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 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)