Too many dystopias - the world needs utopian Star Trek

[fireproof78]

The variables in the Federation's case are universal prosperity and the clear ascendance of consensuality, not "open relationships." E.g. people who consent to be in a kind of relationship can have one, and those who don't, don't have to. So I don't understand what this is all about:

If one thing has been illustrated to from years of counseling research attitudes towards sexuality are varied across cultures and individual experiences.

Nobody's being forced into one "attitude towards sexuality." Nobody's even being compelled to vacation on Risa and get freaky-deaky with people who dig casual sex if they don't want to. (The Risans are hinted at as being more generally sex-oriented than the Federation standard.) And presumably, though Trek was cowardly about showing this in keeping with Eighties American television norms, nobody's being forced into just heteronormative sex either. (Given the variety of species on offer it's in fact probable that there's something to suit tastes as catholic as those of Captain Jack Harkness.)

So, why are you "curious" as to whether a situation that allows variation without forcing anything on any particular culture is credibly described as "more advanced"? Do you have some other notion about what would be a "more advanced" situation? (I'm leaving aside "evolved," which is meaningless in this context.) If so, what is it?

Eh, it was more a question for clarification sake. The idea that the Federation as never "forced" their view of sexuality on anyone depends largely on the episode.

As for me, I'm largely libertarian, with a leaning towards preferring intact family units for the sake of raising children.

That said, I am always curious about sexual topics because I love learning about other people's points of view. Read in to that what you will (certainly something nefarious).

 

[Makarov]

The money issue has probably had countless threads debating it already and it's always going to be whatever the viewer wants to believe because there's conflicting information in the show. Me, I'll take the no-money view since it's different than every other sci fi show, and a much more positive view than saying Starfleet's role model captain is just selling the federation like a used-car salesman.

 

[The Overlord]

I will say, that I think the Federation should be portrayed in a fairly ideal light (though not too much, that could become self congratulatory and pretentious), but I think we should see more of the Federation's rivals and their unsavory practices.

DS9 was interesting because it explored the abuses the Cardassians inflicted on the Bajorans and the ruthlessness of the Dominion. We don't know much about the Romulan Empire, wouldn't it be interesting to see their imperial policies in action? Shouldn't we have seen more vile actions from a truly unscrupulous capitalist society like the Ferengi?

The idealism of the Federation should be contrasted with the ruthlessness of their rivals, they can be dystopian while the Federation is idealistic.

I think the Federation's idealism is meaningless if their rivals are just some jerks who only exist for the Federation to give lectures at, make these rivals a real contrast to the Federation.

 

[hux]

There is a certain smugness about how the Federation views itself but when you're endlessly confronted by planets of dictators, tyrants, oligarchs and oppressors, that's understandable. I'd love to have seen the Federation meet another power who also embraced a democratic union of planets... but much more effectively than the Federation. That might wipe the smile off their faces.

Re: the money. I've said it before and I'll say it again; no money simply means no paper and coins. They clearly have credits and they clearly have rewards and incentives for certain (unpleasant) work and activities.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

no money simply means no paper and coins. They clearly have credits

Exactly. That's how I look at it as well.

The problem is that Federation credits aren't widely accepted outside of the Federation. That's why Jake had problems trying to get ahold of that baseball card, for example. He can't pay for it with credits, because nobody else will accept them. That's the source of his claims that he doesn't have any money.

Which begs the question, of course, how do the DS9 crew pay for drinks and stuff at Quark's? Quark obviously charges for everything he sells, and I doubt he takes UFP credits either. Although maybe he does, he just charges a commission to do so?

And before anyone asks, yes, UFP credits are canonical:

- they're mentioned many times in TOS
- in TNG, "The Price", where the Federation negotiates for wormhole rights, intending to pay a lump sum of 1.5 million credits for one (plus 100,000 credits every year thereafter).
- Another TNG episode where Riker cashes in his stash of credits to get information from an alien
- One VOY episode where Janeway speaks of buying an artifact, in credits, from a Vulcan master. He immediately raises the price when he finds out she's in Starfleet

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Which begs the question, of course, how do the DS9 crew pay for drinks and stuff at Quark's? Quark obviously charges for everything he sells, and I doubt he takes UFP credits either. Although maybe he does, he just charges a commission to do so?

I seem to recall something about some easy conversion to latinum, or easy source of latinum for Starfleet officers? Not sure if that was ever canon though; Memory Alpha has no info.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If credits were easily exchanged for latinum, then Jake probably wouldn't have had so much trouble buying that baseball card. Quark may have a standing arrangement with the crew so they can buy food and drink (and holosuite time), but Jake doesn't have that luxury.

 

[hux]

Well in the Caretaker pilot, Quark tries to bamboozle Harry into buying a trinket and Harry asks "how much" so he clearly has the means to purchase them and Quark says "cash or credit?" so he's clearly happy to accept whatever currency Harry might offer.

I find it hard to believe Quark wouldn't accept Federation credit given his circumstances.

 

[T'Girl]

If credits were easily exchanged for latinum, then Jake probably wouldn't have had so much trouble buying that baseball card.

We know that several episodes before Jake had obtained a few strips of latinum, but by the time of 'Cards that easily might have been gone. It possible that while credits can be exchanged, Jake at that time had no credits to exchange, and he didn't want to ask his father for any. So he went to Nog.

no money simply means no paper and coins. They clearly have credits

Exactly. That's how I look at it as well.

In Jake's discussion with Nog, Nog states that Humans gave up currency based economics.

Me, I'll take the no-money view since it's different than every other sci fi show

In the Star Trek TNG writers and directors guide (the bible), on page two under "Ship's Mission," the second sentence says "To provide assistance as require to Earth/Federation colonies, commerce, and travelers. Without getting into the words change meaning debate, commerce refers to buying and selling of good and services

Going from that, Starfleet protects Earth/Federation commerce, which means there is buying and selling in the 24th century.

One of the reason I prefer there to be money and a market based economy is that (in all honest) it makes things more complex, and at the same time more recognizable.

 

[The Overlord]

There is a certain smugness about how the Federation views itself but when you're endlessly confronted by planets of dictators, tyrants, oligarchs and oppressors, that's understandable. I'd love to have seen the Federation meet another power who also embraced a democratic union of planets... but much more effectively than the Federation. That might wipe the smile off their faces.

Re: the money. I've said it before and I'll say it again; no money simply means no paper and coins. They clearly have credits and they clearly have rewards and incentives for certain (unpleasant) work and activities.

Well you need conflict to drive a story forward, if the Federation met a democratic union of planets that was more effective them, they would say these guys cool, maybe we can learn a thing or two from them, but besides that there is nothing we have to do with them. That is not really an exciting story.

If Star Wars the Empire was not that bad, there wouldn't be much of a story in that setting

The problem is a lot of the time, the Federation's rivals like the Romulans and the Ferengi come off as just jerks, not truly menacing enemies. The Ferengi are supposed to be everything that is wrong with capitalism, but they started out acting like monkeys and ended up acting like used car sales men, rather then truly manipulative and dangerous corporate overlords. The Romulan Empire is supposed to be this big scary empire, but what planets have they conquered and what is their policy towards the planets they conquer? Both of those rivals lack some real menace that should come from a truly important rival to the Federation.

The Brog and the Dominion come off as menacing, to a lesser degree the Cardassian Union did as well, since we saw what they did with the planets they conquered.

The next time I see an Empire in a Star Trek series, I want to see them engage in actual imperialism, not just posturing.

 

[hux]

Me, I'll take the no-money view since it's different than every other sci fi show

In the Star Trek TNG writers and directors guide

You quoted someone else there, not me.

You know the rules. When someone misquotes you, you respond in kind.

my God, hux has such an astonishingly firm, sexy arse.

Aw shucks, you're making me blush T'Girl.

Well you need conflict to drive a story forward, if the Federation met a democratic union of planets that was more effective them, they would say these guys cool, maybe we can learn a thing or two from them, but besides that there is nothing we have to do with them. That is not really an exciting story.

I'm sure they could come up with some reason for conflict between two such powers. It wouldn't necessarily have to be military conflict but just something that was more complex than the usual cartoon bad-guy, planet of Hitlers adversary. It would be nice to see something that suggests that the Federation were not necessarily the good guys.

 

[The Overlord]

Me, I'll take the no-money view since it's different than every other sci fi show

In the Star Trek TNG writers and directors guide

You quoted someone else there, not me.

You know the rules. When someone misquotes you, you respond in kind.

my God, hux has such an astonishingly firm, sexy arse.

Aw shucks, you're making me blush T'Girl.

Well you need conflict to drive a story forward, if the Federation met a democratic union of planets that was more effective them, they would say these guys cool, maybe we can learn a thing or two from them, but besides that there is nothing we have to do with them. That is not really an exciting story.

I'm sure they could come up with some reason for conflict between two such powers. It wouldn't necessarily have to be military conflict but just something that was more complex than the usual cartoon bad-guy, planet of Hitlers adversary. It would be nice to see something that suggests that the Federation are not the good guys.

I think there is a danger of making the Federation come off as petty jealous jerks if you did that and I really don't want the Federation come off like that. I would rather smug Federation, then being a petty and spiteful organization. Also if this other power isn't that bad, what are the stakes with their rivalry with the Federation? Is the season 1 cliff hanger supposed to be whether a neutral planet signs a trade deal with the Federation or these other guys?

Frankly I think the Federation would be mature enough to admire this other civilization and either suggest an alliance or leave them to their own devices, anything else would make Federation look ridiculously petty.

I want stakes where if the villains win, there are real consequences, not just something mildly inconvenient for the Federation will happen.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

In Jake's discussion with Nog, Nog states that Humans gave up currency based economics.

I'm not ready to take his word for it, just yet.

And even so, it's easy to handwave: Currency = paper bills & coins. Credits aren't that.

 

[Drone]

It's interesting how conversational threads can go poof, disappearing as suddenly as they arose. While my previous comment on the Risa/Federation sexuality discussion was not serious, it occurred to me subsequently whether the genesis of the idea for it was, in part at least, as a transmigration of the anthropological history of the Trobriander islands? Could it have been part of the writer's thinking, who originally introduced the planet, that such a paradise, while being the home of an advanced culture, might also purposefully contains some resonances of the culture and geography of this famously studied society? Or was it more likely simply seen as the combination of elements that would logically be part of an "ideal" vacation planet in the time of the Federation?

It seems from the entry in Memory Alpha, that the provenance of the idea for it was sort of a mixed bag, that definitely evolved, but with no mention of the kind of thought process I offered above. Does anyone know further of that explanation that might at least open the door to my speculation?

 

[T'Girl]

^ Yeah, that was kind of my point. Nog said Humans got rid of currency, but nothing was said about Humans ridding ourselves of exchanges of value (in some form) for goods and services.

When Beverly bought that bolt of cloth, she handed nothing to the merchant, she merely said to charge it to her account.

Voice print? Bio-metrics? DNA scan?

It certain didn't involve currency.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

There is a BBC Documentary on iPlayer right now exploring how Utopias are often a powerful form of social critique - it features the ideas of Gene Roddenbury, and interviews with Nichelle 'Uhura' Nichols - I haven't watched it yet, but it might be good, as BBC4 is known for the best factual documentaries in the world:

Utopia: In Search of the Dream

 

[1001001]

Per the board rules, please do not bump threads that have not had a reply in over a year.

Thanks.