Star Trek and the Zietgiest Movement

[Josh F]

There is this great Next Gen episode of Star Trek where the crew discovers a lost human colony.  To remain in perfect balance with the limited resources available to them, they used computers to keep everything and everyone in balance for a century.  The people were cloned and programmed to perform specific jobs.  They are genetically perfect, as well. However, their sun is about to explode or something like that...and long story short the technology to save them comes from technology derrived by Geordi's eye visor thing.  The point being that their programmed perfection was unadaptable to any unplanned circumstance.  Anyhow.... just trekking out.

[ThomasDoubts]

     The first things that came to mind as I read that were the concepts of the Black Swan and Fragility. (N.Taleb) The whole idea of a society in perfect equilibrium is flawed for the very reason you point out; it's not adaptable owing the precision with which it must be tuned, the lack erronious experimentation that provides new information/innovation, and the systemic risk inherent in a system universally governed by the same rules.

 

 

 

     Of course the irony of it being that a peaceful society's fatal flaw will always be the use of force. Should we become a peaceful planet, a potentially catostrophic and systemic risk would always be the uncompromising, genocidal alien invaders, which a violent society would be perhaps better adapted to overcome. It's interesting to consider that from such a perspective, the value of a peaceful society might be quite different. ie: Peaceful with a 85% chance of extinction vs. violent with a 55% chance of extinction... I suppose the decision criterion (foreseeing such an event) comes down to what one considers the purpose of humanity; to survive at any and all costs, or something more.  In all likelyhood, the probability of extinction would be more like 99.5% and 99.3%, respectively; or .5% and 3% respectively.  Or we might just teleport to another planet.  It's an interesting thought experiment, nonetheless.  

[Zimobog]

I loved Star Trek when I was a kid. One thing I realize now is that it is (aside from a being a fun tv show) a preachy platform for soft-serve socialist Hollywood values.

 

There is only one resource known that isn't "limited" at all: desire. One of the basis that Trek operates under is that replicator tech has made all human desire obsolete. If you want something, the replicator just builds it for you out of waste or carbon or whatever. This supposedly removes all desire from society by instantly providing all material goods one might want so that everyone acts for immaterial motiviations like pride, personal drive/ambition, ability, wanting to help others, etc.

 

They have no "need" for money, food, shelter or anything else because all is provided by advanced tech. The show and it's writers try to then present alternate motivations for explaining why humans might go to space since trade is obsolete. Exploration and basic curiosity are supposed to explain it all.

 

They are always zipping around outer space like they are the UN and delivering pious moralisms to far more advanced races.

 

Every now and then a libertarian line or to slips out on TV, but for the most part Trek embodies capitalist societies like the Ferangi who run around the quadrant rubbing their hands together and who hail from a polluted planet where women are oppressed.

[Mister Mister]

  I'm always very skeptical of the genocidal alien invader myth.  It seems to me, given the premise that force and the need to dominate, and feed off of others is self-destructive, it is not possible for a psychopathic species to become interstellar.  We see how dysfunctional and self-defeating maintaining an Empire even on a small planet is; its hard to imagine that an interplanetary or especially interstellar civilization would be based off the principle of domination and destruction.   The successful elements in Nature are those that give life to everything around them, the tree, the mycelium, even the Sun.  Whereas parasitic species always kill their host and don't evolve past annoying little bugs.  A people that can liberate themselves from terrestrial existence would first need to conquer themselves and their delusions.  If you could harness the power of Light and Space and Time, what could you possibly want from people on Earth?

[Josh F]

I loved Star Trek when I was a kid. One thing I realize now is that it is (aside from a being a fun tv show) a preachy platform for soft-serve socialist Hollywood values.

 

There is only one resource known that isn't "limited" at all: desire. One of the basis that Trek operates under is that replicator tech has made all human desire obsolete. If you want something, the replicator just builds it for you out of waste or carbon or whatever. This supposedly removes all desire from society by instantly providing all material goods one might want so that everyone acts for immaterial motiviations like pride, personal drive/ambition, ability, wanting to help others, etc.

 

They have no "need" for money, food, shelter or anything else because all is provided by advanced tech. The show and it's writers try to then present alternate motivations for explaining why humans might go to space since trade is obsolete. Exploration and basic curiosity are supposed to explain it all.

 

They are always zipping around outer space like they are the UN and delivering pious moralisms to far more advanced races.

 

Every now and then a libertarian line or to slips out on TV, but for the most part Trek embodies capitalist societies like the Ferangi who run around the quadrant rubbing their hands together and who hail from a polluted planet where women are oppressed.

The original series and next gen were clearly the brainchild of a staunch atheist and the later series were riddled with appeals to faith and other corny concepts.  Though the model is clearly statist, I think it holds up a great mirror to our illusions and the reality.  Just imagine Obama being as politically deft as Jean Luc Piccard, its fantasy!

 

Also, as for economics, in a world where the technology is advanced enough, access to interstellar resources might be near infinite, and the capacity to rearrange atoms... since the foundation of econmics is that all things are scarce, having a society without money makes sense if that problem is solved.  For example, in general, we don't pay for oxygen because it is nearly infinite. 

 

Though I will agree with the portrayal of the Ferengi.  It seems almost like Nazi propganda against the Jews.  The evil money lovers with the ugly faces and crooked backs schemes and taking advantage of people's good nature.

[Zimobog]

I'm always very skeptical of the genocidal alien invader myth.  It seems to me, given the premise that force and the need to dominate, and feed off of others is self-destructive, it is not possible for a psychopathic species to become interstellar.  We see how dysfunctional and self-defeating maintaining an Empire even on a small planet is; its hard to imagine that an interplanetary or especially interstellar civilization would be based off the principle of domination and destruction.   The successful elements in Nature are those that give life to everything around them, the tree, the mycelium, even the Sun.  Whereas parasitic species always kill their host and don't evolve past annoying little bugs.  A people that can liberate themselves from terrestrial existence would first need to conquer themselves and their delusions.  If you could harness the power of Light and Space and Time, what could you possibly want from people on Earth?

 I've wondered if humanity widely managed to stop supporting slaughter of one another if the statists would then build massive arsenals in the name of facing the "terror from space" that had never been seen or heard. Or if the statist regimes would blame violent acts of terror, even internal power struggles, on these unseen aliens. 

The original series and next gen were clearly the brainchild of a staunch atheist and the later series were riddled with appeals to faith and other corny concepts.  Though the model is clearly statist, I think it holds up a great mirror to our illusions and the reality.  Just imagine Obama being as politically deft as Jean Luc Piccard, its fantasy! Also, as for economics, in a world where the technology is advanced enough, access to interstellar resources might be near infinite, and the capacity to rearrange atoms... since the foundation of econmics is that all things are scarce, having a society without money makes sense if that problem is solved.  For example, in general, we don't pay for oxygen because it is nearly infinite.  Though I will agree with the portrayal of the Ferengi.  It seems almost like Nazi propganda against the Jews.  The evil money lovers with the ugly faces and crooked backs schemes and taking advantage of people's good nature.

I'd call it more deist than atheist due to that "Great Bird of the Galaxy" stuff where all life was "seeded" by some Trek deity who then flew off and didn't interfere. But I can see why you'd say that with all those gods that turned out to be aliens or computers and stuff. However, there is that OS episode "Bread and Circuses" where all the slaves are "Sun" worshippers to which Uhura informs the bridge crew that it is the "Son".Even if technology advanced to the point portrayed in Trek, there would still be economics. Oxygen is free on Earth, but if we lived on Luna like in a Hienlin classic, oxygen might be transported and purchased at great cost. Even with all their tech, the Trek crew would have been bound by economic concerns if the show had been not been written by socialists. They were always zipping around looking for dilithium to power their ships (which was pretty scarce), latnum was prized and scarce, people bought drinks, grain, tribbles, etc... All that tech did was allow the plots to express highly collectivist values without explaining how all that other stuff happened.My point is that the writers often wished to express a vision of an "evolved" humanity and Earth: one that had evolved into a socialist dream without a need for money or goods where everyone is a happy drone who does their job for the good of everyone else. Everyone works together under the one big blue flag of a statist unified government. Even the "Prime Directive" is pretty odd- the idea that we would want to contact aliens without exchanging ideas and goods/tech and just hide in the bushes and watch. Trek does have the scope due to it's longevity as a series to examine some cool concepts though, like crime and punishment, cloning, and many others.I think that NASA is a done deal. The real push into space for humans will come from a desire to find resources and develop profitable inventions.

[ThomasDoubts]

  I'm always very skeptical of the genocidal alien invader myth.  It seems to me, given the premise that force and the need to dominate, and feed off of others is self-destructive, it is not possible for a psychopathic species to become interstellar.  We see how dysfunctional and self-defeating maintaining an Empire even on a small planet is; its hard to imagine that an interplanetary or especially interstellar civilization would be based off the principle of domination and destruction.   The successful elements in Nature are those that give life to everything around them, the tree, the mycelium, even the Sun.  Whereas parasitic species always kill their host and don't evolve past annoying little bugs.  A people that can liberate themselves from terrestrial existence would first need to conquer themselves and their delusions.  If you could harness the power of Light and Space and Time, what could you possibly want from people on Earth?

 

 

     Maintaining an empire is one thing.  Building an empire is quite another.  I can't think of anything infinitely maintained. You may be right but there is very little I would presume about an interstellar species.  My point isn't that such a scenario is likely; rather to acknowledge a fatal flaw that could in theory be exploited.  Also, such a species mustn't be based on domination and destruction.  It would simply require a species willing to employ such tactics, if only out of survival instinct.

 

 

     I operate under the assumption that anything is possible, until proven otherwise.  Of course this requires me to double check each morning that I'm still bound by the laws of gravity, and so far they've held up, but I can't promise you that I won't be wrong tomorrow. 

[Josh F]

   I'd call it more deist than atheist due to that "Great Bird of the Galaxy" stuff where all life was "seeded" by some Trek deity who then flew off and didn't interfere. But I can see why you'd say that with all those gods that turned out to be aliens or computers and stuff. However, there is that OS episode "Bread and Circuses" where all the slaves are "Sun" worshippers to which Uhura informs the bridge crew that it is the "Son".Even if technology advanced to the point portrayed in Trek, there would still be economics. Oxygen is free on Earth, but if we lived on Luna like in a Hienlin classic, oxygen might be transported and purchased at great cost. Even with all their tech, the Trek crew would have been bound by economic concerns if the show had been not been written by socialists. They were always zipping around looking for dilithium to power their ships (which was pretty scarce), latnum was prized and scarce, people bought drinks, grain, tribbles, etc... All that tech did was allow the plots to express highly collectivist values without explaining how all that other stuff happened.My point is that the writers often wished to express a vision of an "evolved" humanity and Earth: one that had evolved into a socialist dream without a need for money or goods where everyone is a happy drone who does their job for the good of everyone else. Everyone works together under the one big blue flag of a statist unified government. Even the "Prime Directive" is pretty odd- the idea that we would want to contact aliens without exchanging ideas and goods/tech and just hide in the bushes and watch.Trek does have the scope due to it's longevity as a series to examine some cool concepts though, like crime and punishment, cloning, and many others.I think that NASA is a done deal. The real push into space for humans will come from a desire to find resources and develop profitable inventions.

For sure there are a lof easy to draw parrallels with socialism.  I'm not sure what diety you're talking about.  In one trek episode they explore the idea of panspermia where they discover the original species that spawned the others.  There is the movie where Kirk has to fight god.  There is the Q character, too, who despite being god like is never considered a god by the crew.  You got the episode where Jean Luc has to explain to a group of tribal people he isn't a god.Now, there is this horrible Voyager episode where they talk about the God molecule or something and 7 of 9 like worships it like a diety, stupid as shit.  They even ruined the hive mind with the queen thing. 

 

The lore is that there was a WWIII where people were slaughtered and gassed and blown up, but the technology that comes from it was the warp drive, which inspires alien contact... and the volcans i guess help us become peaceful using logic, like Stefan Molyneux!

=D

Interstellar Molnyneuxs

[Alan C.]

Some socialists may view Star Trek as the end product of socialism given the apparent absence of a 'capitalist vs. worker' arrangement, a lack of material needs, free health care and education, and no visible medium of exchange. However, Star Trek is complete fiction, just like the socialist paradise.

 

Consider Rothbard's 'parable of the ham sandwich' and then contemplate a 'parable of the starship.'

 

Star Trek isn't going to happen while we lack market prices and free exchange.

[Josh F]

Some socialists may view Star Trek as the end product of socialism given the apparent absence of a 'capitalist vs. worker' arrangement, a lack of material needs, free health care and education, and no visible medium of exchange. However, Star Trek is complete fiction, just like the socialist paradise.

 

Consider Rothbard's 'parable of the ham sandwich' and then contemplate a 'parable of the starship.'

 

Star Trek isn't going to happen while we lack market prices and free exchange.

I agree, if I were in charge of the new franchise I would be promoting the economic superiority of the Capitalist Ferrangi to the antiquated Star Fleet haha