science fiction and Star Trek
Sunday, 23 August 2009 02:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
miriam_eGah! I shouldn't be writing this -- I should be cleaning up this mess for Julie's visit... I am such a slob!
Over the past months I've been watching episodes of "Star Trek - The Next Generation" on DVD. I never saw it on TV because frankly the idea of a human future, regimented and militaristic in nature always repelled me. However I have been an avid reader of science fiction since I was in Primary school and as a lot of my friends are "fans" of Star Trek TNG I felt I owed it to myself to be able to make an honest judgment of the series.
Many times I have winced and gritted my teeth through episodes of Star Trek and shaken my head at the lack of logic.
Evolution, in particular, is completely misunderstood repeatedly by writers of that series... though, to be fair, I've noticed the general population of USA has an appalling lack of understanding of evolution, so the writers are really just repeating the prevalent misconceptions. Evolution gets treated as a kind of god -- something that purposefully shapes lifeforms to the best possible outcome. This simply swaps one mystical god for another. But there is nothing mysterious or pre-ordained about evolution. There is nothing complicated about it either: variations that survive pass on their traits, and those that don't, don't. Evolution results in many mistakes; look at our wisdom teeth, our inability to make vitamin C, and the light receptors in our retinas pointing the wrong direction. Evolution is not some higher power that guides life along a particular course, it is simply a word that refers to changes in populations.
One of the things that rears its head again and again in the show is the idea that emotion and logic are at odds. The android character Data is the exemplar of this kind of erroneous thinking. He is supposedly without emotion. The trouble is that emotion is inextricably part of all mental activity because it is what powers it. Without emotion there can be no being. Why would an emotionless creature do anything at all? They wouldn't. They would be entirely passive. Emotion is simply why we do things. Excessive emotion can cause problems because the action or reaction doesn't fit the situation, but it is not emotion itself that is the problem. Thought requires emotion.
One aspect of Star Trek that has always deeply troubled me is the absolute acceptance of a regimented, military chain of command. The USA seems to have become mostly a warrior culture. I have a feeling that it is largely invisible to the inhabitants of that country because it is so pervasive, just as you cease to hear a constant background noise after a time. It has always impressed me as a very strange thing, as citizens of USA have generally believed themselves great proponents of freedom and democracy, yet military chain of command is the very antithesis of those. I truly hope we don't end up with the Star Trek vision of the future. I'd hope for a more cooperative, leisurely society where people associated with their fellows because they wished the best for each other; not because they were bound together under a dictator (benevolent or otherwise). Thankfully, in recent years open source developments like Linux, Wikipedia, and others make a peaceful, sharing, benevolent, future society of equals look more likely.
One aspect of Star Trek that is hopeful and leaves me with mostly nice feelings is the way they generally try to be inclusive of people, regardless of race, sex, etc. There is even an attempt to extend that inclusion to ugly people. Bad people in the show still tend to look scruffy or weasely, and good people are well groomed and generally look attractive, but this isn't always as pronounced as in other shows. Unfortunately one area of humanity pointedly ignored and not included by the series is homosexuality. I find that very disappointing.
I'm about halfway through the series. I doubt it will calm my misgivings, but at least it tries to cover some important philosophical points. This what I always liked most about SF: the way it can examine our assumptions, often turning our viewpoint upside down in the process. Star Trek doesn't do that as vigorously as "true" science fiction, but I have to admit it does try harder than much of the stuff that passes for entertainment.
Over the past months I've been watching episodes of "Star Trek - The Next Generation" on DVD. I never saw it on TV because frankly the idea of a human future, regimented and militaristic in nature always repelled me. However I have been an avid reader of science fiction since I was in Primary school and as a lot of my friends are "fans" of Star Trek TNG I felt I owed it to myself to be able to make an honest judgment of the series.
Many times I have winced and gritted my teeth through episodes of Star Trek and shaken my head at the lack of logic.
Evolution, in particular, is completely misunderstood repeatedly by writers of that series... though, to be fair, I've noticed the general population of USA has an appalling lack of understanding of evolution, so the writers are really just repeating the prevalent misconceptions. Evolution gets treated as a kind of god -- something that purposefully shapes lifeforms to the best possible outcome. This simply swaps one mystical god for another. But there is nothing mysterious or pre-ordained about evolution. There is nothing complicated about it either: variations that survive pass on their traits, and those that don't, don't. Evolution results in many mistakes; look at our wisdom teeth, our inability to make vitamin C, and the light receptors in our retinas pointing the wrong direction. Evolution is not some higher power that guides life along a particular course, it is simply a word that refers to changes in populations.
One of the things that rears its head again and again in the show is the idea that emotion and logic are at odds. The android character Data is the exemplar of this kind of erroneous thinking. He is supposedly without emotion. The trouble is that emotion is inextricably part of all mental activity because it is what powers it. Without emotion there can be no being. Why would an emotionless creature do anything at all? They wouldn't. They would be entirely passive. Emotion is simply why we do things. Excessive emotion can cause problems because the action or reaction doesn't fit the situation, but it is not emotion itself that is the problem. Thought requires emotion.
One aspect of Star Trek that has always deeply troubled me is the absolute acceptance of a regimented, military chain of command. The USA seems to have become mostly a warrior culture. I have a feeling that it is largely invisible to the inhabitants of that country because it is so pervasive, just as you cease to hear a constant background noise after a time. It has always impressed me as a very strange thing, as citizens of USA have generally believed themselves great proponents of freedom and democracy, yet military chain of command is the very antithesis of those. I truly hope we don't end up with the Star Trek vision of the future. I'd hope for a more cooperative, leisurely society where people associated with their fellows because they wished the best for each other; not because they were bound together under a dictator (benevolent or otherwise). Thankfully, in recent years open source developments like Linux, Wikipedia, and others make a peaceful, sharing, benevolent, future society of equals look more likely.
One aspect of Star Trek that is hopeful and leaves me with mostly nice feelings is the way they generally try to be inclusive of people, regardless of race, sex, etc. There is even an attempt to extend that inclusion to ugly people. Bad people in the show still tend to look scruffy or weasely, and good people are well groomed and generally look attractive, but this isn't always as pronounced as in other shows. Unfortunately one area of humanity pointedly ignored and not included by the series is homosexuality. I find that very disappointing.
I'm about halfway through the series. I doubt it will calm my misgivings, but at least it tries to cover some important philosophical points. This what I always liked most about SF: the way it can examine our assumptions, often turning our viewpoint upside down in the process. Star Trek doesn't do that as vigorously as "true" science fiction, but I have to admit it does try harder than much of the stuff that passes for entertainment.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-08-23 07:08 am (UTC)The story was that the ship was visiting this planet where the ideal and the norm was androgyny. People were only suppossed to want to be androgynous and they were only suppossed to want to be with other androgynous people just like them. The society considered themselves quite evolved this way. However there was an underground culture of people that felt themselves to be either more masculine or more feminine and were attracted to difference themselves. They didn't desire androgyny in themselves or others sexually. They had to keep this hidden because if it was found out they would be reprogrammed, if they didn't want to be reprogrammed, then the authorities could not know. Riker and one of the inhabitants of this planet fell in love. She(?) was one of those that felt themselves to be more feminine and was attracted to more masculine people.
Anyway, this person ended up being found out and reprogrammed and afterwards she totally changed, thought she'd been sick before. Very sad.
One could see that as a defense of gender difference and a defense of heterosexuality but in society these days heterosexuality really doesn't need defending. Personally I thought it all a very thoughtful treatment of the subject. And I thought it rather smart that they didn't confront prejudice straight on but rather gave people something to think about. This was about 15 years ago, maybe a bit more.
Times are different now. Yay for that.
I've noticed people think a lot of uh... interesting stuff about Americans. Thing is, that I really wonder where they are getting their info. What we're represented as and what we are are different things.
For example, many many people have a deep distrust of the police. Many many people know that the military and the government wont take care of them and too have a deep distrust of those structures. We know as well what structures and forces effect the changes (or rather lack of changes) in politics and many people have felt somewhat helpless to do much about it.
It's true some people always want to believe that the "authorities" have their best interest at heart, but really I think those are the ones that simply never outgrew the need for parents or they cannot stomach believing the alternative, it simply frightens them so.
Sure there are stupid people everywhere but really, we're not any more keen on being told what to do by some random people higher up in a chain of command than are any other people.
It's true more and more information is getting out, so you may be able to see better the varieties of people that exist here. A large portion of what gets broadcast though is under the influence of what W. S. Burroughs would call Control still.
Believe it or not, many of us are rather embarrassed by the image that's projected of us. But it's really not our fault.
That being said, yes, there is a great variety of mindsets in this country. Even so, from this vantage point I can see that the image projected is really not what it looks like from here on the ground.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-25 03:34 am (UTC)I always feel a bit uncomfortable saying anything about a large group of people. Individually, such observations will always be wrong, but as averages there can be a certain amount of truth in them. Just as describing a wind can be perfectly accurate, but then to narrow that to any individual molecule is utterly wrong.
Many of the people I admire the most are citizens of USA. A lot of good has come from there too, but as a country, en masse, USA has quite scary attributes that are generally found only in third world nations. USA has the second-highest highest infant mortality of any developed nation (only Portugal is worse), one of the lowest life expectancies, the highest rate of teen pregnancies, abortions and sexually transmitted diseases, by far the highest rate of violent crime, spends as much money on weaponry as the rest of the world put together, and has the largest proportion of its population in prison. It is also one of the few (only?) first world nations that still has the death penalty.
I've noticed many of my friends in USA tend to excuse that country's military actions, while being embarrassed by them. These are not stupid people -- they are admirable people with very good minds... yet somehow criticising USA military action has become like farting in polite company. It seems to be becoming difficult in Australia to speak against our military actions too, though we still have a fair amount of public scorn for our actions, thank heavens. Please bear in mind that I'm speaking in broad strokes here; I'm certain there are plenty of people who occupy the entire spectrum of opinion.
I get the impression that the general mood USA is shifting though and moving slowly toward making it a more sensible place. It will take a while to undo the effects of the two Bushes and Reagan though. But even if it had continued to descend into redneck hell there would always have been plenty of people who were enlightened and reasonable. That, as you say, is the nature of things; there is always a great variety of mindsets.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-25 07:15 am (UTC)I'm over being embarrassed by it, because I didn't construct it. Although back when Bush was around I really couldn't help but wince at the idea that people were looking at him and thinking we'd chose him.
Ugh.
Are your friends really excusing the military actions or attempting to explain how they happened?
Not that that's easy to explain. It's like explaining insanity.
I'm one of those that doesn't even believe that it was "terrorists" who flew a plane into the towers and the pentagon. Or if it was it was done with the full knowledge, consent and encouragement of certain people in certain places of power.
Statements like that just don't fly on network tv though. And the very consideration of such ideas is extremely frightening to some.
However, I'm not the only one that thinks so. And even if I'm wrong I know and many know that it does not excuse the violence that followed.
Truth is I think the ugliness that occurred during the Bush era is in large part what pushed people to ask for and demand better.
Anyway, frankly, such things are depressing to the American psyche. It's incredibly sad. And horrible.
Have you ever read the book Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky?
My dad gave it to me years back. It helped my mind. Helped me to understand how things could get so incredibly fucked up. At least in part.
I continue to hope for much better.
The Dark Ages were eventually followed by the Renaissance. I have hope.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-12 02:30 am (UTC)Yes. One thing about bad times... they seem to sharpen our appreciation for good. Unfortunately when deep rot sets in it can last for many hundreds of years. I have hope too. With higher standards of living and greater access to knowledge it may be getting harder to lock-in Dark times again. Our best defense will always be information.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-13 03:46 am (UTC)The bad times, I think they also sharpen the desire for good and the motivation toward it.
Yah, access to information is a lovely benefit of this time. I can only hope peoples will learn how to sort it well. Many do, it's a lovely start.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-13 03:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-13 04:06 am (UTC)also
Date: 2009-08-25 07:17 am (UTC)Re: also
Date: 2009-09-12 02:42 am (UTC)Our current prime minister is religious, which is a worry, but apart from some pandering to corrupt corporate interests he doesn't seem to be too bad (surprisingly). Australia has always tended to be suspicious of any politician who professes religious beliefs -- the opposite of USA where it is virtually impossible to get into office unless you have an imaginary best friend. Unfortunately we seem to be drifting toward USA's ways more and more lately.
Re: also
Date: 2009-09-13 04:05 am (UTC)Sounds pretty familiar. At this point here that opinion seems to be the minority, though that's just from my perspective.
You know here, about the religiosity (specifically christian) necessity for the top politicians, I think most of us know that the religiosity might be nothing more than a suit that's worn for the occasion.
At least in many cases.
There are loads of politicians that get by without it though. So far it's been a requirement for the presidents. I can see that changing eventually.
Our mayor here is openly gay. :)
He got in some media drama when it was found out that he kissed a young man who was 17 at the time recently (entirely consensual). That's legal by the way but if they'd had sex before the young man was 18 it would have been a problem cause Oregon doesn't have an age of consent law. Legally consent can't be given until 18. Which sucks. It ought to be lower.
Anyway, he thought about stepping down cause the bigots were screaming so loud but he got such strong support from the non bigots that he decided to stay.
The bigots are still working at it though.
Anyway, he's still in office and doesn't seem to be in any immediate danger. :)
Things change. I like to watch them change.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-23 09:28 am (UTC)Not true. In addition to the episode that jaguarnoelle mentions (series 5?), from memory if you look in the background of some of the first episodes (it may even be Farpoint) there are men in short skirts and, I'm sure, a gay couple on the bridge.
And they dealt with the issue in at least one episode of Deep Space Nine (which is even more militaristic) when Jadzia Dax's former wife arrived on the station to find her husband is now a man.
I'm sure there are others, and reams of articles on the net detailing the various issues.
I'd like to respond to the rest but it's a bit long and I have some dishes to do. I'll try to get back to this soon.
that was the best episode ever, IMO.
Date: 2009-08-23 03:52 pm (UTC)i think you slipped, there.
the episode is called 'rejoined', and the former wife found that her husband was now Jadzia.
Re: that was the best episode ever, IMO.
Date: 2009-08-23 03:57 pm (UTC)How?
Probably by seeing it just the once. And most of DS9.
Between all the Quark and Garak episodes (and not all of them were awful) some of the Dax episodes are the best DS9 episodes ever.
Re: that was the best episode ever, IMO.
Date: 2009-08-25 03:54 am (UTC)Just once I'd like to see a science fiction series have a happy gay couple... like the lesbian couple in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and more recently the gay male couple in Reaper.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-25 03:49 am (UTC)I didn't watch much Deep Space 9 much, because of the military aspect That DS9 episode with the kiss between Dax and her former wife was kinda nice, but you'd kinda expect good writing from J. Michael Straczynski. Even then he fell into the old Hollywood cliche -- a gay coupling has to turn into tragedy.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-25 04:17 am (UTC)My memory could be wrong about the bridge crew, but I'm sure the men in skirts this happened.
I won't point out that you've mixed up Deep Space Nine and Babylon 5.
Or that now I'm wondering where they would have gone with the Tania/Ivanova sub-plot.
A couple has to turn into tragedy, mostly.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-12 03:07 am (UTC)Star trek
Date: 2009-09-05 02:14 pm (UTC)tiss one of my favorite shows...lol I think you might like the voyager spin off a bit better. A strong female lead some of the "Bad" guys are very pleasant to look at. Capt. Janeway is sigh... such a hottie....hmm must be that reddish hair...lol
J
Re: Star trek
Date: 2009-09-12 02:54 am (UTC)Yes. I mostly enjoyed Voyager. I still squirmed with the regimented nature, but Voyager had a bit of a more gentle feel to it somehow.
Heheheh :) a lot of my friends felt Kate Mulgrew (Capt. Janeway) was a hottie, but the one who really made me weak at the knees was Jennifer Lien (Kes). And the one where she was dressed all in black leather I just about popped a blood vessel. :)