Pessimistic as it might make me look, I don't think we'll ever achieve what we saw in Trek.
There is just too much against us. As someone said in an earlier post, we haven't really changed in several generations and we're actually getting worse.
Technology, for example, whilst presenting us with numerous advantages is also making us lazier and less willing to socialise in an actual face-to-face sense.
'Star Trek' is a piece of science-fiction.
While Picard may have said this...
"A lot has changed in the past 300 years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things.We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy." - Picard to Ralph Offenhouse (TNG: "The Neutral Zone")
Beverly Crusher charged a credit card account, so she could purchase some fabric at Farpoint Station.
Federation officers on 'Deep Space Nine' gambled for gold-pressed latinum.
Tom Paris replicated a television and built a car.
Picard's room was filled with novels and archeological artifacts.
Worf's room was filled with Klingon statues, religious items, and weapons.
Spock's room was filled with Vulcan statues and religious items.
Bashir and O'Brien were obsessed with building a large model of the Battle of the Alamo.
Dianna Troy's closet was filled with different styles of dresses and clothing.
Kirk owned an apartment filled with guns and art pieces.
Sisko's father owned a restaurant on Earth.
Picard's family owned a wine vineyard.
...other words, 'Star Trek' is just philosophical exercise about the future.
I have to agree with your point about legalism. Societies like that tend to exist for the exploitation of the masses to the benefit of the few. It is not something to look forward to.
*nods*
I love 'Star Trek' for a million reasons; however, I am not blind to its other glaring messages. Many of the franchise's themes are rather hypocritical.
Something else to think about... Its interesting. Gene Roddenberry and Michael Moore (propaganda filmmaker) tell everyone about the dangers of capitalism; however, they end up selling merchandise to make millions of dollars. I think its rather hypercritical and funny.
Blu-Ray 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' dvds would not be selling for $119.99 on Best Buy if anti-capitalism was the message. 'Star Trek' VHS series sets use to sell for $200 in the 1990s.
If you mean in terms of human conduct, I would say no, but that's in no small part because most people interpret the conduct of humans on Star Trek as extremely idealized anyway. In other words, they're "perfect" humans because Roddenberry said they were "perfect," even though a lot of them are quite far from it and will never really get there (see "The Drumhead"), and many fans that are drawn to the philosophical aspects of Trek that Roddenberry put in maintain this perception. However, perfection is in the eye of the beholder - one man's perfect is another man's horror. I would say that it may not even be desirable that the world be perfect - what we have now was made of the ideas of thousands upon thousands of different perspectives, both individual and cultural, and to homogenize them en masse would likely prevent any further development along those lines.
If you mean in terms of technology, this depends greatly. Computers are leaning in that direction and we do have a lot of Star Trek technologies, but many of those are mostly superficial - for instance, a cellular phone, as much as it looks like a communicator from TOS, is internally little like it (e.g. no subspace communication, which is what is REALLY the key in that particular technology, and would be vital for space communication that didn't take decades in the case of interstellar travel). However, the hypothetical underpinnings of Star Trek are occasionally being suggested as having some level of plausibility. For instance, warp drive has been a topic explored several times by physicists, and the debate has gone back and forth as to how possible it is. Whether or not anything will come of it is another question entirely (especially the energy demands, which are, as I recall, ridiculous in the currently favored models), but nevertheless, you have to start somewhere.
Interesting thing is, though, that human conduct and technological progress do have a link between one another. It's easier not to be a jerk when you've got a full stomach, for instance. So it is possible, if technological process continues to be made and we don't descend into a dark age, that human conduct will continue to improve, at least to a point. Furthermore, our imperfection, allowing us to examine and attempt to overcome problems from numerous different perspectives, may in fact be a source of our future development.
So in other words, "maybe, and it depends on what parts you're thinking of."
...other words, 'Star Trek' is just philosophical exercise about the future.
Its not real.
I would go so far as to say that only some of it is a philosophical exercise about the future. It depends largely on who was on the writing staff for a particular episode or a particular stretch of the show, or on a particular show or movie.
Additionally, considering these are all examples of individuals who had interests, thoughts and perspectives that were of something other than just an abstract ideal of society, I would dare say that it may have been a good thing that they did not perfectly adhere to a particular philosophy.
Finally, your examples include several aliens. The idea of Trek regarding aliens was often to regard them as homogeneous and "backwards" in some ways, with humans being the "enlightened" ones. Your list, of course, includes several humans, and most of the humans have shown some level of interest in things other than societal duty, but I'm not too certain how much the aliens "count" if they're looked at as essentially savages to be enlightened.
I love 'Star Trek' for a million reasons; however, I am not blind to its other glaring messages. Many of the franchise's themes are rather hypocritical.
Something else to think about... Its interesting. Gene Roddenberry and Michael Moore (propaganda filmmaker) tell everyone about the dangers of capitalism; however, they end up selling merchandise to make millions of dollars. I think its rather hypercritical and funny.
Blu-Ray 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' dvds would not be selling for $119.99 on Best Buy if anti-capitalism was the message. 'Star Trek' VHS series sets use to sell for $200 in the 1990s.
honestly, I don't think Roddenberry believed it, I think he was doing that because the pop culture at the time he created Star Trek thought it was "cool".
For instance, warp drive has been a topic explored several times by physicists, and the debate has gone back and forth as to how possible it is. Whether or not anything will come of it is another question entirely (especially the energy demands, which are, as I recall, ridiculous in the currently favored models), but nevertheless, you have to start somewhere.
Alcubierre's original theory called for truly ludicrous energy consumption; what energized NASA to start testing the theory, however, was Howard White's refinements, in which he found that the energy levels would be a lot lower if the exotic-matter torus were flattened in cross-section rather than being doughnut-shaped, and if the edges of the field were to "vibrate" a bit rather than being held rigid. This brought it more into the realm of plausibility - the remaining question now is whether the theory describes reality. (Sometimes we test some wonderful, self-consistent theory, only to find that something in reality proves it wrong. That's usually when things get interesting, as new theories to describe reality are then required. That's why some physicists are disappointed when a new experiment confirms the Standard Model - that's no fun.)
Depends a lot on what you mean "like Star Trek."
If you mean in terms of human conduct, I would say no, but that's in no small part because most people interpret the conduct of humans on Star Trek as extremely idealized anyway. In other words, they're "perfect" humans because Roddenberry said they were "perfect," even though a lot of them are quite far from it and will never really get there (see "The Drumhead"), and many fans that are drawn to the philosophical aspects of Trek that Roddenberry put in maintain this perception. However, perfection is in the eye of the beholder - one man's perfect is another man's horror. I would say that it may not even be desirable that the world be perfect - what we have now was made of the ideas of thousands upon thousands of different perspectives, both individual and cultural, and to homogenize them en masse would likely prevent any further development along those lines.
*stands up off the ground*
Amen!
Forcing people to behave in a certain way is not freedom. The Federation may use legalism to create a world of tolerance; however, the appearance of such a society would be based upon an illusion.
Roddenberry's version of a perfect human being is through conformity.
Is that the type of future we want? Conforming to an all powerful government's standards, which uses laws to force people into a world of tolerance and equality?
for instance, a cellular phone, as much as it looks like a communicator from TOS, is internally little like it (e.g. no subspace communication, which is what is REALLY the key in that particular technology,
Enh... Just change the transceiver. :P Swap out the radiowave transceiver for a subspace transceiver and you're good. Similar refinements to radio technology have happened many times. Satellite communications aren't that different in principle from the old-school long-wave radio.
The implementation is different. Long wave uses ground stations as repeaters, while sat-comm uses orbiting satellites. The hardware of the transceivers is different. Long wave requires tall antenna masts, while sat-comm uses dishes to focus the transmission to a target.
But the concept is the same. Subspace comms is simply a new way of transmitting the signal. :P
Giving the fact, that a lot of Trek's everyday items that we seen on the show minus FTL, the transporters, and miracle medicinal cures have been invented or at least the technology is close to being there.
As for society-wise, in the last fifty years, western society has grown more than in the last 600 years. People will use fear facts such as we are more violent today, that is not true or there is more crime today, again not true.
Historically, we have had the least amount of wars fought in the last hundreds than ever before. People are living longer and in the most of the world, you have the freedom to live how you want. Just recently, China started to lift restrictions on the one child policy.
I'm not going to go into it point by point, but this comment above me is SOOOO inaccurate, it's not even funny (unfortunately.) Read up on your history circa 1950 to Present - and if anything, it shows the world hasn't changed much, and in fact if you compare the last 5 decades, we are just as violent and judgmental as we were back then, it's just some of the things we're more judgmental on now have changed. (Also, to try and equate China considering lifting its population policy as a sign China is somehow improving g when most of the other huiman rights violations its been cited doing, it still does...)
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
So we all have to be cynical about everything? Star Trek is full of great messages, rather than dragging the bad ones out and publicly pooping on them, can't we pull the good ones out into the light, and try to use them to be better people?
I'm not going to go into it point by point, but this comment above me is SOOOO inaccurate, it's not even funny (unfortunately.) Read up on your history circa 1950 to Present - and if anything, it shows the world hasn't changed much, and in fact if you compare the last 5 decades, we are just as violent and judgmental as we were back then, it's just some of the things we're more judgmental on now have changed. (Also, to try and equate China considering lifting its population policy as a sign China is somehow improving g when most of the other huiman rights violations its been cited doing, it still does...)
honestly, I don't think Roddenberry believed it, I think he was doing that because the pop culture at the time he created Star Trek thought it was "cool".
It is possible that the humans in Star Trek is what Roddenberry wanted to become like, but knew that he would never achieve it. So it was merely a dream of what he wanted to be like.
So we all have to be cynical about everything? Star Trek is full of great messages, rather than dragging the bad ones out and publicly pooping on them, can't we pull the good ones out into the light, and try to use them to be better people?
If the good is built upon a bad philosophy, similar to how 'Star Trek' was established, you cannot ignorantly look past the negative.
Example only... Why do people need to lose their freedom (government mandate), so that other people can save money on or obtain health insurance? Can we create an affordable healthcare system that does not put everyone into economic slavery? Now, we are all slaves to a healthcare industry. Congrats.
I'm not going to go into it point by point, but this comment above me is SOOOO inaccurate, it's not even funny (unfortunately.) Read up on your history circa 1950 to Present - and if anything, it shows the world hasn't changed much, and in fact if you compare the last 5 decades, we are just as violent and judgmental as we were back then, it's just some of the things we're more judgmental on now have changed. (Also, to try and equate China considering lifting its population policy as a sign China is somehow improving g when most of the other huiman rights violations its been cited doing, it still does...)
A step is still a step despite on how minor or insignificant a step maybe at the present state. Given the fact, that you just said it was soooo inaccurate, yet really didn't give any facts. Well here are some facts:
If you look at the top ten most destructive events in human history in terms of death toll, World War II makes it number 9. In the 19th Century, saw one of the most violent centuries in human history with Napoleonic Wars, the US Civil War, the Taiping Rebellion, Shaka Zulu, and the War of the Triple Alliance in which 60% of the population country of Paraguay was killed. They are researchers now saying that the US Civil War's death toll was too low at 612,000 to 750,000 using census records.
Except for the African conflicts, the last fifty years of war was relatively tame in comparison to the first fifty and beyond.
this comes from the article that was posted: Cook: Having worked through this material, I wonder, do you see current events differently now? PINKER: Absolutely. The present looks less sinister, the past less innocent. The mind always focuses on current threats, and takes for granted the violent events that don?t happen but could easily have happened a few decades ago. A sniper in Norway kills dozens of innocent people?and the population does not riot or lynch the perpetrator and his extended family, but holds candlelight vigils. The Egyptian government falls?but the new one does not vow to push the Israelis into the sea. North Korea sinks a South Korean ship, killing 45 sailors?but instead of escalating to war, the Koreans go back to life as usual. Every day I notice the dogs that don?t bark.
If the good is built upon a bad philosophy, similar to how 'Star Trek' was established, you cannot ignorantly look past the negative.
Example only... Why do people need to lose their freedom (government mandate), so that other people can save money on or obtain health insurance? Can we create an affordable healthcare system that does not put everyone into economic slavery? Now, we are all slaves to a healthcare industry. Congrats.
I just noticed the conundrum in what I said. rofl... My apology.
We could achieve the good qualities of 'Star Trek' without using Roddenberry's approach. Diversity, universal tolerance, poverty free society, etc... Humanity will just need to take a different path, which does not use legalism to establish everything.
I also think human biological evolution would also have to contribute to the process.
Beverly Crusher charged a credit card account, so she could purchase some fabric at Farpoint Station.
Federation officers on 'Deep Space Nine' gambled for gold-pressed latinum.
Tom Paris replicated a television and built a car.
Picard's room was filled with novels and archeological artifacts.
Worf's room was filled with Klingon statues, religious items, and weapons.
Spock's room was filled with Vulcan statues and religious items.
Bashir and O'Brien were obsessed with building a large model of the Battle of the Alamo.
Dianna Troy's closet was filled with different styles of dresses and clothing.
Kirk owned an apartment filled with guns and art pieces.
Sisko's father owned a restaurant on Earth.
Picard's family owned a wine vineyard.
...other words, 'Star Trek' is just philosophical exercise about the future.
Its not real.
1. Federation Credits for trading with other societies that still use currency.
2. Having possessions doesn't negate what he said. Do his quarters have to be barren to avoid hypocrisy? Where do you draw the line? Chairs and a bed are possessions. Should he not have those in order for him to avoid contradiction? If you take this assumption to its extreme, it just seems silly to nitpick. He has things, but they don't define him and they don't define his life.
3. It was a hologram, an ephemeral thing that existed in a program. It wasn't the possession he reveled in, it was the experience. Besides, Tom Paris was a bit of an odd ball among his peers.
4. Worf isn't human, those things are a part of his culture.
5. Spock isn't human, same as above.
6. So people can't have hobbies without violating this ideal of non-materialism?
7. Really? So people can't have self-expression while adhering to this ideal? Is it not possible that she made those dresses herself? Also, Troi wasn't human.
8. Again, hobbies? Can't they have them?
9. Sisko's was Ben Sisko's restaurant. That much is true, but it wasn't a business. He did it because he liked making food for people. Nobody paid for it.
10. Yes, they did and I bet they made wine for the love of the craft and shared their hard work with others. What's wrong with having land if you're using it for the benefit of others as well as yourself? They have no need to exploit that land because there is no economy in which to leverage it.
I think people have a hard time accepting what economics are like in the Star Trek universe and look to assuage their dissonance by seeing hypocrisy in it. The philosophy of Star Trek is that people's lives are no longer centered around accumulating wealth and possessions, but it doesn't mean that people have disposed of the practice of possessions nor do they have to. They've eliminate scarcity, so nobody needs to covet possessions, they can have anything they could need or want instantly. When they no longer need nor want it, it can be reused as raw material for something else.
Having things isn't antithetical to a society that is non-materialistic. Non-materialism is just a philosophy about not feeling attached to things or having wealth accumulation as the driving force in your life. You need to separate the object from the desire to accumulate.
Another thing that I think people misunderstand about Trek is that Earth is not governed in the same manner as Star Fleet. The economy of Earth is that of a voluntary anarchy. That means that people only utilize authority when it is justifiable and necessary. Most of the time people just moderate their own behavior. Take the episode "The Neutral Zone" where those people were found in stasis. Ralph, the investor, used the comms to contact the Captain. Picard informed him that those comms were only for ship operations. Ralph asked why they don't just lock it. Picard replied that people have developed a better sensibility and learned to practice restraint.
Go here and show your support for a better Foundry!
I just noticed the conundrum in what I said. rofl... My apology.
We could achieve the good qualities of 'Star Trek' without using Roddenberry's approach. Diversity, universal tolerance, poverty free society, etc... Humanity will just need to take a different path, which does not use legalism to establish everything.
I also think human biological evolution would also have to contribute to the process.
Well, then I think you and I are essentially getting at the same idea with different words.
A step is still a step despite on how minor or insignificant a step maybe at the present state. Given the fact, that you just said it was soooo inaccurate, yet really didn't give any facts. Well here are some facts:
If you look at the top ten most destructive events in human history in terms of death toll, World War II makes it number 9. In the 19th Century, saw one of the most violent centuries in human history with Napoleonic Wars, the US Civil War, the Taiping Rebellion, Shaka Zulu, and the War of the Triple Alliance in which 60% of the population country of Paraguay was killed. They are researchers now saying that the US Civil War's death toll was too low at 612,000 to 750,000 using census records.
Except for the African conflicts, the last fifty years of war was relatively tame in comparison to the first fifty and beyond.
this comes from the article that was posted: Cook: Having worked through this material, I wonder, do you see current events differently now? PINKER: Absolutely. The present looks less sinister, the past less innocent. The mind always focuses on current threats, and takes for granted the violent events that don?t happen but could easily have happened a few decades ago. A sniper in Norway kills dozens of innocent people?and the population does not riot or lynch the perpetrator and his extended family, but holds candlelight vigils. The Egyptian government falls?but the new one does not vow to push the Israelis into the sea. North Korea sinks a South Korean ship, killing 45 sailors?but instead of escalating to war, the Koreans go back to life as usual. Every day I notice the dogs that don?t bark.
I think after a while, our sadistic leaders have figured out that it's easier and cheaper to lock everyone in cages and tell them that they're free rather than send troops halfway across the world to slaughter indiscriminately. They have robots to do that last bit for them now, anyhow.
2. Having possessions doesn't negate what he said. Do his quarters have to be barren to avoid hypocrisy? Where do you draw the line? Chairs and a bed are possessions. Should he not have those in order for him to avoid contradiction? If you take this assumption to its extreme, it just seems silly to nitpick. He has things, but they don't define him and they don't define his life.
Picard made it quite clear that he prized his collection of relics highly. he got very upset if anything happened to them.
Picard made it quite clear that he prized his collection of relics highly. he got very upset if anything happened to them.raised by humansHalf humanalso half-human
It was made clear that Worf made his parents raise him by Klingon tradition, to the point where he even underwent the Rite of Ascension and his mother had to learn to cook Rokeg Blood Pie. Raised by humans, yes, but to a mainly Klingon standard, not a human one.
Spock was raised on Vulcan to Vulcan culture, which values art and cultural history.
Troi was raised on Betazed, to a hybrid of Betazoid and Human culture. Betazoids are an... eccentric race, if Troi's mother is anything to judge by.
Also, Picard valued his artefacts the same way we value photos of family. They hold sentimental value - a reminder of where he's been and the history of that place. Sentimentality is not the same as materialism.
It was made clear that Worf made his parents raise him by Klingon tradition, to the point where he even underwent the Rite of Ascension and his mother had to learn to cook Rokeg Blood Pie. Raised by humans, yes, but to a mainly Klingon standard, not a human one.
Not that Klingon.... We see in many episodes that Worf's knowledge of Klingon culture comes primarily from reading about it. It's something other Klingons mocked him for several times. (Also Worf did the rite of Ascension after he became a Starfleet officer)
Spock was raised on Vulcan to Vulcan culture, which values art and cultural history.
He was also raised by his mother.... who lived on Vulcan.
Troi was raised on Betazed, to a hybrid of Betazoid and Human culture. Betazoids are an... eccentric race, if Troi's mother is anything to judge by.
Not that eccentric. Lwaxana was eccentric by Betazoid standards.
Also, Picard valued his artefacts the same way we value photos of family. They hold sentimental value - a reminder of where he's been and the history of that place. Sentimentality is not the same as materialism.
Yeah.... um... about that.... watch 1:00 to 2:30. Picard has a very strong emotional attachment to the fact that he has original artifacts, a bit stronger than mere sentimentality. If all it was was sentimentality, why not keep replicas?
Comments
While Picard may have said this... Beverly Crusher charged a credit card account, so she could purchase some fabric at Farpoint Station.
Federation officers on 'Deep Space Nine' gambled for gold-pressed latinum.
Tom Paris replicated a television and built a car.
Picard's room was filled with novels and archeological artifacts.
Worf's room was filled with Klingon statues, religious items, and weapons.
Spock's room was filled with Vulcan statues and religious items.
Bashir and O'Brien were obsessed with building a large model of the Battle of the Alamo.
Dianna Troy's closet was filled with different styles of dresses and clothing.
Kirk owned an apartment filled with guns and art pieces.
Sisko's father owned a restaurant on Earth.
Picard's family owned a wine vineyard.
...other words, 'Star Trek' is just philosophical exercise about the future.
Its not real.
I love 'Star Trek' for a million reasons; however, I am not blind to its other glaring messages. Many of the franchise's themes are rather hypocritical.
Something else to think about... Its interesting. Gene Roddenberry and Michael Moore (propaganda filmmaker) tell everyone about the dangers of capitalism; however, they end up selling merchandise to make millions of dollars. I think its rather hypercritical and funny.
Blu-Ray 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' dvds would not be selling for $119.99 on Best Buy if anti-capitalism was the message. 'Star Trek' VHS series sets use to sell for $200 in the 1990s.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&_dynSessConf=&id=pcat17071&type=page&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=15&sp=&qp=&list=n&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960&fs=saas&saas=saas&keys=keys&st=Star+TreK+The+Next+Generation
If you mean in terms of human conduct, I would say no, but that's in no small part because most people interpret the conduct of humans on Star Trek as extremely idealized anyway. In other words, they're "perfect" humans because Roddenberry said they were "perfect," even though a lot of them are quite far from it and will never really get there (see "The Drumhead"), and many fans that are drawn to the philosophical aspects of Trek that Roddenberry put in maintain this perception. However, perfection is in the eye of the beholder - one man's perfect is another man's horror. I would say that it may not even be desirable that the world be perfect - what we have now was made of the ideas of thousands upon thousands of different perspectives, both individual and cultural, and to homogenize them en masse would likely prevent any further development along those lines.
If you mean in terms of technology, this depends greatly. Computers are leaning in that direction and we do have a lot of Star Trek technologies, but many of those are mostly superficial - for instance, a cellular phone, as much as it looks like a communicator from TOS, is internally little like it (e.g. no subspace communication, which is what is REALLY the key in that particular technology, and would be vital for space communication that didn't take decades in the case of interstellar travel). However, the hypothetical underpinnings of Star Trek are occasionally being suggested as having some level of plausibility. For instance, warp drive has been a topic explored several times by physicists, and the debate has gone back and forth as to how possible it is. Whether or not anything will come of it is another question entirely (especially the energy demands, which are, as I recall, ridiculous in the currently favored models), but nevertheless, you have to start somewhere.
Interesting thing is, though, that human conduct and technological progress do have a link between one another. It's easier not to be a jerk when you've got a full stomach, for instance. So it is possible, if technological process continues to be made and we don't descend into a dark age, that human conduct will continue to improve, at least to a point. Furthermore, our imperfection, allowing us to examine and attempt to overcome problems from numerous different perspectives, may in fact be a source of our future development.
So in other words, "maybe, and it depends on what parts you're thinking of."
I would go so far as to say that only some of it is a philosophical exercise about the future. It depends largely on who was on the writing staff for a particular episode or a particular stretch of the show, or on a particular show or movie.
Additionally, considering these are all examples of individuals who had interests, thoughts and perspectives that were of something other than just an abstract ideal of society, I would dare say that it may have been a good thing that they did not perfectly adhere to a particular philosophy.
Finally, your examples include several aliens. The idea of Trek regarding aliens was often to regard them as homogeneous and "backwards" in some ways, with humans being the "enlightened" ones. Your list, of course, includes several humans, and most of the humans have shown some level of interest in things other than societal duty, but I'm not too certain how much the aliens "count" if they're looked at as essentially savages to be enlightened.
My character Tsin'xing
Amen!
Forcing people to behave in a certain way is not freedom. The Federation may use legalism to create a world of tolerance; however, the appearance of such a society would be based upon an illusion.
Roddenberry's version of a perfect human being is through conformity.
Is that the type of future we want? Conforming to an all powerful government's standards, which uses laws to force people into a world of tolerance and equality?
Why would anyone want that?
The implementation is different. Long wave uses ground stations as repeaters, while sat-comm uses orbiting satellites. The hardware of the transceivers is different. Long wave requires tall antenna masts, while sat-comm uses dishes to focus the transmission to a target.
But the concept is the same. Subspace comms is simply a new way of transmitting the signal. :P
My character Tsin'xing
I'm not going to go into it point by point, but this comment above me is SOOOO inaccurate, it's not even funny (unfortunately.) Read up on your history circa 1950 to Present - and if anything, it shows the world hasn't changed much, and in fact if you compare the last 5 decades, we are just as violent and judgmental as we were back then, it's just some of the things we're more judgmental on now have changed. (Also, to try and equate China considering lifting its population policy as a sign China is somehow improving g when most of the other huiman rights violations its been cited doing, it still does...)
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
No.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=history-and-the-decline-of-human-violence
It is possible that the humans in Star Trek is what Roddenberry wanted to become like, but knew that he would never achieve it. So it was merely a dream of what he wanted to be like.
Example only... Why do people need to lose their freedom (government mandate), so that other people can save money on or obtain health insurance? Can we create an affordable healthcare system that does not put everyone into economic slavery? Now, we are all slaves to a healthcare industry. Congrats.
A step is still a step despite on how minor or insignificant a step maybe at the present state. Given the fact, that you just said it was soooo inaccurate, yet really didn't give any facts. Well here are some facts:
If you look at the top ten most destructive events in human history in terms of death toll, World War II makes it number 9. In the 19th Century, saw one of the most violent centuries in human history with Napoleonic Wars, the US Civil War, the Taiping Rebellion, Shaka Zulu, and the War of the Triple Alliance in which 60% of the population country of Paraguay was killed. They are researchers now saying that the US Civil War's death toll was too low at 612,000 to 750,000 using census records.
Except for the African conflicts, the last fifty years of war was relatively tame in comparison to the first fifty and beyond.
this comes from the article that was posted:
Cook: Having worked through this material, I wonder, do you see current events differently now?
PINKER: Absolutely. The present looks less sinister, the past less innocent. The mind always focuses on current threats, and takes for granted the violent events that don?t happen but could easily have happened a few decades ago. A sniper in Norway kills dozens of innocent people?and the population does not riot or lynch the perpetrator and his extended family, but holds candlelight vigils. The Egyptian government falls?but the new one does not vow to push the Israelis into the sea. North Korea sinks a South Korean ship, killing 45 sailors?but instead of escalating to war, the Koreans go back to life as usual. Every day I notice the dogs that don?t bark.
Where's the good in that?
We could achieve the good qualities of 'Star Trek' without using Roddenberry's approach. Diversity, universal tolerance, poverty free society, etc... Humanity will just need to take a different path, which does not use legalism to establish everything.
I also think human biological evolution would also have to contribute to the process.
1. Federation Credits for trading with other societies that still use currency.
2. Having possessions doesn't negate what he said. Do his quarters have to be barren to avoid hypocrisy? Where do you draw the line? Chairs and a bed are possessions. Should he not have those in order for him to avoid contradiction? If you take this assumption to its extreme, it just seems silly to nitpick. He has things, but they don't define him and they don't define his life.
3. It was a hologram, an ephemeral thing that existed in a program. It wasn't the possession he reveled in, it was the experience. Besides, Tom Paris was a bit of an odd ball among his peers.
4. Worf isn't human, those things are a part of his culture.
5. Spock isn't human, same as above.
6. So people can't have hobbies without violating this ideal of non-materialism?
7. Really? So people can't have self-expression while adhering to this ideal? Is it not possible that she made those dresses herself? Also, Troi wasn't human.
8. Again, hobbies? Can't they have them?
9. Sisko's was Ben Sisko's restaurant. That much is true, but it wasn't a business. He did it because he liked making food for people. Nobody paid for it.
10. Yes, they did and I bet they made wine for the love of the craft and shared their hard work with others. What's wrong with having land if you're using it for the benefit of others as well as yourself? They have no need to exploit that land because there is no economy in which to leverage it.
I think people have a hard time accepting what economics are like in the Star Trek universe and look to assuage their dissonance by seeing hypocrisy in it. The philosophy of Star Trek is that people's lives are no longer centered around accumulating wealth and possessions, but it doesn't mean that people have disposed of the practice of possessions nor do they have to. They've eliminate scarcity, so nobody needs to covet possessions, they can have anything they could need or want instantly. When they no longer need nor want it, it can be reused as raw material for something else.
Having things isn't antithetical to a society that is non-materialistic. Non-materialism is just a philosophy about not feeling attached to things or having wealth accumulation as the driving force in your life. You need to separate the object from the desire to accumulate.
Another thing that I think people misunderstand about Trek is that Earth is not governed in the same manner as Star Fleet. The economy of Earth is that of a voluntary anarchy. That means that people only utilize authority when it is justifiable and necessary. Most of the time people just moderate their own behavior. Take the episode "The Neutral Zone" where those people were found in stasis. Ralph, the investor, used the comms to contact the Captain. Picard informed him that those comms were only for ship operations. Ralph asked why they don't just lock it. Picard replied that people have developed a better sensibility and learned to practice restraint.
Well, then I think you and I are essentially getting at the same idea with different words.
I think after a while, our sadistic leaders have figured out that it's easier and cheaper to lock everyone in cages and tell them that they're free rather than send troops halfway across the world to slaughter indiscriminately. They have robots to do that last bit for them now, anyhow.
My character Tsin'xing
It was made clear that Worf made his parents raise him by Klingon tradition, to the point where he even underwent the Rite of Ascension and his mother had to learn to cook Rokeg Blood Pie. Raised by humans, yes, but to a mainly Klingon standard, not a human one.
Spock was raised on Vulcan to Vulcan culture, which values art and cultural history.
Troi was raised on Betazed, to a hybrid of Betazoid and Human culture. Betazoids are an... eccentric race, if Troi's mother is anything to judge by.
Also, Picard valued his artefacts the same way we value photos of family. They hold sentimental value - a reminder of where he's been and the history of that place. Sentimentality is not the same as materialism.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
All the species in 'Star Trek' reflect different aspects and cultures of human society and condition.
Klingons = Russians
(Consequences of Communism & Cold War Anxieties)
Borg = Hitler & Starlin
(Consequences of Extreme Socialism & Collectivism)
Bajoran = Christian, Islam, and Jewish
(Pros and Cons of Religion)
Cardassian = Hitler & World War II
(Consequences of Religious & Societal Oppression)
Romulan = Romans & French
(Commentary about The Roman Republic & French Betrayal)
Vulcans = Buddhism
(Commentary about reaching enlightenment through balancing logic and emotion)
Orions = Gypsies
Jem'Hadar & Vorta = Clones
(Commentary on the consequences of cloning the perfect human soldier.)
Trills = Mankind's interest in Reincarnation and Immortality.
(Commentary on the consequences of living multiple lifetimes.)
Krenim = Mankind's struggle to cope with past mistakes.
Betazoid = Possible next step in human biological evolution.
(Pros and cons of behavior modification.)
Betazoid = Cold War Psychic Wars.
(Spying on the enemy and behavior modification.)
I am a little surprise people do not look beneath the surface.
...and, that is why 'Star Trek' is associated with 'the human condition'.
Its all about humanity.
My character Tsin'xing