Is Humanity Good? - The Philosophy of Star Trek #1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 чер 2024
- Head to squarespace.com/rowanjcoleman to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code: rowanjcoleman
The Star Trek Mythos is famous for its optimistic vision of the future. Whereas other works of science fiction show us marching towards a haunting dystopia or retaining many of our present problems for centuries to come, Star Trek stands out as a work of science fiction which definitively states: The future will be better and brighter than the present we live in and the human race will move beyond prejudice, poverty and war. However when we pose the question: Is humanity good? Or to be more specific, do people naturally default to their good side rather than their bad side, it’s interesting to note that Star Trek - despite its optimism - actually says the answer is, no.
Patreon: / rowanjcoleman
Discord: / discord
Special thanks to all Patrons and Members!
00:00 Squarespace Ad
00:49 Intro
01:30 Part 1 We're Not Going to Kill Today
13:25 Starfleet is Kinda Racist
20:11 Part 2 What a Piece of Work is Man
24:17 Klingons
27:01 Ferengi
28:01 Cardassians and Bajorans
31:56 Conclusion
32:46 Outro
#startrek #philosophyofstartrek #rowanjcoleman - Фільми й анімація
HELP THE CHANNEL GROW: www.patreon.com/rowanjcoleman
Also that Trekspertise video: ua-cam.com/video/17knGMdX4cU/v-deo.htmlsi=SAmzlbsWo2ly91FG
P.S. I've seen some fascinating responses in the comments and I'm encouraged to see so much nuanced discussion in response to this video. However, I feel I should clarify something: At no point did I discount individual responsibility as a factor in improving the world. I simply said that the sentiment "be better" doesn't go far enough. Recognising when an act is morally wrong is only the start of a solution, not the entirety of one.
You said at the beginning that all the aliens represented different aspects of humanity. But then halfway through, you switched to saying the aliens were making a biological statment about the aliens being inferior to humans. You did not apply the logic of your own arguments. The aliens are there to represent different aspects of human nature, they are not meant to be literally considered from a biological determinist point of view.
Star Trek absolutely does not make the argument that people behave in-line with their race because of their blood. The shows are littered with examples of people (Worf’s son Alexander) who stand out because their values are in-line with their culture and social environment, not blood….
I would disagree that Star Trek says we are all monsters who must be controlled through Order. That the supreme virtue as Wellington put it, since a man may love his neighbor on a Sunday and murder him on a Monday if society is not there to keep him in line. No it says we have and always will have darkness in us. That humans are capable of infinite potential, be for Good or Evil. It doesn't say we are all bad people who must be controlled. It says we have in us the weakness of giving in to our worst aspects. But also the strength to over that them and grow to be a better people. TOS did take this as an individual struggle as much as societal one, as the saying goes, it all starts with one man saying No.
Slight missed opportunity to show the klingon lawyer from Enterprise mourning how the powers that be are changing his society to be more violent. That episode always struck me as a powerfully sad one, and even more so now.
My father was a lawyer and my mother a botanist, from memory.
It might have been strong, but Archer did go for a second swig.
i thought the same! One of my fav ENT episodes.
IIRC there's a Klingon scientist in series 4 with a similar lament. The idea that the Klingons are as they are because of a corrupted culture is a wonderful piece of writing.
The Klingon Lawyer was such an amazing one off character. He deserved to be a recurring character.
Also, one of the reason they originally used 'Stardates' was so that Roddenberry wasn't originally forced to define at EXACTLY what point in the future the show took place! He didn't want to place it at a specific future date.
and then they had the eugenics wars specifically in the 1990s lmao
@@Alexus1138 I doubt he thought anyone would remember the show much past the 1960s.
@@AlanDavidDoanehe wasn't very bothered about having a consistent lore or canon. He didn't expect fans to be. He very much did think it'd still be a big deal though.
The advantage to not answering how society works in Star Trek is that it leaves it up to the audience to imagine how it would work. And that's central to the point made previously about how complex issues are mostly presented in stories dealing with individuals - by dealing with these issues at the individual's level, we're then truly engaging with them by imagining how we could solve them. Solving these complex issues always starts with the step of first improving ourselves, yet nobody can answer the question "How do I (genuinely) improve myself" except you.
You should have ended with Spock, after behaving human, when Kirk and McCoy accuse him of appearing more human every day, Spock bolts stating: "I refuse to stand here and be insulted!"
Human beings could use more emotional control and logical thinking. But the Vulcan way is shown to be wrong, alien and second best. It's like humans have done well enough so they don't believe they can learn from aliens.
Imagine every single person in the world having as much money as they want, as much free education and medical care and no downward pressure...right now we can't go anywhere, we are trapped on this world, imagine all of those advantages growing up and then being able to do anything you want with your life.
I think that's your answer right there.
I honestly don't think you fully grasp what a person can do in Star Trek. The answer is yes, the doors are all open. You can do anything you want as long as you work hard and help those around you; we step forward together.
I would be a degenerate in the holo decks.
“NCC” stands for “Naval Commissioning Contract”. That has been common knowledge for DECADES
I saw somebody point out once that the thematic differences between Star Trek and Babylon 5 can be gleaned to some degree from humanity's first contact in each setting. In Star Trek, as you said, it was the Vulcans--while in Babylon 5, it was the Centauri, and you can see where the state of humanity in both series logically follows off of that civilization's model.
One thing that the ST depicts is that the "optimistic" future is only achieved after a lot of (future) misery. According to Trek "history", we have the Eugenics Wars, World War III and the Post- Atomic horror to look forward to (I believe those are all separate events, though I could be wrong, and at least one has supposedly already happened). While the Promised Land is attainable, it's only through some pretty nasty struggle (at least according to Gene).
That's something I hardly see brought up in discussions about Trek's utopia, thank you for commenting this!
Trek is canonically a post-apocalypse, with most humans having died in the eugenics wars and the nuclear WWIII, way before warp technology was invented.
A friend of mine put it as the humans in Trek being good, because most a-holes were killed alongside the grand majority of Earth's population centuries earlier.
Yes. The essay's focus on the help humanity gets from the Vulcans leaves out that this is only after the existing global human social system on Earth has been destroyed in WW3. I don't see much mention of what global system exists in Star Trek: First Contact. But from the looks of things (how people are living in, I think, 2063), there does not appear to be anything left of the global system of separate nation-states.
@@sprites4ever482Most humans didn't die in either EW or WWIII. The numbers we're given on those are suprisingly small. Biggest I could find was somewhere around 600 million dead. An enormous amount no doubt about it, but still kinda small considering there being BILLIONS of humans.
@@RabbitShirak That's a lot (almost 20%) for 1968 with 3.4 billion people. But in some ways saying more wars to come means human beings are currently too tribal and unwilling to cooperate for a better future.
@@RabbitShirakcuriously, when spock lists the numbers of people who died in the world wars, the ones he gives for WW1 and WW2 are *far* lower than the actual ones. 3% of humanity died in WW2. Make of that what you will.
I wrote a paper on the ethics of Star Trek in 11th grade so many years ago - then I went on to study (and graduate in) philosophy - not least from the inspiration Star Trek gave me to value thinking and talking about such topics as "what defines life ,or sentience?", "how do we assign moral status and by what criteria?", and especially the consistent self-critical questioning of our epistemic position, and the ethical implications.
A vast amount of episodes, among them truly amazing ones like "Devil In The Dark" or "Measure of a Man" have the central message that we have a duty to question our preconceptions and extend our definitions of life or sentience to recognize our moral duties and the moral status of others.
The central message of Star Trek has always been an egalitarian one, valuing self-determination, openness, empathy, cooperation and rationality - and a repudiation of all forms of tribalism.
We do a great disservice to this when we fail to recognize that other civilizations in Trek are meant as a reflection on common aspects of the human condition, and very often on the attributes and cultural norms that have kept humanity back. That's always been a huge part of sci-fi stories - and it's sad that the universalist ethical message is apparently lost on or devalued by quite a few people who would rather regress into the tribalism of thinking about ethics mostly in terms of collective identities.
“In loneliness, the lonely one eats himself; in a crowd, the many eat him. Now choose.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Subscribing to collective identities at least means you don't have to dine alone, even if you're on the menu.
But its hip to define yourself by your colour lately
@@Bow-to-the-absurd: is that really what is happening or isn't it that people have become more aware of their identity through viewing race/skin colour in a historical and societal context?
@DumblyDorr: I think both of you are right. What is sometimes forgotten, is that we need some normative structure and oppositions in order to advance the stories or bring central aspects across. Star Trek did that very simplistic in the beginning but their writers captured that ambiguity. Just see the characters of Picard and Sisco as an example. They knew that humanity has flaws and showed us continously that the federation has its dark sides and failings
Enchanted with the idea you actually wrote a paper in the 11th grade about Star Trek. I pretty much hid my obsession with the show when it was originally on, because girls weren't supposed to love Science Fiction .. So I silently watched and never admitted I loved the show until someone said something and I realized there might be other silent fans.
Star Trek was always very philosophical.
Not having a collective identity, tribalism - having a group, organization, community, family, society - is a lonely way to live. Terribly lonely. I am not sure it is regression to want to belong somewhere and to others. It might be a weakness. I am not even sure its humanly possibly NOT to want to belong somewhere. When we don't we have an emptiness.
We human beings need a sense of belonging, learning how to live without it is a challenge. It is exile within your own skull.
a personal thing I'd like to include is no matter how progressive most of Trek is, it is almost impossible to divorce it from it's innate American-ness. I find it hard to put into words exactly, but the "my way or the highway" approach is employed all too often. As always, seconding your call for ds9 being the best Trek (and I love them all!)😎
Its also helpful to remember that "American-ness" isnt unique to America...its simply the a byproduct of being powerful enough to say "my way or the highway". Its been done throughout history, and on the whole, the US is much more egalitarian about it than the other societies that have been able to do it. Of course, its not as good as Starfleet in this, but its the constant forward movement of humanity that ST likes to highlight.
@@briannevs3422 there is something more to that "americaness" that i meant, just not quite using the most succint language to express it.
@@ohdarahdefinately get this, ones worth being valued by their job / hard work is definately an americanism
Lofton's performance of the given script in 9:18 is perfection.
I really don't see how the way forward becomes clearer by rejecting one extremist view of human nature and embracing another; By rejecting "original sin" and embracing innate goodness. The reality surely lies somewhere in between and as your video clearly demonstrates, over the decades the writers within the franchises have flirted with both ideas extensively.
Speaking as someone who leans toward collectivism in principle, our own histories beg caution: When we all agree to work together, what have we done to those who refuse to accept that? What happens to those idealistic systems we put in place collectively?
The scum seems to rise to the top one way or another, and until we can find an answer to this the way forward will remain murky - and the science fiction of Star Trek will firmly remain fantastical.
In many ways, Star Trek reflects many qualities of Gene Roddenberry and generation that went through WWII. Many of them, including Gene lived in their little corner of a state within the USA before 1942. They lived in a world that was recovering from the Great Depression, a period of hardship for many.
Then with the war, many moved and worked in a world that includes long periods of living outside the U.S. or in other locations they had never visited before. Most were in a military organization of some kind. Then the war ended with the atomic bomb. Then there were more wars including the Cold War which everyone thought would go nuclear at any time. There was also a economic boom in the U.S. as well as the economy switched from war production to domestic production and the Marshall Plan.
So, TOS is very much in that vein: military organization but not really just a war organization, exotic and different people that you should learn to understand, a struggle to better yourself, and a hard fought for utopia.
So, all the following series are built on that world for better or worst.
DS9 really is the best, and that becomes clearer each year. They did an excellent job of confronting the optimism and idealism of Star Trek without condemning it. The Dominion War is Star Trek's best overarching storyline because it forced Sisko and the Federation to put their idealism to the ultimate test. They were less afraid of the pragmatic truths than previous Star Trek series, but without getting cynical about it.
The Ferengi were also allowed to change, even on a social level
@@richardarriaga6271'Brunt. F... C...A.
That's what keeps Star Trek Star Trek. DS9 did the "grimdark" without ever dismissing the optimistic base that makes up the setting. And that's the trouble for much (not all of KurtzTrek). Obsessed with the darkness, but dismissing the optimism at the base.
100%
It’s the only serried I haven’t watched… I really should give it another go. Everyone loves it.
I really like your essays Rowan, though I often find myself disagreeing with them :) On the matter of ST species and humanity's racism... I don’t think it is that, though I don’t blame anyone for seeing it that way. ST species are a lot of things, many contradictory things in different episodes. In the past, especially in the Cold War era, they sometimes became metaphors for real world nations, and it is certainly true that in episodes touching upon racism, alien species are used a actual different species. However, I posit to you that, generally, they are not that. As you noted, central to Star Trek is the idea of humanity and its struggles with itself. The relations with those other species are also highlighting that, because those species … represent those facets of humanity that we have left behind. When Star Trek, or Starfleet, criticizes the Ferengi culture, it is not criticizing another species/civilization/culture. It is critiquing our modern world take on capitalism and greed. It has nothing to do with racial relations. Because Ferengi are not real - in the sense that in those instances Star Trek is not interested in hard science fiction speculation on how another civilization might work, it used these aliens as a lens it puts to contemporary humanity, in the same way medieval fabled about animals were not about animals at all but human character traits, for example.
Again, some episodes do deal with racial relations. Some episodes do deal with the idea of an alternative evolutionary/civilizational path for an alien species, sometimes more evolved than us (looking at you, higher beings made of pure energy episodes…), but most of the time, these are allegories to our own foibles. A way to both showcase the perfect society of the future, but also issues that are contemporary to our present society.
At its worst, a ST alien race is an easy shorthand for a group/ideology/etc (Kazon, Ferengi)...at its best, it isnt (Cardassian/Bajoran). Thats what good writing does.
Spot on.
i think the takeway in the video is that In Universe, they are kinda racists to other species but i think its just a writing trick to elicit the response you mentioned, holding up a weird mirror so people can sort of relate to it without taking offense directly
There was an episode of DS9 I forget the name of the episode, but there was a conversation between the one of the old Klingons Kor, Kang or one of the legacy characters from TOS I think and Sisko I think. where The Kling reveals that Humanity and the Klingons conflict made each other stronger and brought out the best in each other , I really appreciated that Diaglog and I found it refreshing because finally modern trek finally acknowledged that suppressing or removing ones negative traits can do more harm than good or has unintended consequences... does anyone remember the episode I'm referring to or did I just remember it wrong ? blame it on the Mandela Effect lol
I don't know enough about the Klingon history. But I could imagine them going from a crooked military dictatorship to learning about honor and adopting that "alien" concept. Also, did they explain the looks of Klingons from the original series to the movies? Perhaps those going to space deliberately changed their appearance to look more like humans and humanoids on other planets, then a "Klingon is beautiful" movement reversed that?
@@sandal_thong8631
From what I remember, Worf in DS9 sort of addressed the Klingon physical difference to TOS by saying "Yes, they ARE Klingons, but we don't like to talk about it".
The eventual reason is revealed in ST Enterprise.
If I remember correctly, the Klingons are dying from some kind of disease.
Dr. Phlox finds a cure through a genetically engineered retrovirus that inserts a fragment of human DNA.
This saves the species, but causes them to have a more human appearance for a number of generations, before their natural appearance begins to reassert itself.
Sorry to say I don't remember that episode but it very much sounds like the Shadow philosophy in Babylon 5.
I have always thought that at the end of the day Star Trek is firmly about the human conditions. There are no aliens in Star Trek, aliens are there to amplify certain aspects of human nature and I think that is how the best Star Trek episodes are written.
Warp drive is such a benchmark because it opens a civilization to other interstellar races. At that point, contact with other aliens is pretty much guaranteed. And we see how Starfleet can make contact with pre-warp aliens that have already made contact with warp capable aliens.
The Inca Empire was also heavy into human sacrifice, something that other civilizations either did not go into or 'phased out'. The Incas also aren't with us anymore. So maybe the wheel is not a benchmark - but there are benchmarks that weigh on whether a civilizations moves to the next complexity level or winds down towards extinction.
Only Starfleet avoid pre-warp civilzations, so I disagree that warp opens your civilzation up to other alien ones.
@@kfcroc18 it's less that other civilizations avoid pre-warp civilizations and more that once you're traveling faster than light and bouncing between stars, you're gonna inevitably run into other folks out there.
Other folks are physically capable of coming to fiddle with your homeworld before that point, but it's not an inevitability.
@@bearlytamedmodels One could argue that the benchmark should be radio, sencs if your cicilzation has that you most likly will be broadcasting your locaion to everyone in space.
@@kfcroc18Except there are episodes in TOS where the Federation does interact with prewarp civilizations and doesn't hide who they are -- the Capellans, for example, who seem to have a tribal, pre-industrial society yet the Federation is negotiating with them for their dilithium crystals or the Halkans, for the same reason.
Nice essay! Some very good points about ST I hadn’t really considered. ST is proceeding really from a very postwar Western conception of history and ethics of course…. Have you read The Dawn of Everything (Graeber and Wengrow)? This fascinating book really ties into the themes of the video.
Felt the same, thanks for the book recommend.
I have that book on my tbr. I really liked this video, therefore i think i'm gonna read Dawn soon!
Graeber! Wow, thanks for the book rec. What wonderful idealists we Trekkies can be! What if we work together to create the more beautiful world that our hearts know is possible?
Trek writers can't explain how a utopia works in detail for the same reason that they can't explain how a warp drive works in detail.
The Trek vision isn't (as claimed here) that 'somehow Humans got better'. Rather, Trek skips to the point where humans are better and doesn't fill in the gaps because it has no idea how. If you know how to write stories about how humans overcame war, poverty or racism then you'd frankly be wasting your talents writing for a tv show.
That's it exactly. Well said.
Except that practicing what you presch and having a vision and the discipline to achieve it may be the method. If so? Then Star Trek showed the method which seems invisible to you, very clearly.
@@davidsmith5523 Lots of groups throughout history have had a vision and discipline to achieve it. Communism had high ideals and lots of determination to create a better world.
@Its__Good But communism has always had the major barrier of being surrounded by detractors. So, even if it was a better way, it could not flourish. The other aspect of Roddenberry philosophy is unity. After the earth found it was no longer alone in the universe. Society came together in a unified world view. So much needless planetary conflict ended. Strengthening the commitment to the cultural change we see in Star Trek. Embedding it and reinforcing it.
On thing I’ll say re: Jake and the Bajoran religion.
Unlike every religion currently on earth, the Bajorans have artifacts with supernatural powers that can be seen by anyone. Their gods are not only visible, but can talk and affect time and space in verifiable ways.
I get that his line was meant to be interpreted as how a 20th century atheist might describe human religions, but they did Jake dirty by making him dismiss perhaps the most real and powerful “gods” portrayed in Star Trek.
Edit: While speaking to his own father, basically the figurehead of said religion.
I don't think Jake was trying to dismiss the existence or the god tier power of the Prophets, rather he was being reductionist as to their worthiness of having a religion built around them. Star Trek regularly shows encounters with what are functionally all powerful beings that fit the descriptions of deities. Their existence is never denied, rather the instinct to worship them and construct an institutional religion around them is usually called into question.
I always thought that the idea of spirituality was way more understandable in a world like Star Trek's where stuff we would attribute to the supernatural today are commonplace occurrences (Teleportation, time travel, EVERYTHING about the Q, etc.)
DS9 also doesn't shy away from the negative aspects of religion which helps the viewer get the full picture and decide for themselves how they feel, which I appreciated.
Our economic theories don't really make sense in a society with effectively infinite energy, the ability to produce anything out of atoms in the ether, and where any fantasy can be lived out with perfect immersion.
Hell, the most illogical thing in all of Star Trek might be the fact that Ben Sisko's dad owns and operates a restaurant
No, it speaks to innate human needs...things that we will never outgrow. Mr Sisko finds enjoyment in providing food/entertainment/conversation with people, and so he does this with people who find enjoyment in receiving these things. If humans were simply zero-sum, then no restaurants would exist. But as humans, we require more...one of the things that separates humans from the animals is this. Stimulus/response is no longer good enough for us. This is shown by good things such as art and bad things such as depression.
Sentience is both a blessing and a curse, and brings up things that we will never outgrow.
Humanity is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. We are simply human. When we act in a benevolent and life affirming way, we generally call that good, but when we behave in a selfish and violent nature, that is considered bad. But some people simply don’t care. And sometimes bad behavior is justified (such as fighting against the Nazis in WW2, because pacifism would have been worse in that context) and sometimes good behavior can be unjustified.
The business of being human is really really complicated, after all.
The original Trek never said Earth was a utopia, simply that it’s much better than the present. In much the same way that the mid-1960s were much much better than 1660s. Sure, someone from the 17th century may perceive it as a utopia, but people from the 1960s know better. And people from the 17th century would figure it out eventually after they’d been here for a while: not utopia, but way better than where I’m from.
TNG hit on the idea of Utopia and the ‘perfectability’ of Humanity. This is largely based on the post-scarcity economy. Perhaps I’ve just read too much Dostoyevsky, but that never really sat right with me. Marx hypothesized that the cause of most human suffering and misery was a poor distribution of resources, and I don’t think that’s wrong. A starving man will break a lot of rules to avoid starving. A starving dad will do far worse to keep his kids fed. But I never accepted the idea that if everyone had enough we would all simply stop being shitty to each other. And indeed there are many many many examples of people who have more than they can ever use, and have never experienced privation, just being dicks to each other for no good reason.
Because, again, the business of being human is really complicated.
See, humans evolved from hierarchical predatory pack hunters (and gatherers, but let’s not understate the predation aspect) and we lived like that for about 300,000 years. That’s our natural environment. That’s what we evolved for, and it still governs our psychology, our emotions, our competetiveness, our general outlook. We’ve only been ‘civilized’ for 10,000 years at the outside (i’m being very liberal with that number, it’s far less in much of the world) and our psyches simply haven’t caught up with our new lifestyles.
So, yes, absolutely, enough of everyone for everyone would certainly solve a lot of problems, no question, and I’m all for it. But I don’t for a moment believe it would change our fundamental nature, or make us ‘good.’ Trek’s outlook in this subject in the 1960s seems more reasonable to me - better, but not perfect. From TNG on, however, the utopian aspect of Trek has seemed didactic (and hats off to DS9 for addressing it on occasion) and almost a religious conviction rather than a coherent feasible goal.
Great episode. Well done. Thank you!
The problem with labelling thing like religion as some kind of naturalistic fallacy is that humans create religions over and over again.
There are similar arguments over what people call politics (which is just the world for 'how we organise a give society')
In fact the concept that 'humans are good/evil [delete as appropriate]' is one of the greatest fallacies. There are clearly people predisposed to do things we consider 'good' in the worst of circumstance, while others will end up doing 'bad' things regardless of how nice their life is.
That's not to mention our growing understanding of the evolutionary drivers behind some pretty antisocial actions
13:24 - I've always thought of people developing warp as the instigation point for first contact being that now the other warp-capzble species now knowing that they'll actually have to deal with this set of newcomers, so they'd make sure the newcomers don't mess thing up too badly. What we hear is what Starfleet says are their reasons, not what may be at the root of it all. If you're going to share space with somebody, it's a good idea they use training wheels so they don't get one or theboth of you killed.
I think in TNG they met a culture about to develop warp technology and had a meet-and-greet that didn't go well, so the society decided not to continue with warp experiments to postpone more alien contact. Perhaps an episode shown in these clips?
kinda a metaphor for having an atomic bomb. everyone starts accepting you... with side eye.
You are consistently putting out amazing insightful work - keep kicking ass!
I loved the video and you're bringing up a lot of what I have observed out of humanity. We are creatures molded by our environments and if we do not choose our own path, one will be made for us whether if we are willing or not. And more often than not, it is not in the interests of the many.
Great video as always sir
What an absolutely brilliant video!
Nice, thanks for this
This was a fantastic video, congrats!
Good food for thought, Rowan. The thing about Star Trek (from TOS to Enterprise) is that we view that universe through the lens of a quasi-militaristic organization and governments. The Starfleet chain of command/code of ethics is the expectation. The main characters we follow are for the most part heroes by design. Just about anything outside of that context will appear less than ideal, because there has to be conflict. So, we generally see the sides of other races that make for good story. Sometimes, we do see flawed and inimical humans in Starfleet. As melodrama/morality play, it is what it is.
What I've always appreciated about Star Trek is how it has inspired me to think as well as feel - whether I've agreed with the story's POV or not.
That's my two cents.
By far my biggest issue with Star Trek, has been the conceits it makes regarding how humanity, on Earth, achieves its "paradise." I hate the idea we had to hit rock bottom, and have the space patriarch (Vulcans) come and Shepard us to our greater selves. It is of course a natural writing method to wash over the details that are legitimately difficult to answer. But, after so many years and so many stories, the dissonance becomes too great. It is why I am so disappointed with the new Trek. For, not taking the opportunity to address this more directly. Very good video, thank. you for taking on the topic. I will have to check out the trekspertise video, as well.
The Federation MUST have an economy or else it wouldn't be able to function a galactic level. I think it is materialism and finance that have been made irrelevant, however the Federation's assets will have values and although there may not be a standardised currency, between the different nations of the alpha/beta quadrant, there is money so the Federation would have some kind of equivalent, but it would be so different to the 21st century perspective that it would seem like there is no money.
Also, because people do not understand that Starfleet is only the Federation's military as well as exploratory force, what Starfleet says is not necessarily the same as Federation policy, so Captain Picard saying this ship cost nothing for Starfleet build does not take into account the overall Federation resource cost etc. It would be like the US military saying this fighter jet cost nothing to us, but maybe it cos the US government which the army is under a lot more to build.
The real issue is that the Trekiverse wants to have its cake and eat it too. Fine, so no one wants to accumulate material possessions and replicators serve all basic needs and the energy for the replicators is abundant in a true post scarcity society . . . and yet time and again we're shown people owning private property and producing scarcity freely of their own will.
Picard's brother runs a farm and makes wine, which makes his wine unique and thus scarce. Sisko's dad runs a restaurant and provides food for a limited number of patrons at a time. Kirk and pretty much every captain ends up with a room full of collectible souvenirs from their journeys and they all become famous captains holding onto more than a few objects which are all one of a kind. In multiple instances a unique holoprogram is written and made popular, which on Voyager becomes especially a form of scarcity due to rationed time on the holodeck.
The fundamental problem is that they constantly *say* that these humans are evolved past these needs, and yet they keep accidentally adding in character beats that indicate that actually, no, people are still pretty much people who naturally want to own property, naturally want to provide unique services, naturally want to collect or create individual objects d'art, in other words, do all things that naturally create scarcity. If for no other reason than that they can't eliminate the fundamental scarcity in life, the scarcity of time each person has to live and experience life itself.
It's a conundrum because if humanity really did evolve past materialism, you'd expect people to basically act, well, not human in some pretty fundamental ways. But most of the writers can't really imagine that very well, and just as importantly, know well enough that to watch humans acting non human would probably be really boring and kill anything interesting about them (this was of course, a big issue in TNG's initial seasons when the writers struggled to keep to Roddenberry's utopian character bible).
Great video Rowan
Good job Rowan! I agree with the "Racist" tag. Even when I was young, I noticed this in TOS. There is a human-centric nature to every story. As I have aged, I understand that some of this is inherent to entertainment and some story writing. What I mean is that you have to put your main characters at the center of the important things in your story, so of course, "the Enterprise is the only ship within range" or "Q's fascination with humanity runs through Picard." Along those lines, everything in the Star Trek universe runs through humanity. It is very egocentric and elevates - as you point out so well -humanity above all others, even if the other life forms have been using warp drive for centuries before Earthlings.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. From TNG on, I’ve seen Trek as this uncomfortable version of “the white man’s burden” with humanity as a whole as “the white man”. Show up, show the locals how they’re doing it wrong and should conform to your own values, and then move on to civilize some more savages. Aliens among the crew are largely tokens. Worf, despite all his “i’m a warrior’ bravado, was brought up on earth, and represents a ‘tame’ klingon which mostly upholds human values. Troi is basically an empathic human. Guinan has lived among humans for centuries, and it’s never clear what her deal is, so: effectively human. But Ro turns up with her belief in the prophets and her religious earring and is immediately slapped down for it because religion isn’t something the federation finds valuable, and regardless of what they say about universal acceptance and tolerance and infinite diversity, Federation Standard Morality is *always* American. They’ll tolerate a hint of exoticism, but nothing that might be called ‘ethnic’ among their aliens
@@mahatmarandy5977 But good Star Trek (DS9 and not Voyager) brings up the counterarguments to that morality. Even Voyager at times (who's WMB is encapsulated by Janeway) falters at time in the greatness of "The White Way". Voyager was largely comfort food...but it rarely (a great example of this is the best Voyager episode "Year of Hell") brought the greatness of the Federation into question. Often, its those that are being dissenters who are being the most patriotic.
I guess im saying watch more DS9 ;p
@@briannevs3422 I cannot make a argument against that war in favor of it. You have more knowledge than I do all I can say, is that when you’re trying to determine the primary message or ethics of a piece of literature, or storytelling, or whatever, the dominant strain is the one you need to pay more attention to than the outliers. So if 98% of the episodes of the TV show tell you one thing, and 2% tell you something else, and there is no particular cohesion between most of that outlying 2%, then the core of the message is whatever that 98% says it is.
Like Princetons to use a neutral example, There are 110 episodes of Babylon 5, and one of those episodes is weirdly, dedicated to the notion that the only true form of justice for muggers and other people who physically assault folks is to beat the living hell out of them and humiliate them in front of their victims. This is completely inconsistent with the rest of the series, and is never referred to again afterwards. It’s an outlier that somehow slipped through the cracks and made its way on air.
So did the other shows question the white men’s burden enough for it to be a significant concept that is revisited in significant ways, or is it just an outlier? I do not know. As I said, you have a much greater knowledge of these things than I do. And I don’t think Star Trek was ever trying to be malevolent, I just think the bulk of the early part of the franchise contains some very occidental biases that no one really noticed at the time, but which are very apparent now
another insightful and great video
I've been waiting for more videos like this since the initial Insurrection essay!
Great insightful essay, much appreciated 👍🏾
This was a fantastic video and thank you for releasing it on my birthday.
Happy birthday! I hope you have a great day! 🎉
Happy birthday!
Fantastic commentary!
Excellent video essay!
This video realy made me re think alot of things
Greatest content. Ever.
In Jared Diamond's "The World Until Yesterday," a thought-provoking argument is presented: the traumas stemming from war in modern societies might be a result of 18 years spent learning that war and killing are inherently bad. Diamond contrasts this with traditional societies, where such moral instructions are absent, yet individuals do not experience similar traumas. This book challenges the notion of inherent goodness/savageness and questions the impact of societal teachings. I recommend it.
Jared Diamond was a pop-sci fraud.
That's one of the reasons I always liked DEEP SPACE NINE, as it looked at and interrogated what The Federation was, when taken away from its Paradise Homeworlds. People like Benjamin Sisko, well capable of violence, when necessary, do not choose it for the most part. Even his punching Q was as much as a strategic as an impulsive act.
Good god I could listen to you talk about Star Trek all day
Who decides who owns what land is owned by who on Earth. Why does Picard have the right to his chateau?
I don't know about humanity being good or not, but they taste alright.
What struck me in this essay is the notion we became who we are because of social traits. Not competition or aggression. Supported further by the description of the unwillingness to kill. I guess I have to rethink my life.
This is such a gem 😢 thank you so much for this take and your careful insights
I have a theory that most of the people writing truly great genre television _now_ were inspired by Star Trek: Deep Space Nine back _then._
I always viewed The Q as a representation of what The Federation would be like if they *really* started to think they were superior to every civilization they came across, acting as a warning to the viewer not be this way by putting the main characters on the receiving end of the condescension and seeing how *they* would like it, to show *exactly* what's wrong with allowing yourself to form a superiority/savior complex.
You also need to remember that Gene Roddenberry (original writer) wanted it so star fleet never had arguments between staff much to the ire of the writers. Once he was removed, we were finally able to see how humans in the future would really act like.
Great video. I felt that Trek acknowledges our worst side, that we can overcome it. How is never said. Because if we could answer that than it would solve most of society's problems. One of society's biggest problems is a lack of resources, or the unfair distribution of those resources. I do think that with replicator technology we can transform ourselves into a partial utopia. Suddenly all of humanity can have food, water, shelter, and entertainment. Land might be the last thing you could acquire to feed greed, but when there's a million worlds just like Earth you can visit than even that fades away.
Add in the Holodeck, and all my needs are met. Humanity might doom itself to extinction because why settle for the girl next door, when I can have a harem of beautiful girls. But I think that may get old and the desire for something real that doesn't conform to every whim would be start to be more enticing.
Star Trek's TNG characters will arrogantly say they're more evolved us but that may simply due to their technology and how society has changed because of that technology. They're no more evolved than you or I.
However, every technology has its downsides. Cars are great but they destroy the environment. Social media brings us together and can make us crazier and more extreme. Warp drive is great but every week our heroes run into something that can kill them.
Nearly unlimited energy needed to generate this Utopia allows for nearly unlimited destruction. I cannot believe with billions of lives, and some of the conflict we see in the series that at least one person wouldn't blow up governments, the Federation headquarters or even the entire human population. There will always be crazy, and technology is a double edged sword.
But ifnoring that, in a place where all your needs for food, water, shelter, healthcare, entertainment and even sexual needs are met all without having to work, then really.... What is there to be angry about? Not much, but there's things beyond that that can drive us to murder.
One is tribalism. And religion and politics often are the biggest causes. How many have died in the name.of God? Your religion may be 100% factual and perfect but it's run by people. People are imperfect. Every religion will be fundamentally flawed. Religion has turned some people into extremists and even murders. Same with politics. Both often use.fear to manipulate people. And it works extremely well.
And the other big one is the need for respect which can be thought of as social credit. How many have died because someone felt disrespected? And this is just an unfortunate side effect of our brains. People being people.
Utopias cannot.exist in real life nor in syndicated television. It gets canceled due to boredom. But mostly Utopian worlds are interesting. The flaws and the struggles is what gives us endless discussions. I'd love to live in a Star Trek world but it's fiction and will stay that way. But the goal of a Utopia should always be there, to drive humanity forward.
One other point to make: I think the notion of humanity fundamentally improving and evolving in Star Trek stems from two key historical events in its mythos. The first is the cataclysm of the Third World War, which leaves hundreds of millions dead and Zephrem Cochrane holed up in an old missile base in Montana. The second (mentioned in First Contact) is the arrival of the Vulcans themselves and what the discovery of extraterrestrial life does to the basic psychology of all humankind of the era. The former of these I think derives from some of H.G. Wells’ later writings (making Star Trek his worthy successor and foremost popularizer) and the second I believe is a phenomenon many psychologists have speculated upon. So yes, the notion is that our “human nature” can change, but that change is often predicated on some literally earth shattering events. All in all, though, a really great video essay. Keep ‘em coming!
This is disguised advertisement for Deep Space Nine. I approve...
11:17 I think the problem there is that they don't know. It's not just that they don't tell us, its that they don't know how you'd get there.
'We're where we are now, something something something, times are good and we're beyond money.'
I see the Humans of the Star Trek universe falling into the same post modernization superiority complex. That every era of humanity throughout history falls into this trap to a degree in civilization.
The idea that we are beyond our ancestors and fail to realize that we don’t necessarily internalize or learn all of the same lessons from the past. Taking for granted what even our parents went through to learn those lessons.
Considering how we are seeing so many people fall into the same scapegoating of societal problems. That lead to WW2. It seems my generation has already forgotten the lessons that our great grandparents tried to teach us. I see in Star Trek. That the lessons that humanity learned, getting to the stars. Are lost by the time the federation becomes a superpower. Sitting on the accomplishments of the past until war time. Especially the Dominion war
Thanks Rowan for sharing your wonderful thoughts!
This is probably your best video essay to date about Star Trek. Based on your analysis and my inquisitive, casual deep dives into politics, I believe that humans are relatively good people who support bad officials for momentary benefits to themselves based on existing factors such as race, gender, wealth, etc. I actually realized this several months back. I live in Tallahassee, Florida when a hurricane named Idalia stuck just fifty miles from my town. Our governor, Ron DeSantis, who is the closest thing to an authoritarian our country has, gave permission for unhinged gun owners in the disaster zone to "shoot looters" on site. In actuality, it was the polar opposite. Many of those affected focused more on helping those in need as opposed to hording lost possessions. Not to mention that DeSantis was flanked by members of the Florida National Guard and law enforcement; two groups considered defenders of the elite class-putting force between the citizens and their elected officials who are supposed to represent us. In this scenario, DeSantis and the ruling class BELIVE (as opposed to assume) that humanity is savage BUT the altruistic nature of the survivors proves otherwise.
I disagree. True altruism doesn't exist. Humans helping humans only happens if we think there is something in it for us. Such as being a good citizen, a reward in heaven, monetary gain, family gain, returns of a favor in the future. Also the threat of violence does enforce peace. Since why would I steal (an act that is deliberate) if the risk to my life is too great?
@@genmaicha.lapsang You need to reread my comment and watch the video again. Why do you need to have violence to keep the peace? Also, many people help others because it's simply the right thing to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
@@sinisterintelligence3568
You need violence to keep the peace simply becuase we do. Throughout all human history and cultures there has been war, violence and conflict. While most people are not evil there is evil people and there will always be evil people. We need violence to stop them.
This is why even though the fantasy of star trek is admirable in SOME ways, it is just a fantasy.
People are not made evil by systems, systems are made by people and if they are made by good virtuous people then the systems will be good as well. Basic Confucianism.
@@genmaicha.lapsang Maybe instead of Star Trek, you should watch Blade Runner.
@@sinisterintelligence3568
As much as I love Star Trek, especially DS9 since it address these issues far better, I prefer Dune for the reasons you allude to.
Top notch! You just forgot one important thing that might civilize a planet. Making First Contact and finding out they're not alone in the universe.
I for one would love a new series about the federation navel patrol ad mentioned by Tom Paris in one episode, a show that explores a different branch of the federation, and explores different oceans of alien worlds.
Idk about this one. I see your points but remain unconvinced
@3:35 I've always said that Quark (favorite character) and the Ferengi (favorite alien race) are the best parts of Star Trek. 3:35 is just one of the reasons why.
The themes discussed here are not that far off from Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie). At the heart of the philosophical musings therein was that humans do not have a better nature or moral tendency other than what we are taught. Upon that premise was built ways society should function, which you mentioned also albeit without conclusion, that we should make every effort to teach people by whatever means necessary, how to behave.
Starship Troopers advocated corporal punishment, literally whipping people in the public square, and justified it by concluding that we are effectively designed to avoid pain, and so the infliction of pain as a punishment is not only sensible, but necessary to instill an understanding of right from wrong and a knowledge that doing wrong will not be tolerated.
The other side of it, and the reason most people assume Starship Troopers is pro-fascism (it is not in my opinion), is how they select their leaders. All people who want to gain full citizenship and therefore the vote, must be put through difficult trials and tested in every possible way to determine if on average, the choices they make put the welfare of the group ahead of their own. That's the high standard they have, voluntary service designed to weed out those who are predominately selfish.
As you stated at the beginning, I think Star Trek has not delved quite as deeply into some of that as they could have, but I think that vagueness is one of the things that has helped Star Trek remain relevant for so long.
I grew up in a homeless shelter (my parents are missionaries that ran the place), and in my experience, Quark's assessment of how nasty people can be is not far off, and so I would generally agree with Star Trek's conclusion that there is indeed a tendency toward evil, well, let's say self-centeredness, that unchecked does bring about the darker parts of humanity. Every day we must choose to not indulge such things. In time, and with practice, we can do better.
I have plenty of my own beliefs, but for the sake of this discussion, I kept it toward secular thought. Interesting video, and thanks for what you do.
Hey Rowan,
Love your channel! I feel like you missed a potential point of view in why Data wants to be more human. That would be a fun exploration in and of itself.
Thanks!
"They have no concept of the sanctity of life". Great sentence. Similar for Star Wars. I could never understand living beings fighting/going to war against androids...I find the idea horrifying.
I don't want this to sound like an overt complaint, counter argument against the vid. It's right on a whole.
I think it's less on the core philosophy, that we all can be better, calmer, more aware of the conditions that raised us, to not fall to our worse traits.
It's the writers perception of, the writer's understanding of and the trap of that which came before. If you can't set away from that which came before, granularity and context is sacrificed on the writer's table for the point, the argument. The point must be made at the cost of overt, in your face stereotypes. To see concepts reduced to in your face tropes. For such moments against the tropes to be so noted and so scattered, so rare. So specific.
If you meet one Vulcan, one Klingon, one Ferengi you've met one of them. The question is who they choose to be and how they choose to use, to resist, to act counter to the context that you came from.
Some of Trek's writing is extremely juvenile. It's so superficial, it's stuck in the perspective of the teacher, student, the lesson to be taught. If for a moment it could look to tell, take a story of complexity, of shades of grey, of being in the moment and finding the lesson in that moment, it could be so much more. To be challenged, to ask the question in the moment.
Go drinking with a Klingon, Enterprise reference for clarity, argue with a Vulcan, barter with a Ferengi and learn. Hopefully the lesson is the more different we appear, the more alike we truly are.
Humans are chaotic neutral. They can be anything depending on views or actions.
The truth is Humanity can be good, and can also be evil, with something also in-between. Good and bad in the end is simply a point of view.
Seeing Thomas Hobbs and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in this episode I half expected John Locke to pop up but I guess not.
As usual Rowan another great video. Thats a great point about the Cardassians and Bajorans that I hadn't thought about.
The main difference between the Bajoran religion and Human religions is that theirs has real stuff to actually point to: A "Celestial Temple" that actively blooms in the heavens when approached. Their Orbs manifest in the real world and can be both observed AND recorded. When their Emissary (Cisco himself) asks for help with an armada coming through the wormhole, the Celestial beings actually affect things in our reality to save us all... Comparing that to Humanity's various flavours of superstitious nonsense, as if they were equals, is ridiculously generous. Clearly, the way in which DS9 was more respectful toward religion was to simply substantiate it... Something that still cannot be done, here on Earth.
It is interesting that, even as the supposed Emissary, when Benjamin is telling his son that the Bajorans's Faith was a great comfort to them during the Occupation, at no point does he tell him that it is rational to believe, or that it is based on true things. Even though, in this case, he actually could have, if he'd known more about it at that time. Jake is young there, it was still early days. ;-]
I _think_ it was David Brin (sorry to him if inaccurate) who said that those boringly-filmed conference room scenes are tiny little rebellions in every TNG episode, whose purpose is to keep the existing institutions honest. In _The Measure of a Man_ they win a case that sets precedent. In _Insurrection_ they oppose and reveal a secret plan to exploit people. In _Into Darkness_, the entire film is a big allegory about the US' overreaction to the Sep 11 attacks, and is a deliberately inward critique of the metaphorical equivalents in the person of Adm. Marcus. The argument that Star Trek institutions never get effectively challenged is not especially strong.
One of the central problems with collectivist oriented thought and specifically, the notion that we need to "change the system," is that the one's suggesting this solution miss a fundamental fact. All systems are created and operated by people. So if we, "change the system to make people better," then what is happening in praxis is a small minority of people with their views force others to do what they want to "make people better."
This is why Confucianists and Confucius himself argued against systemic change and rather promoted the ides of people working hard to be virtuous individuals. He also argued that promoting people to power based on their virtuous behaviour and NOT their ideas or words, would produce a better government.
At the end of the day, it always comes down to individuals, Frank Herbert and Dune were right.
Interesting point, but this is once again built on the premise that humans need to be policed; that people can't be trusted to be left to their own devices. Either we have "big government" where there is order, but less freedom or we have "small government" where there is more freedom, but more strife. Anarchists however would argue it's entirely possible to create a system which isn't run by a small corruptable minority while still being truly free. They simply start from the assumption that people are generally good natured.
@@RowanJColeman
Thank you for your reply. 🙂
There is 2 counters to your counter though.
1.That is that in all real world practice there has never been a society anywhere, regardless of technological level that didn't use some form of violence and coercion (either explicitly or just the implicit threat of it) to maintain order and reduce strife. So, the question then becomes, "how much? vs, "Do we have to?"
I would rather go with very little and put up with the strife.
2. People's natures are not totally fixed and thus malleable to some extent. The central problem is that even if we assume humans are fundamentally good...A fundamentally good person may not generally harm others but it only takes one bad day or a few days of hunger to change that, then what? We use force to stop them. Also, if we assume humans are fundamentally bad and selfish then we have to use force to change those people's expressed behaviour. Either way the question is the same. How much force is needed?
Thanks for another thought provoking piece, Rowan!
I watched that Trekspertise video first out of interest and now this one. I don't think either is hitting on the right premise here.
I don't think Star Trek sets out to be blueprint or roadmap for how humanity should take itself to the stars and to the end of want or need in our societies. It's a sci fi drama. It is a mirror (almost literally at times) that shows what we think might be solutions and then it picks them apart. The Prime Directive looks so dodgy in just about every episode of Star Trek it's featured in because it is problematic.... but so is NOT having some sort of guiding principle like it for a hypothetical Federation...put those together and there's an episode of chin-stroking sci fi.
Yes, it's fine to examine and criticise the underlying biases and assumptions of trek writers through they years. But do we really think they were setting out to create a blueprint for how humanity should work? I think Star Trek repeats time and again that there aren't really good answers to a lot of these problems, that no one solution is good enough for an absolute rule to be written, so it explores the options, and often takes the dead ends to their conclusion - e.g. are we really to believe that anyone on the DS9 writing staff thought Section 31 was a morally good kind of organisation? Of course not.
I agree that DS9 evolves a much more nuanced examination of complex political and social systems, beliefs etc than TNG did, just as TNG evolved TOS' ideas. But taking it all together, I'd say Star Trek shows the complex tension between the human desire for order in the form of guiding moral principles - even absolutes - and the inevitability of the need for some form of relativism when those principles run into 'what's out there'. The Prime Directive is not a plan for doing it right, it is a dialectic thought experiment that, hey, just happens to fit nicely with a wagon train to the stars, episodic show exploring a frontier.
The government and society are likely something completely new, because modern political philosophies are based around the acquisition, development, and distribution of resources and the UFP is post-scarcity. I think one thing Captain Picard gets wrong in his assessments of humanity is that the race has somehow evolved, but you actually see very little evidence of that. It's just that the more savage survival side of their instincts have been tames by the lack of scarcity. In a society like that even social standing would have nothing to do with what you own or wear. Who cares what car you drive when everyone can just replicate it and drive it too? So, the drive to achieve would end up having nothing to do with the acquisition of wealth or objects. Instead, it's possible efficiency and minimalism would be respected on some level. The drive to achieve and to gain social standing would likely be based off of what one does with all their free time. It may resemble a period like the Rennaissance where respected individuals almost seemed to be musicians, artists, philosophers, scientists, and inventors all rolled into one. And where everyone had dinner parties just to share ideas and to exhibit their talents and hobbies. The replicator technology is just something that makes Star Trek humans something we would have a very difficult time understanding. It would be an almost unimaginable paradigm shift for every part of life.
Excellent observation.
Your last bit is spot-on: do we have the tools to overcome our problems & evolve? I think we do. All it takes is the right people being in the right places, and a paradigm in how we think of the world.
So in other words people need to do and think what you want them to do and think.
Sorry, I don't want to go along with that.
@@genmaicha.lapsang how would you arrive at that conclusion? All I meant was that what we have right now isn't working, and we need a new way of thinking about how we treat each other & the world around us. Otherwise, a future like Trek is impossible, we'd just keep stuck in this cycle of war and ruining the Earth.
@@thedoctor755 because when you say, "right people in right places," you are referring to people that accept your world view and will force it on others. That's the implication.
I like the current systems as it allows me to live freer and richer than any of my ancestors or people in other countries and cultures ever have or will. Also, war is inevitable there is no escape from it.
@@genmaicha.lapsang well that's peachy, so glad you are free & rich. A lot of people are quite the opposite.
@@thedoctor755
Except in all first world countries, the vast majority of people are richer than the vast majority of people in any 3rd world socialist country in Africa or Asia. Even now, the fact that you have internet access and the time to watch this video qualifies you as amongst the richest in the world.
The problem with "challenging the system" is that not everyone is willing to go along with your ideas of that "a better world is." I also disagree in that what you think is better will probably not ACTUALLY BE better.
I think the "this race is like this", is mostly just lazy writing, like how often members of a different species all have the same hairstyle and wear the same outfit. Like humans are the only species in the galaxy to have personal tastes?
“Did I mention Deep Space Nine is the best Star Trek show, by the way?” 😂
It really is the best!
Good one, Rowan. Thank you!
The state of the world as being positive is largely due to the Leviathan that Hobbes discussed.
One of my favorite episodes is _By Any Other Name_ where aliens from Andromeda quickly take over the _Enterprise_ and kill the landing party's yeoman to punish and pacify Kirk. Kirk has a chance to stop them by blowing up the ship but doesn't (or maybe couldn't anyway, since the Kelvans discovered the plot) then the crew is turned into geometrical figures. However, many comments in the clips say they are upset that Rojan "got away with" killing the yeoman. People today say they want some justice or revenge on Rojan and can't see the practicality or realpolitik of negotiating an end to the war (which is what it was).
I think many feel that in _The Godfather: Part Two,_ Vito Corleone was justified in his revenge-killing of the mafioso in Sicily that killed his father, brother and mother and wanted to kill him because one day he would be a man seeking revenge However the movie also says what a waste it was for the island's youth to spend their lives on the cycle of violent killings and revenge killings. Of course lack of justice is what makes them take matters into their own hand to begin with.
10:22 classic Star wars vs. Star trek moment.
10:50
If you ignore every instance money or currency is mentioned, there is no mention of currency or money in Star Trek.
10:01 it either means "Naval Construction Contract" or "Navy-Curtis Craft"
Damn, I’d forgotten how stunning Sally Kellerman was back then, even with the weird contacts.
Seems to me that the driving factor behind humanities evolution in the Star Trek universe was not the creation of warp drive, but thendiscovery of matter/antimatter power generation. That and matter synthesis/replication. Matter replication made profit driven economics obsolete, and eliminated scarcity and poverty. Matter/antimatter power generation provided humanity with truly renewable energy.
You just know Lore Reloaded will love this video :P
Interesting, but I was always under the impression it was clear what were the main things that pushed the federation into this new enlightenment phase. "The elimination of hunger and the need for material possessions" (They often list these things first as the examples of how humanity progressed).
I hope so, as someone who is part of humanity, I want the best for us and for us to be awesome
Pickard is wrong about possesions. The crew had things in their rooms.
Even more ridiculous as Picard owns a massive amount of land. He gets to own a vineyard and an old chateau
I'd argue that Star Trek is much more in line with Aristotle, Locke, and Kant's concepts of a "tabula rasa" that is shaped by experience and environment, not Rousseau, who seems to have argued for humans being inherently good as a way to feel better about being a terrible person.
"You need to do better Senator." Thank you. Just... thank you.
It is "fucked up" but it's necessary to propel the stories forward... perhaps we ought to look at all these races as representing different aspects of human nature. The "stereotypes of humanity" as it were.
I really wished The Orville had explored this concept more. They seem to be so stuck on making a Star Trek clone, that they swallowed all the Star Trek philosophy with no changes.
what episode is this scene with the big buildings is from on 6:24 ?
I think the relative vague worldbuilding isa why its aging and adapting pretty well thou. through its really at best when ds9 doesnt shy away from the unconfortable too. And show the work houses in the past and bell riots, the eugenics wars, i think ther is enough that, yeah, definitly growing pains, and they have still to be aware like
ok ds9, and even next generation, but especially dsp was good showing needing to be aware to not loose to faschism basically in carelessness. To always be careful, always mindful it doesnt take roors, especially in the shit that goes on in ds9, that yes in a war and some situations are messy, but we must mindful to not loose our way either. Adapt but not loose your humanity.
But again, even next generation followed the plot of measure of a man, up with where data defends an artificial intelligences right to be heard. That mining bots.
Even calling him out, yes i am grateful you were there for me, but i listened what you said there, that bots have no one but me to defend them.