Your thoughts needed: using Star Trek to solve today's problems?

[Gary7]

Star Trek is not only fantasy, it tells us of an imaginary realm where various key problems with humanity have already been solved, with no details about the solutions. Star Trek can be an inspiration to aspire towards that kind of society, but is utterly useless as a tool to solve our problems.


Actually, speaking of what may actually prove to be viable on rescuing humanity from certain doom ahead, I heard a program on NPR that was fascinating. Someone was researching the time spent on video games by the human population of Earth. It was said that up to now this time collectively is more time than the first moments of recorded history up until the present. Many people spend an inordinate amount of time aggressively trying to solve imaginary problems, while playing video games. The idea... is to apply this towards the REAL problems of humanity. The person speculates that given the tenacity of the human mind to solve problems, put to the right task, it could come up with many plausible solutions for the problems we face today. Imagine a kind of software game that is interesting but at the same time provides a useful analogy to the very problems humanity is facing. I think this has some merit...

 

[Canadave]

It's not fictional. It's REEEEEEEEEAAL!!!

No it isn't. It's a FAAAAAAAAKE!

 

[sojourner]

Imagine a kind of software game that is interesting but at the same time provides a useful analogy to the very problems humanity is facing. I think this has some merit...

The problem is that software games are a closed box. The game designer has to know all of the answers to a problem to put them in the game.

 

[AlphaTrek]

Star Trek is about intelligence, compassion, equality, innovation, and cooperation.

^ Things that would solve a lot of modern day problems here on Earth!

 

[Navaros]

Star Trek could never attempt to solve the world's problems because the writers of Trek have nothing to say about them.

Instead, the writers take the easy way out and do no work in this regard: they say "all the problems are magically solved in the future," yet they never show how or why they are solved.

A Trek show that had the courage to attempt to solve the world's problem, instead of completely ignore them and pretend that they all magically solved themselves-which is exactly what every Trek show to date has done-, might well be the best and most interesting Trek show of all. I doubt TPTB would ever have the courage to make such a show, however, hence the idea of the thread title is not realistic.

 

[Arpy]

It's not about being realistic. There is no big book of answers that people just need to quote from to solve all the world's problems. The U.S. tax code is a huge document that could be revised a thousand different ways for the better. A TV show making one argument and ignoring 999 of the others does not make it the right one, or the one that will be made, that the show set in the future will have to then retcon into its universe. Now the tax code will be revised at some point in the direction that the nation will want to go at the time, but no one's a fortune teller capable of telling you which way that will be. It doesn't matter if you're Gene Roddenberry or Adam Smith - father of capitalism.

Also, Star Trek is brave. Or it can and has been, anyway. Aside from the gender (Uhura), racial (Sulu), ethnic (Chekov), and spiritual (Spock) equality it preaches, it also dares to promote the idea of better future when most people believe in a dog-eat-dog nothing-ever-really-changes view of the world. It does it not by telling you on which date back in 2193 which document said what about tort reform, but giving an example of what the world can be like if as a society we choose to make it so.

So, no, Star Trek does not give you a blue print. ...No one short of God can, and he's not talking. Heck, the Bible doesn't give you every infinite variable possibility of existence yet it's been pretty influential, no? But Star Trek does show you a house and dare you to build it.

 

[Anji]

Hey have most of you even paid attention when you watched a Star Trek episode??? C'mon people! Star Trek takes today's problems and presents possible solutions to it. That is the whole point of Star Trek. C'mon?! Bit by bit Trek is creating our culture. In TOS Kirk had the communicator, we now have the cellphone. NASA is working on ion propulsion as we speak. There are many innovations that were presented in Star Trek that we have or people are working on to make it happen.

The only problem is Star Trek is not on the air to bring present day problems to light. It needs a new innovative leader to take the helm. Rod Roddenberry, talk to CBS and get this franchise going again!

As far as bringing Federation ideals to our culture...it's a damn good idea. But that cannot be done by a goverment, it has do be done on an individual basis. Living by Federation principles of respect, diginity and diversity and to elect officials that reflect those ideals is the only way to make the Federation a reality.

Look how far we've come already. In the U.S. we elected a president based on his qualifications and not on his race. We should be proud of ourselves for this! A Star Trek priniciple put into action and became reality. If we keep it up, we can make it happen.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Notice that although Earth is at peace in Star Trek, that peaceful, unified, evolved Earth is part of an organization that is continually getting into fights with the neighbors. How exactly is that an improvement over today's Earth, where countries are continually getting into fights with the neighbors? All Star Trek has accomplished is to upgrade the size of the fights.

And maybe that is the lesson of Star Trek.

 

[-Brett-]

Hey have most of you even paid attention when you watched a Star Trek episode??? C'mon people! Star Trek takes today's problems and presents possible solutions to it.

Except that most of us don't have deflector arrays or the technical expertise to remodulate them to fire a tachyon pulse.

 

[shivkala]

I think the issue isn't that Star Trek showed us how our problems were solved, rather they showed us a future in which our problems could be solved. In other words, no one is going to pop in an episode of Star Trek (any of them, movies included) and say, "That's how we're going to solve the health care debate." Star Trek shows us what could happen if we find a way to solve our current problems.

Besides, a major message behind Star Trek, TOS especially is not looking to others (leaders, media, computers, etc.) to solve our problems. Kirk was very big on societies needing to wake up, stop relying on easy solutions, and working together to fix what was wrong.

 

[Myasishchev]

When looking at Trek for practical solutions, it does offer a few realistic ones. For example, there are a lot of problems which orbital bombardment could completely do away with.

 

[T'Girl]

Nuke the site from orbit?

 

[Bishop76]

It's the only way to be sure.

 

[T'Girl]

In the U.S. we elected a president based on his qualifications and not on his race.

Please tell me you're talking about Clinton or one of the two Bushs in terms of having qualifications.

 

[Bishop76]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure our current president was elected almost entirely because of his race.

 

[Arpy]

Notice that although Earth is at peace in Star Trek, that peaceful, unified, evolved Earth is part of an organization that is continually getting into fights with the neighbors. How exactly is that an improvement over today's Earth, where countries are continually getting into fights with the neighbors? All Star Trek has accomplished is to upgrade the size of the fights.

And maybe that is the lesson of Star Trek.

I just got back from a shit movie and am in a fowl mood. Begin rant:

I'm sure it was all the Federation's fault. In "Balance of Terror" when the Romulan commander said that it was their way to fight when they were the stronger, or in "The Enemy" when Centurion Bochra dreamed of a future in which humans were extinct and the Romulan Empire spanned the galaxy, it was the Federation's fault. When the Cardassians turned to war to fix their economy, it was the Federation's fault. When the Borg decided to assimilate the universe 900 years earlier, I'm sure somehow it was the Federation's fault. And when the Changelings started genetically engineering sentient life to worship them as gods and impose their order on all solids because of the sins of some, thousands of years back, I'm sure somehow that it was the Federation's fault!

The Federation's problem is that it has a lot of shitty neighbors. Given that it also has a lot of good ones and that we're talking about a neighborhood the size of a galaxy, I think they're fine.

 

[Sci]

Rod Roddenberry, talk to CBS and get this franchise going again!

Insofar as Star Trek can be said to have operating principles, I somehow doubt that a "monarchy" is one of them. Why is Rod Roddenberry more qualified to talk to CBS about Star Trek than anyone else?

As far as bringing Federation ideals to our culture...it's a damn good idea. But that cannot be done by a goverment, it has do be done on an individual basis. Living by Federation principles of respect, diginity and diversity and to elect officials that reflect those ideals is the only way to make the Federation a reality.

Brilliant. But what does that mean?

Ask a Liberal and a Conservative if they live by those principles, and both will usually swear up and down that they do. But what those abstract and ill-defined concepts actually translate to in the real world? That's a very different question.

Look how far we've come already. In the U.S. we elected a president based on his qualifications and not on his race. We should be proud of ourselves for this! A Star Trek priniciple put into action and became reality. If we keep it up, we can make it happen.

I do agree that the fact that the American people have largely abandoned the old systems of racial oppression, to the point where being black did not stop an African-American from being elected President, is a huge accomplishment. But we also shouldn't pretend that racism does not still exist (look at the "birther" movement, or racial disparities in the justice system).

Yeah, I'm pretty sure our current president was elected almost entirely because of his race.

Oh, bullshit. Obama got people's attention because of his race. He got their votes the same way every presidential candidate does -- by outlining policies and espousing rhetoric of which the majority of Americans approved. You may not like the guy or his policies, but that does not mean that others did not, and it does not mean that he won because of his skin color.

In the U.S. we elected a president based on his qualifications and not on his race.

Please tell me you're talking about Clinton or one of the two Bushs in terms of having qualifications.

Whether or not you think his qualifications were sufficient is besides the point. The point of Anji's post was simply that Obama was not eliminated from the campaign because of his race nor did he win the White House because of his race. He won the election competitively, just like every other candidate who has ever won the popular vote.

 

[Bishop76]

Oh, bullshit. Obama got people's attention because of his race. He got their votes the same way every presidential candidate does -- by outlining policies and espousing rhetoric of which the majority of Americans approved. You may not like the guy or his policies, but that does not mean that others did not, and it does not mean that he won because of his skin color.

I'm not saying he wasn't successful at blowing smoke up peoples' asses and getting votes that way, like every other politician, but I think it's naive to say that in this modern PC day and age that a lot of his votes didn't come from a lot of white guilt, or from people who just wanted to say years down the road that they voted for the first black president, or from a black community who didn't care what he stood for as long as a black man was elected president.

This isn't a political statement on my part, it's a sociological statement, so don't presume to know my politics.

 

[Sci]

Oh, bullshit. Obama got people's attention because of his race. He got their votes the same way every presidential candidate does -- by outlining policies and espousing rhetoric of which the majority of Americans approved. You may not like the guy or his policies, but that does not mean that others did not, and it does not mean that he won because of his skin color.

I'm not saying he wasn't successful at blowing smoke up peoples' asses and getting votes that way, like every other politician, but I think it's naive to say that in this modern PC day and age that a lot of his votes didn't come from a lot of white guilt, or from people who just wanted to say years down the road that they voted for the first black president, or from a black community who didn't care what he stood for as long as a black man was elected president.

And how do you define "a lot of?" You say you're making a sociological statement here, but you're leaving the door open to avoid taking a real stance. Yes, it's inevitable that there would be someone who voted for Obama just because he was black, just like it's inevitable that there would be someone who voted for McCain just because he was white. There are 300 million people in the United States -- it's inevitable that someone would be motivated by some of the things you propose.

But there's a world of difference between saying that some Obama supporters voted for him because he was black and saying that he actually won the election because of it. How many is "a lot of?" Give me real evidence. Give me numbers. Give me a poll where people explicitly say, "Yeah, I voted for him 'cos he was black." Until then, you're making a claim with no evidence.

 

[Bishop76]

I don't have polls or numbers or statistics, all of which are meaningless anyway and can be doctored or fudged or whatever to "prove" any point the presenter of said statistics wants. Moreover, who would answer that poll question honestly? Sure, a handful of people would, but who wants to admit that they did in fact vote based on race?

All I have is my common sense that tells me how people behave and my observations of how people behave and I think that while there were a lot of other factors that contributed to his win, Obama was helped considerably into the presidency because of his race.