Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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."
Because at that point it stopped trying to be real science fiction. It was just another franchise to be used for monetary gain by the rights-holders. So, out with any social commentary, no deep thinking -- this is Summer! It's time for an action flick -- in SPAAAAAAAACE!
Whatever the supposed ST politics / economics, it was a system that the Picards to keep a vast private family estate for hundreds of years. So there's no "money," but they have private property so, huh?
Roddenberry lived a lot like the Picard family IRL, so whatever his alleged socialist sympathies, he lived the free market.
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
Star Trek Politics were always heavy-handed, often nonsensical, and arguably became somewhat to the detriment of the story while Roddenberry was in charge.
So... politics then?
Nazi episode. Roman Empire episode. MAD episode. All in TOS. Also the Native American one, and the one with the American Flag for some reason.
And in TNG, the Nicotine one.
Sorry, but the show was full of cliches and banalities.
Don't forget, many early TNG episodes were originally either TOS episodes or Phase II episodes that were not produced in their intended shows and were adapted for TNG characters/setting, which mainly worked because early TNG was still in its infancy as far as developing that setting and those characters.
We see a lot more consistent politics in both later TNG and in later movies like Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, but the main characteristic that we see in all Star Trek is that the politics works well when the economy is approaching post-scarcity, where people don't have to worry about basic things like home, food, clothing, and transportation. Those things are either free-free or free to a mimimum standard. Education is also very important, nearly everyon from the Federation clearly has a full and thorough education, which stands out in all the more contrast to Tasha Yar's failed-colony home planet that's more like out of The Warriors, or on Bajoran colonies where people have been refugees for multiple generations.
What I take away from Star Trek is that in an economy where everyone is financially sound and is educated, people can choose to live in different ways from each other and so long as they're not victimizing each other, live-and-let-live applies. Picard's family is very traditional, but LaForge's family, both genders, all sought-out military service. Data's creator Dr. Soong was a madman and given how he seems to have galavanted around the galaxy, a bit of a huckster.
I wish more people would live-and-let-live today. So much culture seems to be based on denying others their own choices in how to live their lives when those choices are not victimizing anyone else.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
I especially liked the subtlety of such episodes as "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", on the surface a story about two aliens who differ only in which side of their face is black and which is white, but which is actually an allegory about racism and tribal hatred.
Don't be sorry. Star Trek is pretty shitty. It's not very fun, it's not very sci-fi, it's not very funny, and it's not very interesting.
what the hell is wrong with you?
how can you say that "Star Trek is not very sic-fi"?
Its had an immense role in what can be defined as sci-fi or not. even if i weren't a fan of TOS and TNG and even Voyager i would be able to plainly see that Star Trek was and incredible show. yes Shatner wasn't the greatest actor but give the rest of the show credit, they wouldn't have so many spin offs if they weren't successful.
Much of what people think of when they think about Star Trek's grand concepts of the Federation of Planets and many other things were ideas thought up by Gene Coon, not Roddenberry. Bob Justman also had a hand in those ideas, as did D.C. Fontana and many others tossing in various tidbits.
The book series "These are the voayges" go into extreme detail of who thought up what, which writers and directors invented things taken for canon and so on.
An awful lot of Trek lore taken for granted happened by accident or because Coon or Justman were trying to save money. There was no grand political scheme running behind the scenes. It was all about how to tell a story without having to actually show it. So they invented stuff that could be dialog.
The idea of having a "Starbase" came from the need to show planets per NBC but cheaply so it could be a redressed existing set, and then script mentions there's more than one base. Viola you've expanded the Star Trek universe without having to show it. Coon was a master of this stuff, dropping in mention of the Federation to explain away another loose end. He freaking invented it as a throwaway script change.
Fontana in turn made the characters who we know them to be and kept the thing going in the right direction. She was the bullshit detector and derailed a lot of crap that would have made the show into a joke. Roddenberry mostly sat around and screwed starlets and offered up lousy script rewrites.
The OTHER unsung hero of Star Trek is Lucille Ball, who went to bat for the show many times to keep it funded, until doing so help cost her ownership of the company. She gave her all for Star Trek, Nobody remembers it.
These Are The Voyages books are very highly recommended for anyone who wants to know what really happened and how, It is a lot like seeing how sausage or laws are made but it's important to see how hard these people worked and what they put into the show.
Sig for hire.
I always felt Star Trek politics were pretty cut and dried, as each race either directly represented a specific country or ideology Federation: Western world, especially the US, given the diversity of participants. Romulan Empire: Soviet Union, semi paranoid society, fairly closed, state security is fairly powerful and ever present (Tal Shiar = KGB). Mix of military power and secrecy to further their agenda (The plot line of supplying weapons to the Duras is straight out of the Soviet playbook of arming allies with Soviet weapons, AK-47's being the most common). Cardassian Empire: East Germany. Odo is quoted as saying "Not even the Tal Shiar can match the Obsidian Order" in the episode The Wire. Poor, even more paranoid, uses miltary expansion to acquire resources. Obsidian Order = Stasi Ferengi = Captialism/Wall St. where everything has a price. Tholians = Japanese. Exotic technology, very advanced, but xenophobic to the extreme. Borg = China. More intent on taking then innovating, seen as homogeneous mob. Suppresses dissent for the collective/society good. Dominion = Middle East. Average religious fanatic = Jem Hadar (believe in a god and is willing to die for them). Vorta = Mullahs (use the belief of the founders to enforce their will). Founders = Typical Middle East dictator/monarchy, who use religion purely as an excuse to maintain control, and don't care what so ever about their people and throw them away with little regard. Bajorans = Israel. Home occupied, people murdered, scattered to the wind. Rebuilds. Klingon Empire = Probably West Germany, due to overarching militarism, and pride. As seen in TNG, battleground for the ideologies of Romulans and the Federation, similar to the ideological battles in Germany, symbolized by the Berlin Wall. But really any place where there was combat over the ideolgies could represent here (Vietnam, Korea)
This article hits the nail on the head. In the 60s, there was culturally an understanding that there are some things that are right and wrong, moral and immoral. Slowly, this understanding was replaced by the notion that only tolerance matters, and the only evil is intolerance. This idea is embodied in the Prime Directive. It is fitting, reflecting our culture, that the Young Kirk movies lack any kind of notion of right and wrong OR tolerance, emphasizing only drama and special effects.
What Kirk objected to was a lack of liberty. His objection to Vaal and Landru was that they imposed themselves upon the people. The same for the plant spores. For that matter, that was his objection to the Klingons. I don't think he would object all that much to a society that voluntarily forswore technology and exploration (since apparently, the people were free to leave if they wanted) even if he might not understand it or want it for himself.
I don't see the problem with Shatner's Kirk. He swaggers, he's bold, he's good looking, he's smart. He found the right note for the character, and what more can anyone ask from an actor? In real life he's a bit of a bastard, but that's hardly a unique affliction in Hollywood.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I wish more people would live-and-let-live today. So much culture seems to be based on denying others their own choices in how to live their lives when those choices are not victimizing anyone else.
Well the problem is obviously religion. Notice that in Star Trek, there really isn't any, except when they visit some backwards planet and there's religious nuts terrorizing people somehow. Otherwise, what rational reason is there to deny other people their own choices in how to live their lives as long as they aren't victimizing anyone? It's simple: because religionists don't like it, and don't want their choices to become popular and spread. We see that today with all the anti-gay-marriage vitriol from the Christians. They just can't stand the idea that other people are marrying who they want, so they want to shut it down and take control of it. These very same people were against interracial marriages a generation or two ago, calling it an "abomination". You'd think it'd be simple: if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. But that's not good enough for these cuckoos, they want to make sure no one else has a marriage they disapprove of either.
At most, an author can raise some interesting questions, or show some possible outcomes, or otherwise promulgate a message. But whether anything functions, they're just making it up.
Well of course they are. It's a fictional TV show that lasts less than 50 minutes, and one of the big goals is to offer some social commentary, not to be a character study. I think it succeeds quite well in its goal.
But I've noticed something about the world today, in my observation, the ones who most strenuously protest that they are being denied their freedoms and choices are actually among those who wish to victimize others.
I feel like I'm being denied my freedom: my religion says that I should steal things whenever I feel like it, and these totally unjust anti-shoplifting laws are infringing that freedom. I'm being oppressed!!!
Did any of the Star Trek feature films convey a detailed picture of the politics of the Star Trek universe? I don't think so.
There is a simple solution to all the melodrama. Have someone fire her ass.... are alwaus calling for public servants to get fired, why not a deadbeat county clerk?
Sorry, but that's utterly impossible. Her job is an elected position; she can't be fired. She has to be impeached (or jailed for contempt, which is what happened). It's like trying to "fire" the President of the US, it can't be done.
Now why the clerk position is elected, I have absolutely no idea. It makes about as much sense as judge positions being elected.
However, there's nothing preventing this bimbo from either resigning, or allowing one of her staff to sign the things. But noooo, she refuses to do any of that, because she says she has to make a stand. She's just like the people back in the 60s who refused to allow interracial marriages.
A fundamental part of the USA symbolism. You have flags and songs and all sorts of symbols, to tell you that everything is true and right and you don't need to look at the man behind the curtain. Having the dog catcher and the sheriff and common clerks elected is how you know democracy is safe, and you can relax your guard and be a happy consumer.
Just religion? I'd say there are plenty of secular ideologies that fit too. Swapping out jesus or mohammed for marx or nietzsche isn't an improvement. It's a lateral shift. The problem is radical, dogmatic thinking mixed with authoritarianism. Reality doesn't matter to these people and they want the state to enforce their irrational views and behavioral expectations on everyone else.
Well as somebody who is very anti-communist and pro capitalist, I could see it star trek economics becoming reality without all of the problems inherent to communism. What any economic system sorts out is how you allocate resources to whom. Where communism ultimately fails is that it assumes that people will just always be willing to produce out of the goodness of their hearts for just any old need that somebody wants (which includes jobs that aren't fun and nobody wants to do them unless they're paid, such as being a garbage man or a janitor.)
In Star Trek economics however, there's two problems that are solved without even needing an economy: There are no scarce resources, and there's no need for somebody to be a producer. Why? Because you've got replicators to handle your everyday goods, holodecks to entertain you, and if you want a vacation to florida, either you can holodeck there or beam over there. And since everything is made out of deuterium, there's basically an infinite supply of everything.
We're already starting to see some of that happen. Namely, we're already starting to see "free" production in the form of robots taking over certain jobs. We're a long way off from a star trek economy because a few other things need to be solved (we don't have replicators yet, and not everything can be automatically created) but in terms of making everyday goods out of cheap materials, we're getting pretty close.
Luddites are usually fighting this tooth and nail, but if having a lot of wealth for free (keep in mind, wealth is not money, wealth is material goods) then it's definitely better to just let automation take over anyways.
The Federation is pretty much straight-up atheist organizationally, but does not seem to incorporate this into general policy nor push that on their members. Every series has reinforced this repeatedly. There are still many religions followed by various races both inside the Federation and other governments, Many Star Fleet members have religious or spiritual beliefs, yet the general idea seems to be "we don't know what happens after death so over-all we don't care". Their version of secular humanism still endorses the general idea of "law" and "don't do bad things" without the need for a constant threat from a supernatural entity to keep people from falling into barbarism.
The biggest reason for this, IMHO, is that their society isn't all crowded up and stuck into a confined space like we are. If you feel like leaving all civilization behind and forming your own colony based on whatever philosophy you can. We on Earth are slowly loosing our "freedoms" because there is a very limited supply of everything so it all must be managed. Fishing rights, mining rights, even water rights, are all policies due to scarcity. Star Trek doesn't have this, they are (at least in the core worlds) post-scarcity so there is little reason to fight over this or much else. If you disagree, there is an almost unlimited amount of worlds you can just pick up and go to and do your own thing. This goes back to Roddenberry's original "Wild West" idea; there is once again a vast unpopulated frontier to expand into.
They also don't have to keep "undesirables" in their society. If someone has personality quirks that makes them anti-social, then those people can be moved to somewhere else so not to be disruptive. On Earth we're forced to live next to people who break the law under the belief of their religious system and there isn't much anyone can do about it. If those people had a chance to go somewhere else they would; but there is no place to go.
Tell that to the maquis..
Your assumption seems to be that the fruits of automation, owned by the few, will somehow be shared by the many. Perhaps they will be, and we'll live in the Star Trek utopia. But I think more dystopian outcomes (extreme wealth inequality sustained through violent repression; revolution and war) to be more likely.
...and maybe holodecks, if you want to include more recent series?
I'm not a fan enough to know the theorized limitations of replicator technology, but the Wikipedia page makes it sound like the limitations were very few. If you own or even have access to a replicator it doesn't sound like many of your needs would be unmet by the replicator. You want a bone-in filet mignon for dinner? Push a button. A molecularly perfect rare wine? Push a button.
Those wants that wouldn't be met by the output of a replicator sound like they would be satisfied by the immersive, more-real-than-real experiences you could have in holodeck. I don't know what the limits of those are, either, but from what I remember on the show the nature of the holodeck seemed to be that you could have pretty much any experience you would want without any of the physical limitations of actual ownership or travel or even temporal limitations.
Outside of the psychology of possession of scarce goods as an end to itself, holodecks would seem to give the vast majority the experience of having them without the need to actually have them, which I think would be even better. Even wealthy people I've known who could satisfy a lot of their own personal wish lists say that the reality of ownership of many things detracts from the experience.
The idea of owning a luxury yacht is awesome, the reality is that they're machines floating in corrosive liquid and require lots of maintenance. Even if you don't do the work yourself, you still run into the nuisance of managing its maintenance and the kind of inherent limitations that come with it -- have to haul it out for weeks periodically for scraping and painting the hell, engines need overhaul, parts need replacing -- you own the thing, but can't use it because the physical world has limits like maintenance. A holodeck yacht would be like owning one without any of the minuses -- it would always be in perfect condition, it could appear anywhere you'd want to use it without the need to get it there, it would never have mechanical faults while you used it.
I would think holodecks would be pretty disruptive to the economy and probably social fabric. Why strive and work to own a Mercedes, take expensive trips, etc, when you can just have the holodeck experience. I think even VR when it becomes mass adopted will put a dent in things like travel. You could tour any museum in the world in your living room.
A fundamental part of the USA symbolism. You have flags and songs and all sorts of symbols, to tell you that everything is true and right and you don't need to look at the man behind the curtain.
Which country or society does not have symbols? Or songs? Flags have been around for ages, too. Sheesh. You want to paint 245 million+ adult people that live in the US as suck-ass consumers, without even pondering how many *want* to look at the "man behind the curtain" and who's guard is certainly not down. You've been watching too many Hollywood movies.
Who believes everything that a government does, being run by humans like us, is always "true and right?" Wherever you're from, I'm sure you can read your own history books and see that your ancestors likely acted in your collective best interest, but not necessarily that of your neighbors. Sorry to say, despite some fine accomplishments, the US's fuckups tend to have far-flung consequences, but I take exception when someone stereotypes such a diverse collection of people as moronic drones. Wouldn't you?
Anyway, I've never seen dog catcher on a ballot. It's an interesting idea though, which perhaps I'll bring up at a city council meeting or, better yet, create a petition on the white house's web site.
I don't know. If you can ignore laws because you believe that some group doesn't deserve the protection, then that means that robbery (the protection of people against it) can be ignored for, for example, bigoted religiotards who don't want gays having a wedding cake they make.
If you don't want to do the job of baking cakes, DON'T BECOME A BAKER. If you do, bake cakes. If someone asks you for a cake and some hot gay sex, say yes to the cake and feel absolutely free to say no to the buttock action.
If your religon is so strong that you CANNOT bake a cake that a gay person will be eating at their wedding, then please also obey that religion and refuse it for people who break the sabbath (saturday, not sunday), have divorced, masturbated, blasphemed, avoided taxes ("render unto caesar that which is due caesar"), eat shellfish, shaved a beard, seen a woman during her period (including himself if a customer is on her period), wearing cloths of two different fabrics, has a foreskin, and so on.
If you picked only gays, then how does anyone know that your problem is your religion (which we could say is protected), and not your bigotry (which is not)? If you aren't obeying all the rules of your religion, then the rules you are following are not being followed because of your religion. Those rules only happen to appear in the religion, but there is no evidence you are following them because of that religion. You'd have to follow all the other laws too.
Oh, and don't claim "New Testament!!!" because
a) No OT, no NT. No god, no creation of the world by god, no owed obeisance to god, no original sin, therefore no sin for JC to die for, therefore no need to worship him. No heaven in fact, since that was made in the OT.
b) Only Saint Paul was against gays. NOTHING in the teachings of JC was to repudiate and discriminate against them
c) JC said you should sell all your stuff and follow JC. Since you're not doing that either, you're not a christian.
d) also, if there's no god, no JC saving us, then there's no reason to hate gays anyway, since they were an issue for the OT god, and not NT JC, who has no debt owed to which we must observe his commandments for.
people up who disagree
Except that is not the case of "disagree" but of "let me hate and harass in peace" and "my imaginary friend gave me right to hatemonger".
And when one invokes "imaginary friend" rules... well, one sets oneself up for a LOT more than just bankruptcy.
Like being offered as a human sacrifice to someone else's imaginary friend.
And then we call that person who kidnaps people and cuts their hearts out as a sacrifice to the their imaginary friend not a premeditating murderer - but a MENTALLY INSANE person.
Adults with "imaginary friends" are mentally insane. Children too, probably.
So, that "people who disagree" is closer to "mentally insane people who just want to spread hatred and harassment towards people for whom their psychosis tells them that they are 'fair game'"
As for "harassing them into bankruptcy"...
Besides the fact that Melissa and Aaron's imaginary friend would dictate exactly that had they been running a bank and not a bakery - they were breaking a law. Deliberately and purposefully.
On account of "imaginary friend is our get out of jail free ticket".
Which if it were true would make 9/11 a perfectly fine way of expressing one's beliefs in imaginary creatures and rules.
But besides THAT... You are full of shit.
http://www.politico.com/story/...
They made out like gangbusters (more like just regular gangsters) from donations from people who apparently think that they, the people, should pay for products of other people's insane decisions.
From each according to their ability to give, for Melissa and Aaron according to their need to pay for their hate-license.
Because they, too share the same ideology of who to hate.
And they weren't nothing "into bankruptcy" - they chose to lock up their shop, rather than comply to "cakes - not hate" order.
http://aclu-co.org/court-cases...
The Commission's order affirmed previous determinations that Masterpieceâ(TM)s refusal to sell Mullins and Craig a wedding cake constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Colorado law. The Commission also ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to change its company policies, provide "comprehensive staff training" regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers.
Better donations than rejecting discrimination, no cake for those we hate!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
JJ Abrams was not hired for his cultural sensitivities. The producers selected Abrams because of the type of movies JJ Abrams directs. Either the producers were not aware of the cultural commentary Star Trek presents or wanted to ignore it. In either case it shows the current holders of the Star Trek production leash do not really have a concept of what the show embodied.
Hey, just because the fruits of automation have never been shared by the many doesn't mean it won't start spontaneously happening!
If you run a business that's open to the public (as opposed to a private-membership club), then you can't discriminate--it's the law. If you don't like that, you shouldn't be in business. It's no different than refusing to serve lunch to black people, or refusing to dispense live-saving medication to black people.
You were talking about *illegal* acts. Arson isn't illegal for religious reasons, it is because it is an act that harms and kills others.
It's irrelevant: the principle is exactly the same. Religionists want their religious principles to be encoded into law, even if they do harm others. Luckily western society tends to be more secular, but the government that, say, ISIS is setting up, is not like this. Christians here in America would like to have a government like that, where unbelievers are imprisoned or executed. Christians in the middle ages were exactly like this.
There was no holodeck on the original star trek. Vacations were rare for the main characters. Generally the whole ship took a vacation on vacation like planets. And there were many episodes that dealt with "money" and exploitation. Planets for mining like the one with the silicon based creature that was killing the miners, the one where there was a cloud society that was supported by the workers on the ground, Harvey Mudd and the tribles, which were sold for credits, and many more. Dilithium crystals in particular were very valuable and mined if I remember right.
Your assumption seems to be that the fruits of automation, owned by the few, will somehow be shared by the many. Perhaps they will be, and we'll live in the Star Trek utopia. But I think more dystopian outcomes (extreme wealth inequality sustained through violent repression; revolution and war) to be more likely.
Well picture this: Robots that can make *anything*, including other robots that can make anything.
All it would take is for one person who owns one of these robots to instruct it to make an extra robot for himself, and have the other robot continue producing new copies of itself that he just gives away for free.
I think the recent estimates say that habitable planets are quite plentiful. You are right that we have only found a few of them, but from the sensitivity of our search and the number we have found, we can estimate the total number, and it is very large, likely billions or tens of billions, maybe more. (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-many-habitable-planets-are-in-our-galaxy-5bcf6db80c7f) The difference between the real world and Star Trek is that they can travel to a large fraction of the galaxy in a lifetime while there are no stars except the sun within 10000 years of earth at current spacecraft speeds.
Oh, and don't claim "New Testament!!!" because
That whole "OT doesn't apply any more" crowd is so hypocritical.
If you say they shouldn't eat shellfish because it says so in Leviticus, they'll say that doesn't apply any more because it's in the OT.
If you say that you don't need to tithe, they'll pull out Leviticus and quote the verse.
If you say there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, they'll talk about Sodom and Gomorrah (in the OT).
Idiot. Spock was the sex symbol, not Kirk. Geek women like brains not brawn.
There's LOTS of liberal American Christians. They just don't make the same amount of noise as the right-wing religious nuts. You're falling for the availability heuristic.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes