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.
Yes, because slavery definitely doesn't exist in Star Trek...there's definitely no Orion Syndicate or Orion Slavers or slave girls.
Shit happens and it's usually caused by assholes
Why I thought it was because one was science fiction and the other was science fantasy.
Would have been more interesting to do a comparison between two science fiction universes.
Episodes of Star Trek were quite often, if not always, morality tales, and a relatively peaceful, morally advanced society provided a good backdrop for those tales. Star Wars was a tale of high adventure, and those sorts of stories are best served by heroes dealing with unseemly characters and places, by power-mad leaders, and by huge imbalances of power.
The writer(s) made it so.
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
or more simply 5) because the folk started with how the universes should look like, then applied their own preconception on what then should be the power, social, and military structure. After all this is not history but two made up stories.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The main difference is that star wars actually happened, while star trek is science fiction.
Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas have very different world views.
It's pretty simple, because they both came from the imagination of two different people.
Gene Roddenberry imagined what he thought was as close to the most perfect universe as could possibly exsist. In the case of TOS, he also tried to use fictional races and themes to make people think about how silly we are as a species too. Basically to make its viewers think about being better people.
George Lucas created a universe out of themes from various genres he probaby enjoyed as a child. He wanted to create a universe full of awe and spectacle. The story was the framework for presenting it. George was more artistic and wanted people to leave the theater thinking, "wow, that was cool".
There's nothing wrong with either, they are just different. And both franchise had their ups and downs. The current Star Trek movies have been more about being shiny than they were in the past. And I don't think I need to say much about the prequel Star Wars trilogy.
Because they are different STORIES written by different AUTHORS. Anyone who reads any more than that into them is either a little crazy, a humanities major, or both.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
Long before the phrases "political correctness" and "social justice warrior" existed, Gene Roddenberry created those exact concepts. The main characters of Star Trek reflect Roddenberry's idea of a perfect, politically correct world:
Sulu is the token Asian
Spock is the token alien
Uhura is a two-for-one deal, black and female
And Chekov, the token Russian, who constantly brags about the superiority of Russia, because the original series was written at the height of the U.S.-Russia cold war.
But then you have the other Trek series where suddenly everyone is grouped together in more stereotypcial ways. The Klingons are the violent, savage blacks. The Ferengi are the greedy Jews, The Bajorans are the religious extremists. The Cardassians are the Muslim terrorists. The Romulans are the Chinese -- a secretive dictatorship ruling over people who all look and dress the same.
One person's terrorists are another person's freedom fighters. Even George Washington et al were terrorists in their day. But because they fought on our side, and because they won, they are instead considered freedom fighters.
Star Wars is fantasy, with princesses and emperors and weapons mimicking swords. Star Trek is science fiction. That is the difference.
You might as well ask why the world of The Wizard of Oz turned out differently than the world of Joe Haldeman's Forever War.
You are welcome on my lawn.
But they are!
After they won. Until then, they were "rebels". Whether you're a rebel, terrorist or freedom fighter mainly depends on the outcome of the war, not so much on your actions.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, Democrats are more like the Jedi. Claiming that they have to impose their view of the world on everyone for "the greater good for everyone". Sith are more akin to Republicans. Might makes right, and if you want a share of the cake, all you have to do is have the power to get some.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
there is a very important distinction between a rebel and a terrorist to be made. George Washington et al never resorted to terrorising attacks on soft targets. Terrorists are more like ineffective rebels that then resort to horrible acts of violence on women and children because they
a) they are a bunch of faggots
b) they cant actually fight directly and win.
not an attempt at sci-fi.
i mean if you want to accuse star trek of being pulpy or unrealistic or whatever, all i can do in defense is shrug my shoulders, but star wars wasn't even remotely interested in the future of humanity. it just wants to tell a story about wizards and knights and royal family lineage ... in space.
i could live a little longer in this prison
Star Wars universe is dominated by religious belief and power, at least by those at the top. The Star Trek universe is diverse but most of our view is through the dominant power of the Federation, which is a pluralistic, tolerant, and non-secular.
This tells the story. The Federation is successful because it's guiding philosophy is humanism, not worship of Midi-chlorians.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
That's some nice 20/20 hindsight, but you're neglecting the impact of technology on warfare. When Washington fought, the terrorism that their technology supported was part of routine military operation - burning fields, looting, killing women and children indiscriminately, etc.
Remember: All we see are the myriad propaganda films that paint the Federation in the best possible light. We never see the vast slave gulags back in the Federation hinterland.
There are no such slave gulags because the Federation enjoys cheap energy. There is a sleazy underbelly, though, which we see bits of in the least-popular series, Enterprise.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
While the Utopian vision of Star Trek doesn't actually exist, there are many nations where people have good, stable lives, and where the government makes an attempt to do the best for the people. There are also places where tyrants reign, where bribes are normal, and the biggest bully wins. The difference is all in what lens you look through to see the world, and where you live.
Star Trek is a world of continual technological progress, whereas Star Wars is a world in technological and cultural decline.
Finding God in a Dog
You missed by a bit...
Obviously Roddenberry purposefully populated his cast with a multi-racial/ethnic cast, but there is much more complex thinking going on, mostly relating to the politics, issues and attitudes of the TOS era:
Sulu isn't a 'token Asian' he is not by coincidence, Japanese. Just 20 years after WW2 it was all much more fresh in peoples minds: Pearl Harbor, Rape of Nanking Internment of Japanese American Citizens etc. This is Roddenberry addressing all that head on.
Uhura isn't a token Black Female either, she is an Officer. Back in the early mid 60's these types of characters didn't exist. The country was having race riots, the cities were burning. Much worse than Baltimore or Fergison today. Add these facts with the fact that Roddenberry staged the first interracial kiss ever shown on TV, and it becomes more clear she isn't there as a token. You cheapen her accomplishment and influence by labeling it token before there were even tokens.
And yes Chekov is a nod to the cold war mindset. Just a couple years after the Cuban missile crisis where we REALLY did almost blow our selves up. The cold war was a real thing and on peoples minds. His presence on the bridge was a loud statement. Also Chekov is always wrong in his Russian superiority, but his character is saying: there is still Russia after the Soviet Union, in the unified post racial/nationalist earth of the future, don't worry, we wont shed our unique cultures/histories.
The Klingons are not the 'violent, savage blacks' they are actually rather articulate in TOS and represent the Russians. the Romulans were the Chinese (this is before Nixon went to China, it was a secretive closed society, nothing like now). Also its easy to forget that even though they were both communist party oligarchies they were also opposed to each other, just like the show.
What all this really was: a vehicle for discussing the tensions, issues, and politics of the day, some of which were too taboo to be straight forward about on the TV of the day. Which itself was a simplistic 42 minutes of a very repressed medium.
This isn't to say star trek TOS had no flaws, especially regarding women: no women Captains in TOS (except the aliens) Women's 'Uniforms' were really just miniskirts. etc.
Overall you missed the original intent of these characters and the real world that inspired them by a Kilometer.
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."
In the Federation, the inferior (non-Human) races do not for the most part enjoy all the technological advances Humans do; and are massively under-represented in the high-ranking positions in the military.
That's what happens when you're shooting a series with a limited SFX and makeup budget. ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
It's like dropping a couple of nuclear bombs on cities: it's okay if you're doing it to end the war and prevent a potentially much larger number of deaths. By blowing up Alderaan, the Empire hoped to end the bloody rebellion once and for all and thus save innumerable innocent lives that would've been lost if the rebellion were allowed to expand to an all-out galactic civil war.
This space intentionally left blank
Actually, that's not how a social justice warrior world would work.
They don't seek to make a "politically correct world", but a world where everyone is forced to be equal and repay for what your ethnical group did in the past etc etc etc, to not mention always defining people into "oppressors" and "oppressed".
It would be a insane world where people would be monitored 24/7 to stop any kind of oppression, and you would need to pray for your ethnical group to not be defined as "oppressors" that week, or well, its oven for you, even if you didn't actually did anything.
Why the difference?
Because they are two different works of fiction written by two different (groups of) people telling two completely different bunches of stories.
Why the hell would you expect them not to be different?
Next up: why are Canada and North Korea so different? Isn't that weird?
By the way it's "Star Wars", not "Stars Wars". Sheesh.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.