StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So recently I was reading through the Philosophy of Star Trek entry on the SD website, and I found myself agreeing to it (despite the fact that the op seemed to be a diehard creationist, something Mr. Wong addressed himself). However, on the topic of "technological determinism" (incidentally written by Wong himself) as described in the article I want to pose a few questions.

Let me preface by saying that I agree almost totally with all of Wong's points on this, and think his site has generally helped greatly in terms of debating and evidence gathering. This post is asking, however, for a closer examination of a certain point raised, and one which I think warrants an examination since I believe people who don't like or interact with ST might believe in it in some form or other.

On his definition of the term, quoted from the article:

Technology can solve all of the problems of mankind, including the problems that stem from human nature such as war, hatred, greed, etc.

Technology should not be questioned. Eventually, it will solve all of its own side effects.

The writer goes on to list down how ST mangles these ideas. However, one point I want to ask about is this-- on the supposed "emasculation of mankind". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the writer seems to equate "peacefulness" with being "emasculated" and thus somehow "lesser". The idea of how "technology could have downsides that need to be examined" also seems to be less based in an actual examination of the tech (the ST "transporter" being an exception, considering the amount of evidence the writer produces) and more on how the author thinks tech must always have a major downside, with no exceptions (again, please correct me if I am stating this wrong). Now, I realize that many of the lessons implicitly taught, when applied to our current society, would undoubtedly be bad attitudes, but would it not be possible that, in the future, the base attitudes might change? Or is pessimism and defeatism considered a virtue?

To reiterate, I do not think ST has succeeded in portraying any of this well and I agree the writer is correct, especially when he states that ST's claims that it is good in the face of all its mistakes, incompetence, and general stupidity and ignorance is offensive and bad. However, I would like to pose the following thought experiment, which tries to address both of the main points made on "technological determinism": say the technology/procedures/whatever have been developed that allows us that allow us to both modify people's personalities as well as their bodies to eliminate negative aspects while retaining the beneficial ones, as well as possibly improving them. This can be done with no side effects. Would you consider the societal use of these technologies to improve mankind generally good or bad?

Ultimately it's a critique of early TNG and the Roddenberry philosophy. While I think we're all older and hopefully wiser now, early TNG had such things as Riker - advertised as the action-guy officer - questioning whether the only defensive agency the Federation possesses - regardless of it being a non-military entity - needs to do such a thing as a readiness drill.

The site is very adversarial toward Star Trek generally and in a way that's not dated super well, but in this respect it's not an unfair criticism of at least some Star Trek content.

As to engagement with whether material needs drive criminality, or rather to what extent, Scott Whitmore's (I wonder if he's still here?) comment in the essay is extremely childish.

A century ago, some believed that if everyone was guaranteed food, shelter and clothing, society's ills would go away. They were wrong. Today, we've actually realized that dream. Any welfare bum in my country can get food, shelter and clothing (and more) provided for free by the government.

I'd love to know what country he lives in, his social background, and his experience of welfare at the time. He certainly seems to possess an animus toward welfare claimants. I suspect at the same time he would have also cited the broken windows theory of policing, while simultaneously saying that the replicator can't cut large amounts of crime; he's also ignoring that Star Trek also posits social aspects to achieving the UFP's standard of living - therapist is such a high status job that Troi gets a seat on the bridge. The show certainly thinks therapy works.

Also:
Welcome to the site, I've moved this to the Star Trek subforum too.

Yeah, I don't disagree that the points raised aren't correct especially as they pertain to ST (what with the copious amounts of evidence), I just feel they might slightly be on the pessimistic side.

I think Wong's technical evaluations are correct and I like them; in fact I think the site as a whole is one of the most objective in terms of debating I have found (and maybe would benefit from possible rebranding but take that with a grain of salt).

Fwiw, I'm a guy who has no real attachment or like for either SW and ST (especially not today, what with the rampant "Disneyification" in the form of, say, SW Rebels or ST's attempts to be "relevant" via things like Lower Decks and Picard), but who simply likes to use them as possible sources of themes and inspiration.



Mr. Whitmore seems to be a diehard creationist/conservative (tbh I'm a bit surprised most of his little essay even got on the site) which probably plays into his apparent hatred and overly simplistic evaluation of the welfare system.

This sort of randomly occurred to me, but in many ways the philosophical problems of TNG era Trek really are just Fukuyama's end of history argument in a slightly different form. In both cases, the dominant military and cultural power was victorious without serious competitors, and it led them to believe that they had fundamentally figured out all of the problems of the universe. This didn't last in the face of an actual geopolitical competitor and other deeper problems that they hadn't fully addressed.

The point in the main arguments against ST seems to be that it intrinsically is not only not "perfect" (and tbh this as an actual description would be not a little arrogant or preening), but is actually DEEPLY flawed.

On a side note, one thing I dislike about ST on its own merits so to speak are how there is way too much overdeveloped faux futuristic tech that is either impractical, not explored, actively dangerous to use or any combination of the above. Also the extreme mysticism is something I especially hate.

The thing about Greed is that there is a practical point of human satiation. Imagine if you lived in a house that's a cubic kilometre with 250 storeys and millions of rooms with a workforce of spiders keeping it in operation all by your own. Forget making the bed, you could sleep every night in a new room for your entire life. Beyond that, most people would find living alone in such a edifice to be unpleasant. A slice of Pizza can be tasty, a full Pizza may by a skilled chef is better but you won't get more enjoyment out of a dozen Gold Plated Pizzas in a single meal. On many items, there is diminishing returns on investment how much enjoyment you get out of more stuff.

The issue is that some people get in a loop about making money and accumulating power (largely the same thing) while others like to flaunt their wealth over others, often using dumb shit like Gold Plated food.

To bring up a historic example: it used to be that every little fiddly bit of ornamentation had to be painstakingly made by hand so these bits of ornamentation were signs of wealth (see Versailles). Then came mechanized means of production in the 19th century. What took a skilled craftsman working for days could now be done in hours. So you got ornament overload. In the latter half of the 19th century, you saw push-back against this which eventually lead to Modernism, in which you don't convey privilege and wealth by having a table with a bunch of sculpted angle babies, ferny bits, gold trim and paws for feet.

Zor

Yeah I've been going over some ideas for "post scarcity" themes and related themes and it seems to me that things like "diminishing returns on greed" and "human satiation" might be relevant to that, just maybe. Government and cultural values might also play a role.

Another thing I just realized: Star Trek is actually bafflingly bleak when it comes to "contemporary society". Earth suffered through something like two nuclear wars and their accompanying apocalypses and had to basically be ""uplifted"" by the Vulcans. Hardly an "optimistic tale".

Composeure wrote: ↑2023-03-20 09:22am Another thing I just realized: Star Trek is actually bafflingly bleak when it comes to "contemporary society". Earth suffered through something like two nuclear wars and their accompanying apocalypses and had to basically be ""uplifted"" by the Vulcans. Hardly an "optimistic tale".

That's because the first Star Trek was during a period where Nuclear War seemed very likely, as did alot of other sci-fi cliche's, with the idea that Star Trek is what people got for going through it.

It wasn't until the 7th Star Trek franchise movie, they introduced the idea of Vulcan First Contacted US (prior to that, it was believed to have happened after Humanity left the solar system, there is text in the novelization of 'a Voyager home' to support that).

Realistically, at this point, the Star Trek timeline needs some 'retroactively applied date updates'. i.e Move everything 100 years further down history or something.

Composeure wrote: ↑2023-03-20 09:22am Another thing I just realized: Star Trek is actually bafflingly bleak when it comes to "contemporary society". Earth suffered through something like two nuclear wars and their accompanying apocalypses and had to basically be ""uplifted"" by the Vulcans. Hardly an "optimistic tale".

It was an optimistic take for the era that TOS came out in, in which the fear of nuclear war was extremely common. In hindsight it does seem odd that so many people generally preferred the idea that we could rise up in the aftermath more than the idea that it would never happen. On some level it must have felt inevitable.

Solauren wrote: ↑2023-03-20 11:19am Realistically, at this point, the Star Trek timeline needs some 'retroactively applied date updates'. i.e Move everything 100 years further down history or something.

Or we could just accept that it is retrofuturism almost like steampunk(or what cyberpunk has morphed into). Ghost in the Shell takes place in this decade and Blade Runner was four years ago.

Solauren wrote: ↑2023-03-20 11:19am Realistically, at this point, the Star Trek timeline needs some 'retroactively applied date updates'. i.e Move everything 100 years further down history or something.

They've already retconned the Eugenics Wars in Strange New World and Picard to be a part of the 21st Century WWIII rather than it's own thing in the 1990s. (To whit Pike says it started as (american) second civil war and was termed the eugenics war and then WWIII later)

Well the point still stands that this "optimistic take" presents an incredibly un-optimistic view on certain things, like literally all contemporary society (although since ST has become a sinecure rather than anything else I don't see much incentive for it to change).

I still dislike the "eugenics war" nonsense.

Yeah ""retrofuturism"" is honestly a topic of its own at this point.

Adam Reynolds wrote: ↑2023-03-20 02:23pm

Solauren wrote: ↑2023-03-20 11:19am Realistically, at this point, the Star Trek timeline needs some 'retroactively applied date updates'. i.e Move everything 100 years further down history or something.

Or we could just accept that it is retrofuturism almost like steampunk(or what cyberpunk has morphed into). Ghost in the Shell takes place in this decade and Blade Runner was four years ago.

Star Trek is far larger and more active and expanding franchise, with alot of lore, while Ghost in the Shell and Blade Runner are much smaller in comparison.