Challenging the underlying philosophy of Star Trek

[Citiprime]

From everything I've read, Roddenberry's intention, at least from TNG forward, was for Trek to be rooted in his vision of secular humanism. It portrays a humanity that has evolved socially to stop killing and hurting each other without the need for gods or the supernatural, embracing science and technology as avenues to unite for a common purpose, with warp drive and first contact being seminal moments for humanity.

"As you know, one of the joys of Star Trek, for me, has been the variety of our fans. When I go to conventions and I see people of all sizes and shapes and abilities, and when I see people with nerve disorders that can’t really sit properly and so on, I still know what’s in their mind. They are saying, "In a better world, I can do anything. I’ll be there in a better world. In a better world, they will not laugh at me or look down their nose at me."

⁠—Gene Roddenberry

So this got me to thinking about, in the half century of Trek's existence, have there been any works which tried to question the underlying precept's of Roddenberry's intentions? Whether it be parody or a more satirical look at the Trek formula, there have been other works and artists who've given competing perspectives.

• There is an alternative interpretation of Star Trek that argues there is a difference between what Roddenberry intended and what the show actually depicts. In short, the argument says the Federation in Star Trek is an idealized future "American Empire" in space. In the commentary track for The Wrath of Khan, director Nicholas Meyer states that when he was writing the movie he didn't see Roddenberry's "perfectibility of man" ideas in The Original Series. Instead, he thought Star Trek was largely about "gunboat diplomacy" because "they usually end up firing."

• Stephen Fry has argued Star Trek has connections to Friedrich Nietzsche's belief that artistic tragedy is born out of the conflict between the Dionysian and Apollonian impulses from Greek mythology, and arguably acts as a metaphor for the conflict of human existence. A good bit of fiction uses aspects of Sigmund Freud's structural model for the human psyche, which shares similarities with the "tripartite soul" in Plato's Republic. To grossly oversimplify things, the Id (McCoy) is emotion and instinctual drive, the Superego (Spock) is reason and rationality, while Ego (Kirk) balances the two to put those impulses into action. This "Freudian Trio" of head, heart, and hands are the main motivational aspects of being human.

• If one takes the series as a whole, the central theme at the heart of Deep Space Nine is an examination of how “good” the Federation actually is. Ideals and principles are great, but they only mean anything when they are tested and held to when made inconvenient. The Dominion War pushes Starfleet and the Federation to the breaking point, and the stories are really about how well the characters, and the institutions Roddenberry had set up as a quasi-Utopian paradise, either do or don’t hold to the established Trek morality. I’ve always felt Ronald D. Moore took a lot of the ideas from his work on Deep Space Nine and moved them over to Battlestar Galactica (e.g., the Cylons are divided almost exactly the same way as the races of the Dominion, Roslin’s religious convictions and her coming to believe she is a leader of prophesy mirrors the journey Captain Sisko takes in accepting he is the Emissary of the Prophets, the relationship between Helo and Sharon has similarities to the conflicted loyalties of Odo’s and Kira’s relationship, etc.). BUT ... in doing it, he made a series that was diametrically opposed in its world view to Roddenberry's. Trek sees humanity progressing and being the master of its destiny. Technology, and warp drive in particular, is the means by which humanity has bettered itself and created a utopia. However, the themes of Galactica are more about naturalism, humbling oneself to some greater power’s plan, and how reliance on things and technology has created an unending cycle of death and destruction. One has the characters grow and believe in their ability to do anything. The other has the characters endure and believes they need to stay in their preordained place.

• In Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror, the story of "USS Callister" parodies Star Trek while giving commentary about reductive interpretations of it. One of the big themes of the episode is that it's really about an interpretation of Trek (and science-fiction in general) that views it through the lens of a twisted power fantasy. And, funny enough, the episode is at its core both a faithful recreation of a typical Star Trek episode's plot (i.e., a crew comes together to stop a god-like figure and save themselves) while being Black Mirror's commentary on how some fans seek power in control of their fandom by not letting it change, grow, or evolve beyond their own vision of it. And that might be a reflection of how they want the people in their lives to fit into certain boxes in the really real world.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

There’s an inherent conflict between the storytelling needs of an adventure show and a principle of non-violence, but it’s important to note that non-violence doesn’t mean pacifism. The paradox of needing to be capable of war to maintain peace doesn’t negate the peace. When the Enterprise fires on someone, it’s after they were attacked first.

And DS9 breaks that down better than anything.

 

[MarkusTay]

I love Trek and Rodenberry, buuuuuuuut...
He did get it wrong. Humans are a stupid and violent lot, given at times to moments of genius and morality that is impressive, and other times, lows of ignorance and brutality that would make most other species not want to deal with us. We are an imperfect lot, and always will be.

Larry Niven, on the other hand, got it right, which is funny, considering all the canon connections between his universe and Trek (like the Kzin). If you read any of the Man-Kzin war novels, they tell the story, but the whole concept of humans being 'the deadliest predator' was in his works right from the beginning. In his universe, humans are all smiley and peaceful because they brain-washed themselves to be - anyone who thinks about committing violence gets dragged into a facility and gets 'reprogrammed'. Because otherwise, we would have blown ourselves up. And what the Kzin didn't know when they picked a fight was, that humans stopped fighting because they were just too damned good at it.

Now, you might think Rodenberry was an optimist, and Niven is a pessimist, but Niven looked at the science, and scientists agree - only an apex predator with a "will to dominate others" will ever developed a level of intelligence to be able to achieve space travel. That 'need' to overcome obstacles is what pushes us. We are not 'grass munchers', and never will be. That's why most astrophysicists, etc., agree that humans should NOT look forward to the day we meet aliens, because they've developed under the same criteria, and it won't be pretty. For everyone that looks at ST and thinks that is our future, I ask you, then why did Harry Mudd even exist? I thought there was no need for money? That it was 'Utopia'? Even in the TOS, the cracks in the logic show. Commerce drives a culture, and you can't have commerce without money, and as long as you have money, you'll always have someone trying to get yours.

 

[Qonundrum]

I love Trek and Rodenberry, buuuuuuuut...
He did get it wrong. Humans are a stupid and violent lot, given at times to moments of genius and morality that is impressive, and other times, lows of ignorance and brutality that would make most other species not want to deal with us. We are an imperfect lot, and always will be.

He was an idealist. Indeed, a certain BBC show had the answer to that:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The direct quote is 21 seconds in...

Granted, being sci-fi, the palette's gamut is wide enough to accommodate any ideas - if the scripts and actors can sell it sincerely. It's also easier to do dystopian worlds, not just because every time there's a bloody car accident, train derailment, pub knifefight, etc, there's a slew of people gawking around it for the sole sake of it. TOS certainly found a way to show something else than that (but sometimes used it in allegorical metaphor twilighty zone stuff), and TNG started on its coattails but became its own thing soon enough...

Larry Niven, on the other hand, got it right, which is funny, considering all the canon connections between his universe and Trek (like the Kzin). If you read any of the Man-Kzin war novels, they tell the story, but the whole concept of humans being 'the deadliest predator' was in his works right from the beginning. In his universe, humans are all smiley and peaceful because they brain-washed themselves to be - anyone who thinks about committing violence gets dragged into a facility and gets 'reprogrammed'. Because otherwise, we would have blown ourselves up. And what the Kzin didn't know when they picked a fight was, that humans stopped fighting because they were just too damned good at it.

Now add in Huxley and Orwell.

Now, you might think Rodenberry was an optimist, and Niven is a pessimist, but Niven looked at the science, and scientists agree - only an apex predator with a "will to dominate others" will ever developed a level of intelligence to be able to achieve space travel. That 'need' to overcome obstacles is what pushes us. We are not 'grass munchers', and never will be. That's why most astrophysicists, etc., agree that humans should NOT look forward to the day we meet aliens, because they've developed under the same criteria, and it won't be pretty. For everyone that looks at ST and thinks that is our future, I ask you, then why did Harry Mudd even exist? I thought there was no need for money? That it was 'Utopia'? Even in the TOS, the cracks in the logic show. Commerce drives a culture, and you can't have commerce without money, and as long as you have money, you'll always have someone trying to get yours.

TOS was also hampered by 1960s censor standards and should be taken into account. Even one of its three pilots revolved around the US flag and Constitution to assuage nervous executives pumping tons of money into a show that at first was deemed "too cerebral" but they spent so much money (unheard of at the time, for some tv show) that they had to give it another go just to be sure they could recoup the investment... (the episode being "The Omega Glory", the other two were "Mudd's Women" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before"). Even the season 2 episode "Who Mourns for Adonis", while trying to straddle a line, still leaves just enough open about "the one God is sufficient" in a way that wouldn't irk the censors but could imply they absconded the religion that the censors were wary of. Other (but few) episodes do imply they are Believers, even "The Ultimate Computer" had, and so on... Of course, by 1982 with TWOK, no such censorship issue existed, hence McCoy's speech about the Genesis Torpedo. Amazingly it wasn't Spock who said "According to myth"... add that to the list of gaffes, next to "Where's Khan's wife?", "What's up with Sulu's promotion now excised?", "Khan never met Chekov, so what gives?", "What's up with that baby who came out of nowhere, now crawling on the transporter pad and pooping through the diapers in that one deleted scene?"*, and so on.

* Yup, it's real: https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2012/06/12/the-baby-that-was-cut-out-of-star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan (well, not the diapers part but the low-res photo still leaves plenty of possibilities - a shame all the baby scenes were cut, it would have added just a bit more to the atmosphere with it being in the botany bay hull section and later crawling abandoned on the pad... All that alleged IQ and they never hired a nanny while taking over the galaxy? That kid would have grown up and probably would have had some issues if Khan had won, you know...)

In one week, TOS would make a comment about earning pay for the week or whatever similar - which can be taken literally or as a centuries'-old euphemism, but to be fair - how often are you quoting dialogue from 18th century slang? Chances are, "never" is the amount, but it's not inconceivable... I'm even more certain nobody in 2022 is using the language constructs of Shakespeare's time... even more thankfully, nobody was using what was considered conversation in 100,000BC - which is largely comprised of "ug", "durrh", "grunt", and pointing a finger at what the cavecritter wanted. Even I have to concede there has to be a balance of style and tone and "relatable dialogue" (though the more formal use of language helped compensate and differentiate a theoretical future century.) And not incessantly so with using contemporary colloquialisms, since TOS isn't "The Orville" -- thank goodness -- but TOS wasn't a parody either and it's usually in parodies where they will keep it contemporary, of course... TOS was also trying something that was largely quite new... and equally thankfully, no crewmember never used 60s slang such as "groovy", "square", and so on. Of course, TOS was also sold as "adult sci-fi" back then and based on the likes of 1965's "Lost in Space", it's also easy to see why by comparison...

TOS otherwise lampshaded or glossed over monetary details; it was 1986's TVH that first openly said "we don't use money". It's admittedly gimmicky; ideally a show would have some sort of construct but it's not necessary to do.

Of course, then came TNG and half the time they railed on the audience... "The Neutral Zone" and "Lonely Among Us" instantly spring to mind...

On a practical level, the chances of that are true. Look at 1983's "V" (ignore 2009's largely-aimless mess of a reboot, though the season 2 finale showed genuine promise...) Aliens come to Earth, claim to be friends, but are actually quite the contrary. Like the Borg, "V" used the aura of "big unstoppable foe" with "claustrophobia" (or "base under siege" and this base is a whole dang planet0 and very effectively so. The 1984 follow-up miniseries was iffy but still fun, at least. The 1984-5 ill-fated TV series was an aimless mess, which actually started out decently if nothing else and for all its Ham (Tyler or cheesy plotting), the 1985 series is usually more watchable than the 2009 attempt to redo it... with a couple exceptions, and especially once the writers flagrantly eschewed the continuity and plot setups made early on and viewers noticed, then left. For all of what the 85 show tried to do, it was also hampered by a budget that couldn't begin to do half of what they wanted. B+ for effort but when they set up the Bates alliance and his gadgets and failsafes and then, roughly none or whatever episodes later pretend those didn't exist so when he died no fresh cloud of killer red dust was released as a result... ugh... I'd still rather rewatch most of the 85 show than the 09 reboot, save for the finale - which actually got it the feel right and left audiences wanting more. Which is something...

 

[Citiprime]

I love Trek and Rodenberry, buuuuuuuut...
He did get it wrong. Humans are a stupid and violent lot, given at times to moments of genius and morality that is impressive, and other times, lows of ignorance and brutality that would make most other species not want to deal with us. We are an imperfect lot, and always will be.

The record of human history is full of monstrous people, but it's also full of people that sacrificed everything to help others. Roddenberry's supposition, and the one at the core of Star Trek, is that if people could only be given the chance to be better, they will do great wonders. If you remove poverty and prejudice from the equation, all of the evils that flow from that inequality goes away too. Also, a humanity that's recovering from nearly destroying itself in World War III may look at a second chance, learn something from its past mistakes, and grow from it.

If humans know there's more than just Earth, and there's more than just humans, it will unite humanity in a common purpose to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Or as Roddenberry said: ""In a better world, I can do anything."

For everyone that looks at ST and thinks that is our future, I ask you, then why did Harry Mudd even exist? I thought there was no need for money? That it was 'Utopia'? Even in the TOS, the cracks in the logic show. Commerce drives a culture, and you can't have commerce without money, and as long as you have money, you'll always have someone trying to get yours.

Why does Joseph Sisko feel the need to have a restaurant? Or Picard to run a vineyard? Because it's what they like doing and what gives them purpose. Also, it should be noted, Harry Mudd wasn't on Earth. As far as the canon of the franchise, only Earth is said to be specifically moneyless.

That makes sense for a post-scarcity economy with replicators.

 

[fireproof78]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[donners22]

In the commentary track for The Wrath of Khan, director Nicholas Meyer states that when he was writing the movie he didn't see Roddenberry's "perfectibility of man" ideas in The Original Series. Instead, he thought Star Trek was largely about "gunboat diplomacy" because "they usually end up firing."

He takes that further in his autobiography, describing Starfleet as representing American imperialism, going around imposing their values on the rest of the galaxy. It's alluded to in the dinner scene in TUC.

 

[at Quark's]

I wonder what would really happen if we were to end up in a post-scarcity economy.

In earlier generations you often had no choice, If your father was the baker of the village, you probably would follow in his footsteps. If he was a farmer, you probably would become one, too. Not much room to doubt about 'is this really what I want to do?'. These days, when there is more freedom to choose your career, lots of people don't really know what to do, and express doubts about their happiness in their working life. So supposing a post-scarcity economy where no one really has to work if he/she doesn't want to, many people might have problems, too, wondering how to fill their time with something that satisfies them. (The holodeck might be a fantastic invention, but I would imagine it to eventually wear thin for most people if they spent most of their time in it, because ultimately, it's simply not real.) Looking at myself, I like video games a lot but I wouldn't want my life to mainly consist of playing video games. (Though I perhaps could imagine myself being a video game tester but then there's again an external purpose behind it).

 

[Shawnster]

There’s an inherent conflict between the storytelling needs of an adventure show and a principle of non-violence,

And perhaps this is the reason why Star Trek is not the perfect example of the ideal future that some people claim it is. John Champion on The Roddenberry Podcast show Mission Log likes to champion (pun intended) the positive aspects of Humanism and the future of humanity Trek presents. Earth is a post-scarcity paradise where there is no crime, no violence, no poverty, no disease, no oppression, or any other society ills of today. Except, that is not actually the case. Those ills still exist, they just have been kicked down the road to some other planet. As then Commander Sisko said "On Earth there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet headquarters and you see paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the Demilitarised zone, all the problems haven't been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints, just people. Angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive whether it meets with Federation approval or not."

These problems may not exist on Earth, but they still plague humans in the Federation. We've seen human mining colonies where people work in harsh, dangerous conditions at what many would say is a menial job. Diseases that threaten millions have caused the Enterprise to deliver medicines or cures in the nick of time more than once. Famines still happen. Human colonies have been threatened by invading Klingons, Cardassians, and Dominion forces to name but three. Earth itself has been threatened by VGER and the Borg.

As a work of fiction the Roddenberry view of the future works as fine as anything else. As a morality play or if we want to place Star Trek in the category of Aesop's Fables, it does well in promoting positivity while exposing the folly of humanity's negative qualities.

At the end of the day, however, Star Trek is a TV show. It's entertainment and will ultimately succumb to the pressures of corporations and networks. Ultimately I don't believe any television show should be what guides our morality. On the other hand, if it causes us to reevaluate our morals and ethics, then maybe it is doing its job.

As for my opinion on secular humanism and the best future for humanity:

Spoiler

Humans on their own will never solve the problem that we have today. The historical record speaks for itself. Humans are inherently selfish and use that selfish behavior to oppress others or to wage war. Morality isn't really morality but simply how the majority of people feel is the best way to live. The problem with this thinking is opinions change over time whereas morality should be constant. What is right or wrong should not be based on situational ethics or the whims of the majority (or those with money or power). Until all humanity lives by the rule to treat others the way they want to be treated, there will never be true, lasting peace and security.

There is hope for a bright future that Star Trek wants to depict for humanity. There will be a time when crime, violence, war, terrorism, pandemics, and oppression are no more. This future will not be brought about by any human or government.

“God . . . will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”—Revelation 21:3, 4

If anyone is truly interested in discussing this topic further, I can be reached by PM. You may also explore this online at www.jw.org

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don’t see it that way, I see it as saying that preserving utopia paradoxically means having the muscle to protect it.

I strongly disagree with your ideas about morality. Some moral ideas are culturally relative but the basic ideas of Locke’s natural law and Mill’s harm principle are absolute. You may not be able to change human nature but you can change culture and education and create a world where nobody needs to harm others.

 

[Nyotarules]

And perhaps this is the reason why Star Trek is not the perfect example of the ideal future that some people claim it is. John Champion on The Roddenberry Podcast show Mission Log likes to champion (pun intended) the positive aspects of Humanism and the future of humanity Trek presents. Earth is a post-scarcity paradise where there is no crime, no violence, no poverty, no disease, no oppression, or any other society ills of today. Except, that is not actually the case. Those ills still exist, they just have been kicked down the road to some other planet. As then Commander Sisko said "On Earth there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet headquarters and you see paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the Demilitarised zone, all the problems haven't been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints, just people. Angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive whether it meets with Federation approval or not."

These problems may not exist on Earth, but they still plague humans in the Federation. We've seen human mining colonies where people work in harsh, dangerous conditions at what many would say is a menial job. Diseases that threaten millions have caused the Enterprise to deliver medicines or cures in the nick of time more than once. Famines still happen. Human colonies have been threatened by invading Klingons, Cardassians, and Dominion forces to name but three. Earth itself has been threatened by VGER and the Borg.

As a work of fiction the Roddenberry view of the future works as fine as anything else. As a morality play or if we want to place Star Trek in the category of Aesop's Fables, it does well in promoting positivity while exposing the folly of humanity's negative qualities.

At the end of the day, however, Star Trek is a TV show. It's entertainment and will ultimately succumb to the pressures of corporations and networks. Ultimately I don't believe any television show should be what guides our morality. On the other hand, if it causes us to reevaluate our morals and ethics, then maybe it is doing its job.

As for my opinion on secular humanism and the best future for humanity:

Spoiler

Humans on their own will never solve the problem that we have today. The historical record speaks for itself. Humans are inherently selfish and use that selfish behavior to oppress others or to wage war. Morality isn't really morality but simply how the majority of people feel is the best way to live. The problem with this thinking is opinions change over time whereas morality should be constant. What is right or wrong should not be based on situational ethics or the whims of the majority (or those with money or power). Until all humanity lives by the rule to treat others the way they want to be treated, there will never be true, lasting peace and security.

There is hope for a bright future that Star Trek wants to depict for humanity. There will be a time when crime, violence, war, terrorism, pandemics, and oppression are no more. This future will not be brought about by any human or government.

“God . . . will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”—Revelation 21:3, 4

If anyone is truly interested in discussing this topic further, I can be reached by PM. You may also explore this online at www.jw.org

Sadly once Pauline Christianity left Palestine and entered Europe its corruption started, the religion has never recovered. The history books tells the tragedy. The biggest problem with religious beliefs, are the followers.

 

[dupersuper]

Sadly once Pauline Christianity left Palestine and entered Europe its corruption started, the religion has never recovered. The history books tells the tragedy. The biggest problem with religious beliefs, are the followers.

I don't know, the beliefs are pretty loopy as well.