LogFAQs > #952593349

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Star Trek is unrealistic.
ParanoidObsessive 04/08/21 3:02:59 AM #14:	Zareth posted... I thought Star Trek took place in a universe that had no resource issues? Depends on who you're talking to, and when. Gene Roddenberry's concept of Star Trek was a mostly utopian future where all of the pro-Federation propaganda is true and it's almost all upside with no downside. It's part of why all the action happens when exploring places "where no man has gone before", because back home everything's pretty much paradise. He came up with the idea of matter replication and near-unlimited power mostly to eliminate the sort of fighting over resources that has characterized most of human history. You can't really have idealized space socialists unless you can establish there's literally enough for everyone and no one really benefits from hoarding or monopolizing resources anymore. But most Star Trek written after Roddenberry died assumes that the future is a lot more like the past, that a lot of that rosy perception is kind of bullshit, and you still have some degree of class distinction, prejudice, and petty squabbling. As much as the Federation likes to think it's the perfect society and compare itself favorably to all the other cultures it encounters, there's a LOT of asshole behavior going on in the Federation as well. At best, it's a great society that just tends to cover up or ignore what flaws it does have (which is a bad thing), at worst, it's borderline dystopian and a lot of the positive spin is deliberate lies to hide the truth. From that point of view, even with near-unlimited resources, you're still going to have class distinctions, with some people on top and others on the bottom. And quality of life will still vary depending on where you fall on the scale. The real problem is, Gene Roddenberry's view of the future was incredibly idealistic - and unrealistic, as we currently understand human nature, which tends to make it very unrelatable to modern day audiences. We basically project all of our biases, neuroses, and other assorted baggage onto characters from Star Trek, whereas his point of view was basically "Nah, they've completely moved past all that". So aspects of their world that make perfect sense to him don't necessarily make sense to people who don't see things his way. Roddenberry would have argued that a group like Section 31 literally could not exist in his universe, whereas most modern writers and audiences find it all too likely. PunishedOni posted... starfleet is like the 0.1% most motivated people. like those freaks who love working late. and even they have issues with holodeck addiction e.g. lt barclay most people on earth probably stand around playing holo-chess all day or something It's been implied in various fan theories that Starfleet/The Federation allocates the majority of their resources to their fleet, so life on a starship is pretty much the best possible life any human can have (which explains why they find it so easy to recruit new members when it seems like a few more redshirts die every week). We almost never see what life on a core planet (like Earth) looks like (even the few shots we see of Earth in TNG are centered around Starfleet Academy), so it's entirely possible that Earth isn't anywhere near as idyllic as life on the Enterprise. Normal civilians may have specific caps for resource management/usage, access to less advanced tech, and generally be required to work for their place in society (just like most human societies). Starfleet mostly appears to be an ideal socialist society ("From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs") because the crew of any given ship are in a pseudo-military hierarchy that requires them to fulfill specific duties - unrestricted access to replication, holo-tech, and other advanced benefits are just perks of the job. They're the best of the best, expected to constantly do their best - so they're motivated/rewarded by being given the best in return. They're not necessarily being paid for their service, as much as they're provided with all of the sorts of things you'd ever want to buy with money anyway. It would be like trying to judge modern day society by only looking at how the top 1% of the 1% live. You might come to the conclusion that we live in a perfect capitalist society... at least until you go compare the bottom 1% living in third-world nations. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:952593349] in Star Trek ... [t:79393681]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zareth posted...</cite> <quote>I thought Star Trek took place in a universe that had no resource issues?</quote> Depends on who you're talking to, and when. Gene Roddenberry's concept of Star Trek was a mostly utopian future where all of the pro-Federation propaganda is true and it's almost all upside with no downside. It's part of why all the action happens when exploring places "where no man has gone before", because back home everything's pretty much paradise. He came up with the idea of matter replication and near-unlimited power mostly to eliminate the sort of fighting over resources that has characterized most of human history. You can't really have idealized space socialists unless you can establish there's literally enough for everyone and no one really benefits from hoarding or monopolizing resources anymore. But most Star Trek written after Roddenberry died assumes that the future is a lot more like the past, that a lot of that rosy perception is kind of bullshit, and you still have some degree of class distinction, prejudice, and petty squabbling. As much as the Federation likes to think it's the perfect society and compare itself favorably to all the other cultures it encounters, there's a LOT of asshole behavior going on in the Federation as well. At best, it's a great society that just tends to cover up or ignore what flaws it does have (which is a bad thing), at worst, it's borderline dystopian and a lot of the positive spin is deliberate lies to hide the truth. From that point of view, even with near-unlimited resources, you're still going to have class distinctions, with some people on top and others on the bottom. And quality of life will still vary depending on where you fall on the scale. The real problem is, Gene Roddenberry's view of the future was incredibly idealistic - and unrealistic, as we currently understand human nature, which tends to make it very unrelatable to modern day audiences. We basically project all of our biases, neuroses, and other assorted baggage onto characters from Star Trek, whereas his point of view was basically "Nah, they've completely moved past all that". So aspects of their world that make perfect sense to him don't necessarily make sense to people who don't see things his way. Roddenberry would have argued that a group like Section 31 literally could not exist in his universe, whereas most modern writers and audiences find it all too likely. <cite>PunishedOni posted...</cite> <quote>starfleet is like the 0.1% most motivated people. like those freaks who love working late. and even they have issues with holodeck addiction e.g. lt barclay most people on earth probably stand around playing holo-chess all day or something</quote> It's been implied in various fan theories that Starfleet/The Federation allocates the majority of their resources to their fleet, so life on a starship is pretty much the best possible life any human can have (which explains why they find it so easy to recruit new members when it seems like a few more redshirts die every week). We almost never see what life on a core planet (like Earth) looks like (even the few shots we see of Earth in TNG are centered around Starfleet Academy), so it's entirely possible that Earth isn't anywhere near as idyllic as life on the Enterprise. Normal civilians may have specific caps for resource management/usage, access to less advanced tech, and generally be required to work for their place in society (just like most human societies). Starfleet mostly appears to be an ideal socialist society ("From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs") because the crew of any given ship are in a pseudo-military hierarchy that requires them to fulfill specific duties - unrestricted access to replication, holo-tech, and other advanced benefits are just perks of the job. They're the best of the best, expected to constantly do their best - so they're motivated/rewarded by being given the best in return. They're not necessarily being paid for their service, as much as they're provided with all of the sorts of things you'd ever want to buy with money anyway. It would be like trying to judge modern day society by only looking at how the top 1% of the 1% live. You might come to the conclusion that we live in a perfect capitalist society... at least until you go compare the bottom 1% living in third-world nations. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1