The Politics of Star Trek

smitty_one_each writes: Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer at the Pacific Legal Foundation has written a breezy overview of the politics of the little-known show Star Trek. His thesis: "...the key to Star Trek's longevity and cultural penetration was its seriousness of purpose, originally inspired by creator Gene Roddenberry's science fiction vision. Modeled on Gulliver's Travels, the series was meant as an opportunity for social commentary, and it succeeded ingeniously, with episodes scripted by some of the era's finest science fiction writers. Yet the development of Star Trek's moral and political tone over 50 years also traces the strange decline of American liberalism since the Kennedy era." The article traces through episodes at each phase of the franchise, exploring literary allusions and lamenting that "Star Trek's latest iterations — the 'reboot' films directed by J.J. Abrams — shrug at the franchise's former philosophical depth."

Comments

Not many morals in the federation really

[sectokia]

I have always thought that the federation was a communist society. We are told that they don't need money. But the two fundamental rules of economics are:
1. We are in a universe of scarcity
2. People have ever increasing unlimited desires and wants

In the federation, we are told that everyone gets what they need, yet we constantly see scarcity everywhere. There is scarcity of engergy, transporter credits and limitations. There is an almost endless list of things people can gain credits and perks for. Then there is the huge amount of laws and regulations. Even trading and using something as money is illegal.

The federation has never been liberal, it has always been communist. It has just been hidden behind a higher level of technology.

Re:Not many morals in the federation really

[circletimessquare]

i never understood this braindead attitude where the only systems in the world are social darwinistic capitalism, and communism

nothing in between

when of course there are thousands of systems in between. in fact the richest and happiest countries in the world, the nordic countries, pretty well balance social safety nets and capitalism. that's actually the ideal society

but if you view everything as capitalism and communism, nothing else, your ideology and philosophy is childish and facile. you haven't given an intellectually honest thought to the subject matter you inject your uneducated opinion into. you're a propaganda victim

this not a baseless insult

you present it as binary: capitalism or communism. when it obviously isn't binary. there are thousands of shades in between, in fact, the best system most definitely is not pure capitalism. objectively, as a function of the most successful societies today, and their economic and political systems

furthermore, the economic, political, social, and cultural systems of the federation are categorically, factually, not communist. define communism. then define the federation. and they do not match, they are far apart

but because it is not pure capitalism, you have to call it communism. because those are the only two extremes you understand. you're a simpleton, an ignorant on the topic

Devil in the Dark

[mtrachtenberg]

The Gene L. Coon episode The Devil in the Dark, in which a bunch of miners have come under attack by a strange stone-like creature, made an indelible impression on me, certainly more than any bit of religious scripture I've encountered. The lessons in that magnificent episode included the need to understand the other, the danger of assuming you are in the right, the dangers of an ill-educated mob, and the power of fear. I wish W and President Cheney had been forced to watch it before they were unleashed on the world.