent lawless actions, and fighting words.
Hate speech has a different definition in different countries in Europe, but in my country it is this: behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" to various groups. Essentially, I can express an opinion about homosexuality being immoral, or I can say that I don't want any black people in the country, and I can say those things to a homosexual, a black person, or a homosexual black person, and it would all be legal. However, if I harassed that person and intentionally insulted them, then I'd be breaking the law. And in some US states, so would you, because dems be fighin' words.
Damn that oppressive United States!
Damn that oppressive United States!
Anyway, the existence of a state healthcare option does not prevent the existence of the private option. If it did then I'd still have my ingrown toenail.
No real freedom of speech?
I can't speak for Canada, I don't know what the laws are there, but here's Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
The United States constitution, while technically worded freer, has many of the same restrictions; the First Amendment apparently does not cover obscenity, imminent lawless actions, and fighting words.
Hate speech has a different definition in different countries in Europe, but in my country it is this: behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" to various groups. Essentially, I can express an opinion about homosexuality being immoral, or I can say that I don't want any black people in the country, and I can say those things to a homosexual, a black person, or a homosexual black person, and it would all be legal. However, if I harassed that person and intentionally insulted them, then I'd be breaking the law. And in some US states, so would you, because dems be fighin' words.
Damn that oppressive United States!
The higher paid professions, yes. It's not like as if the government said "I don't like lawyers, lets tax them higher". If you earn more you pay a higher percentage, that way poor to middle income people, who are the majority, can pay less tax. It's called progressive taxation, it helps people escape the poverty trap, and it exists in the United States.
Damn that oppressive United States!
Is your complaint that those with the most immediate need should be seen to first, or that those that are beyond help are categorised as such?
Anyway, the existence of a state healthcare option does not prevent the existence of the private option. If it did then I'd still have my ingrown toenail.
Depending upon how you define nanny societies I might agree with you. I'm liberal and oppose certain authoritarian moves, such as CCTV or detention of terror suspects without trial. But if you're referring to mixed economies then I disagree.
What does healthcare have to do with Europe and Canada being oppressive?
Eh, I don't hate your system of government, checks and balances has its advantages. For it to work properly there needs to be a break from the two-party system, a greater degree of proportionally in elections should be considered to allow some third parties to break through.. but that's a discussion for another day.
I think it's a sign that you're great at it.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
See also: Battlestar Galactica and the five or six lines in the entire series that analyze the subject of artificial intelligence.
On the other hand, the DS9 send-up was a funny scene, so it worked on that level.
Because Ron Moore isn't a good enough science fiction writer (or, to be more charitable, a writer interested enough in science fiction) to have made it work.
See also: Battlestar Galactica and the five or six lines in the entire series that analyze the subject of artificial intelligence.
On the other hand, the DS9 send-up was a funny scene, so it worked on that level.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
I'm not so sure you can blame Moore, say he's 'not good enough at sci-fi', and leave it at that. I'm not sure that's fair, even. I consistently get the feeling from reading stuff from the writers (when it's brought up), that none of them could explain it, to say nothing of explaining it through a scene (which would be much harder). I can't speak to the BSG stuff on AI, though. There he really may not be good enough at sci-fi (or care enough about it...though I thought most of his writing credits have been in sci-fi, which makes that seem unlikely) to explain it.
I can get if you like the 'no-money' aspect of Roddenberry's vision, but it seems a bit overzealous to really claim it was ever explained how it worked...And I think it's expecting a bit much of any writer to try and explain something that vague and nonsensical-on-the-face-of-it.
With all respect to you (especially since you and I have discussed this point before), this is one point where I'm going to have to say "GR screwed up, period, and trying to make it work just doesn't work". There's a fair amount of contradiction from within TNG as a series to the whole concept, to say nothing of the other Star Trek shows, even if you exclude TOS to make the deck a little less stacked. That's before you step back and try to make the concept fit within a wider universe. There it simply does not work, doesn't even make it out of the starting gate.
(A good example of where it causes enough grief that it'd fail: Generally, adultery is agreed to be a bad thing. (You may disagree, but I'm speaking to general rules.) It may not be punished criminally anymore in Western countries (that I know of), but there's enough of a consensus among people that it is to be severely discouraged that, when adultery is a cause of action, the adulterous party in a divorce is punished with a good deal of severity in divorce proceedings as a general rule, to a pretty punitive extent. This can be seen especially when it comes to awarding alimony, but also in the division of assets. Now, take away the use of money. You remove alimony from the equation, then. (With replicators, you also probably remove the division of assets, but let's focus the discussion a bit.) Without alimony, and presuming (for the sake of argument) that the Federation and its members reject treating adultery as a criminal matter, how does one at all make effective the idea that one shouldn't commit adultery, other than as a platitude? I doubt, after all, that the general concept of adultery being bad is going to go away, nor society's interest in making sure that adulterers who get caught get punished. (I'd be sort of afraid if it did, to be honest.) The problem is that nothing's left. Without alimony or assets, there's basically nothing you can use short of criminal sanctions to discourage people from what is, essentially, fraudulent behavior against their spouse. (Gene Roddenberry having been the adulterous party in a marriage according to Wikipedia, I doubt he would mind that, but most people would!))
I'm not so sure you can blame Moore, say he's 'not good enough at sci-fi', and leave it at that. I'm not sure that's fair, even. I consistently get the feeling from reading stuff from the writers (when it's brought up), that none of them could explain it, to say nothing of explaining it through a scene (which would be much harder). I can't speak to the BSG stuff on AI, though. There he really may not be good enough at sci-fi (or care enough about it...though I thought most of his writing credits have been in sci-fi, which makes that seem unlikely) to explain it.
I can get if you like the 'no-money' aspect of Roddenberry's vision, but it seems a bit overzealous to really claim it was ever explained how it worked...And I think it's expecting a bit much of any writer to try and explain something that vague and nonsensical-on-the-face-of-it.
With all respect to you (especially since you and I have discussed this point before), this is one point where I'm going to have to say "GR screwed up, period, and trying to make it work just doesn't work". There's a fair amount of contradiction from within TNG as a series to the whole concept, to say nothing of the other Star Trek shows, even if you exclude TOS to make the deck a little less stacked. That's before you step back and try to make the concept fit within a wider universe. There it simply does not work, doesn't even make it out of the starting gate.
(A good example of where it causes enough grief that it'd fail: Generally, adultery is agreed to be a bad thing. (You may disagree, but I'm speaking to general rules.) It may not be punished criminally anymore in Western countries (that I know of), but there's enough of a consensus among people that it is to be severely discouraged that, when adultery is a cause of action, the adulterous party in a divorce is punished with a good deal of severity in divorce proceedings as a general rule, to a pretty punitive extent. This can be seen especially when it comes to awarding alimony, but also in the division of assets. Now, take away the use of money. You remove alimony from the equation, then. (With replicators, you also probably remove the division of assets, but let's focus the discussion a bit.) Without alimony, and presuming (for the sake of argument) that the Federation and its members reject treating adultery as a criminal matter, how does one at all make effective the idea that one shouldn't commit adultery, other than as a platitude? I doubt, after all, that the general concept of adultery being bad is going to go away, nor society's interest in making sure that adulterers who get caught get punished. (I'd be sort of afraid if it did, to be honest.) The problem is that nothing's left. Without alimony or assets, there's basically nothing you can use short of criminal sanctions to discourage people from what is, essentially, fraudulent behavior against their spouse. (Gene Roddenberry having been the adulterous party in a marriage according to Wikipedia, I doubt he would mind that, but most people would!))
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
Now, I actually think Ron Moore was one of the better, maybe the best, writers Trek ever had, but he is also the only writer I've ever felt personally insulted by, so that resentment always bubbles up.
And I do think it's true that he's never been particularly interested in science fiction at the expense of his space opera.
But Moore was interested in exploring the problems behind the facade of the happy-sappy Federation, and missed the most obvious way a no-currency system could function--a command economy that serves an entitlement society. A highly automated economy directly administrated by a democracy that fulfills Aristotle's promise about democracies.**
And while such a story would run the risk of becoming a paean to the he-men of our armed forces, I always thought it might have been interesting if we'd seen the lazy holodeck-addicts juxtaposed against our heroes a bit more. That would've made a great companion piece to Siege of AR-558, comparing our sacrificing heroes to the truly spoilt human civilians, and then comparing our relatively pampered heroes to the grunts who suffer the most in any war.*
The main point is, the no-currency society is a great sci-fi high-concept. It's much less interesting to rationalize it away--even if it doesn't make sense. And while it elicits some brief laughs, it is not particularly interesting to treat it like a joke. If Moore was interested in a deconstruction, deconstruct. Another famous Moore was pretty good at that sort of thing, and did some interesting work with equally preposterous premises... and now he worships a snake puppet, while Ron rolls in piles of money and hookers, so maybe RDM was on the right track. -_-
*Except not really in a space war. AR-558 asks us to suspend disbelief too far and in too many directions, I think.
**I think that was Aristotle. One of those old dead dudes.
Now, I actually think Ron Moore was one of the better, maybe the best, writers Trek ever had, but he is also the only writer I've ever felt personally insulted by, so that resentment always bubbles up.
And I do think it's true that he's never been particularly interested in science fiction at the expense of his space opera.But Moore was interested in exploring the problems behind the facade of the happy-sappy Federation, and missed the most obvious way a no-currency system could function--a command economy that serves an entitlement society. A highly automated economy directly administrated by a democracy that fulfills Aristotle's promise about democracies.**
And while such a story would run the risk of becoming a paean to the he-men of our armed forces, I always thought it might have been interesting if we'd seen the lazy holodeck-addicts juxtaposed against our heroes a bit more. That would've made a great companion piece to Siege of AR-558, comparing our sacrificing heroes to the truly spoilt human civilians, and then comparing our relatively pampered heroes to the grunts who suffer the most in any war.*
The main point is, the no-currency society is a great sci-fi high-concept. It's much less interesting to rationalize it away--even if it doesn't make sense. And while it elicits some brief laughs, it is not particularly interesting to treat it like a joke. If Moore was interested in a deconstruction, deconstruct. Another famous Moore was pretty good at that sort of thing, and did some interesting work with equally preposterous premises... and now he worships a snake puppet, while Ron rolls in piles of money and hookers, so maybe RDM was on the right track. -_-
*Except not really in a space war. AR-558 asks us to suspend disbelief too far and in too many directions, I think.
**I think that was Aristotle. One of those old dead dudes.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
Would have Moore had his way, he would have ruined Trek for good. The whole POINT about Trek is that it is actually supposed to be utopic. If you deconstruct it and show that it's flawed everywhere and that it doesn't work, then you simply didn't get the point. YES, they don't need money. YES, they live in a paradise. YES, there are no wars, no poverty, no crimes on Earth anymore. Live with it, for crying out loud. You accept scientific impossibilities like beaming and warp speed, yet you don't want to accept the other things? Then do another show, and stay away from Trek.
Would have Moore had his way, he would have ruined Trek for good. The whole POINT about Trek is that it is actually supposed to be utopic. If you deconstruct it and show that it's flawed everywhere and that it doesn't work, then you simply didn't get the point. YES, they don't need money. YES, they live in a paradise. YES, there are no wars, no poverty, no crimes on Earth anymore. Live with it, for crying out loud. You accept scientific impossibilities like beaming and warp speed, yet you don't want to accept the other things? Then do another show, and stay away from Trek.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
To quote Kirk:
To the extent Star Trek has been about anything, it's been about those quotes above from Kirk and Sisko. (To bring this thread back around to the original point, which is violence and not economic systems - which I think Trek writers dodged because it's boring.)
That's not the point. Here's the point: It's easy to be a saint in paradise. On this, both TOS and DS9 agreed.
To quote Kirk:
TOS and DS9 are the only two series that really got the point of Star Trek right. The rest just pussyfooted around the issue and in the end, weren't about anything at all.
To the extent Star Trek has been about anything, it's been about those quotes above from Kirk and Sisko. (To bring this thread back around to the original point, which is violence and not economic systems - which I think Trek writers dodged because it's boring.)
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
I've got to agree with Temis, on paper TOS had a better setting than TNG. TOS was set in a better future (except for the sexism) but it wasn't a perfect future, and the message was the humans had to continue trying to better themselves. TNG was set in a utopian future where humans were close to perfect, the quest to better ourselves was replaced with us trying to better others.
At least that's how it was on paper, the reality was quite different. The truth is that many of the TNG writers didn't want to write for Gene's utopian future because they were fans of TOS and wanted to write for that future, so they tried to find ways around his rules. At first it was difficult, which is one of the reasons why season 1 sucked, but by the time Michael Piller took over things changed because he was good at finding ways of having imperfect humans by bending Gene's rules.
The evolution of Q is a great example of how the writers bent Gene's original intention into something better. The first two Q episodes were co-written by Gene and in those episodes Q came across as a bit of a cunt for daring to test humanity, and both times Q is pissed when humanity passes. When other writers got a shot at writing Q they did a much better job because he stopped testing humans and started teaching us, and when Picard and co learned their lesson Q was... proud. The best examples of this were Tapestry and All Good Things, both Moore episodes.
On DS9, Behr and co broke the rules on a few occasions but in a justifiable way: If humans are near perfect in paradise then don't focus on paradise, show something a little more messy. Earth is still paradise, the humans living there can continue to be super-awesome, but on the edge of Federation space you need to be a little less perfect.
I've got to agree with Temis, on paper TOS had a better setting than TNG. TOS was set in a better future (except for the sexism) but it wasn't a perfect future, and the message was the humans had to continue trying to better themselves. TNG was set in a utopian future where humans were close to perfect, the quest to better ourselves was replaced with us trying to better others.
At least that's how it was on paper, the reality was quite different. The truth is that many of the TNG writers didn't want to write for Gene's utopian future because they were fans of TOS and wanted to write for that future, so they tried to find ways around his rules. At first it was difficult, which is one of the reasons why season 1 sucked, but by the time Michael Piller took over things changed because he was good at finding ways of having imperfect humans by bending Gene's rules.
The evolution of Q is a great example of how the writers bent Gene's original intention into something better. The first two Q episodes were co-written by Gene and in those episodes Q came across as a bit of a cunt for daring to test humanity, and both times Q is pissed when humanity passes. When other writers got a shot at writing Q they did a much better job because he stopped testing humans and started teaching us, and when Picard and co learned their lesson Q was... proud. The best examples of this were Tapestry and All Good Things, both Moore episodes.
On DS9, Behr and co broke the rules on a few occasions but in a justifiable way: If humans are near perfect in paradise then don't focus on paradise, show something a little more messy. Earth is still paradise, the humans living there can continue to be super-awesome, but on the edge of Federation space you need to be a little less perfect.
Re: Why are the "enlightened/evolved" humans so interested in violence
Temis: Finally, someone who says that! No, we're not perfect. Not now, not in Trek's time. Never will be!
But we don't need to be. All we have to be is better. By tiny steps. All we have to know is that we won't kill today.
Today. Not sayin' anything about ever, or even tomorrow.
Trek isn't about a utopian society, either...No, because it's easy to be a saint in paradise, as Sisko said. Harder if morals involve sacrifice, if living in the world means you make mistakes and have to work to survive and do things you maybe aren't proud of. Then being a saint means something.
Temis: Finally, someone who says that! No, we're not perfect. Not now, not in Trek's time. Never will be!
But we don't need to be. All we have to be is better. By tiny steps. All we have to know is that we won't kill today.
Today. Not sayin' anything about ever, or even tomorrow.
Trek isn't about a utopian society, either...No, because it's easy to be a saint in paradise, as Sisko said. Harder if morals involve sacrifice, if living in the world means you make mistakes and have to work to survive and do things you maybe aren't proud of. Then being a saint means something.