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: 2009-08-25 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.