Slashdot Mirror
Why Did The Stars Wars and Star Trek Worlds Turn Out So Differently? (marginalrevolution.com)
HughPickens.com writes: In the Star Trek world there is virtual reality, personal replicators, powerful weapons, and, it seems, a very high standard of living for most of humanity, while in Star Wars there is widespread slavery, lots of people seem to live at subsistence, and eventually much of the galaxy falls under the Jedi Reign of Terror. Why the difference? Tyler Cowen writes about some of the factors differentiating the world of Star Wars from that of Star Trek: 1) The armed forces in Star Trek seem broadly representative of society. Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to the Imperial Storm troopers. 2) Captains Kirk and Picard do not descend into true power madness, unlike various Sith leaders and corrupted Jedi Knights. 3) In Star Trek, any starship can lay waste to a planet, whereas in Star Wars there is a single, centralized Death Star and no way to oppose it, implying stronger checks and balances in the world of Star Trek. 4) Star Trek embraces egalitarianism, namely that all humans consider themselves part of the same broader species. There is no special group comparable to the Jedi or the Sith, with special powers in their blood. 5) Star Trek replicators are sufficiently powerful it seems slavery is highly inefficient in that world.
There is no special group comparable to the Jedi or the Sith, with special powers in their blood.
What about the Q?
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
This. Also Star Trek artificially separates various human traits into separate species. Like the Ferengi all being the "greedy merchant" types. Bajorans are all super religious. The list goes on. I think Star Trek is also a way to show how Communism was supposed to work. I.e. that everything everyone needs is available anybody can do what they like and still we'd not all just sit around and do drugs because we're bored. It all works because theres the replicator and warp drives and such.
While I would love to live in that world I think Star wars is a much more realistic world where resources are scarce enough that people fight over them.
In Star Trek we see good government in the form of the Federation. Promotions are by merit. Large undertakings are done for the betterment of the entire Federation. But we never see how that is achieved. How is the leadership of the Federation selected? How incentives in place to prevent corruption, to prevent factionalism, to prevent special interests from gaining too much power? Why doesn't a Ferengi of questionable character ever become the leader and make himself a dictator? Roddenberry just wished those problems away! We see from most Star Fleet officers a certain desire to serve and to better themselves (there is the famous episode where Picard claims that people are no longer motivated by money). If that isn't limited to Star Fleet, then how are people's human instincts suppressed? Is it indoctrination when they're children? Drugs? Medical procedures? Again Roddenberry just wishes for it and it's there! Of course as a work of fiction, that's what we expect. Faster than light travel? Maybe some future technology will make it possible. A large happy prosperous communist society? Maybe some future technology will make it work. We suspend our disbelief so we can enjoy the story. That's why it's called 'fiction'.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Star Trek if you notices they are not concerned about power in the ability to do work. Transporters and their replicator brethren make it practical to produce nearly anything at will coupled with abundant energy. If you notice the big driving issue for strife is expansion space for people to spread out.
Star Wars is a much more populated place with scarce resources.
No sir I dont like it.
Funny, but also pertinent -- perspective matters. While in a horrible disciplinary/authoritarian environment and despite being assholes, the empire's soldiers were well fed, well equipped, and probably had holodecks, where conditions were depicted somewhat worse on rogue Klingon vessels opposed to the federation, or on prison planets in ST. Just, less time was spent in those settings in ST. Not to say that the OP does not have a point nonetheless, but life could quite possibly have been more horrible for the larger population in ST because the larger population would have been civilizations that were pre-lightspeed and thus each suffering from their own private wars and atrocity, or not in federation space where some other large interstellar power was enslaving them.
Someone had to do it.
Given the fallout from all our meddling in other countries' affairs (particularly the middle east), the prime directive is looking better and better every day.
The same reasoning was given for the prime directives several times in TNG -- the federation encountered several another species that weren't technologically as advanced, they interfered, and everyone was the worse for it.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."