In which I examine what makes the Federation such a darned nice place to live and how it came to be. Much longer than part one.
Last time I showed some examples where Trek warns of the dangers of technology. But most of the time the message is clearly and unequivocally pro-science and pro-technology, with that playing an enormously significant role in keeping paradise running. Perhaps the biggest key to this is the Federation's infinite resources.
Unlimited energy makes a complete mockery of modern economics. When you have a device that can produce enough energy to run the entire planet a hundred times over, what's the point in money ? You can give away all your possessions and easily create more, and you can do absolutely nothing to stop everyone else from getting what they want too. Behaving like a jerk offers none of the social advantages it does in today's society - there's nothing to be gained... competition for resources may actually become self-destructive. There's no point in wasting energy competing for things you could more easily get through collaboration - you just alienate people.
It's easy to be a saint in paradise.... technology is close to 100% reliable. A thousand irritating little chores we currently have to do have ended. Everyday technology does nothing except make life easier. It's nudge theory implemented on a grand scale.
Other species have the unlimited energy and resources of the Federation but behave very differently. These other species serve as a message that humanity and the other Federation members have got the balance just right : not too aggressive, not too passive; rational but passionate. The other species failure to find this harmonious middle ground indicates that there's more to this than simple technological development : there are social and political factors at work too. Only a combination of all three has led to the near-perfection that is the Federation.
The major political event that set humans on a course to utopia was First Contact, uniting disparate factions into one cohesive whole. The sociological factor was World War III, a nuclear holocaust that left 600 million dead. In this bleak era, humanity must have been at its most desperate for change. And into this darkest moment came Zefram Cochrane and his warp drive that brought knowledge of peaceful, space-faring civilisations that had survived their own brutal pasts.
The Federation may be much more tolerant than modern society, but it still has limits and laws. Most people share a common set of values. No-one goes on about racial supremacy, free speech, capital punishment, firearms regulations, or any of the other hundred-odd issues that get people on the internet so outraged today. Rather than this being due to toleration, it seems that most of these issues have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The political movement which began with First Contact succeeded more completely than any other political ideal in history.
So could a Trek-like Eden be realised at least on parts of Earth on a more useful timescale than the next few centuries ? We need technological, social, and political change. The technological aspect we can probably manage without anti-matter reactors. 3D printers are already having an impact, and while general-purpose robots are not yet a thing, progress is being made in that direction. Couple this with the decreasing cost of unlimited renewable energy, and something like the economic situation of Star Trek - albeit on a much smaller scale - begins to look at least plausible, if not necessarily very probable. If everything can be automated then the only currency becomes energy, and if energy is unlimited... then is the moneyless economy of the Federation really so ridiculous ?
But technology won't do jack without a socio-political change to determine how it's used. Can you imagine a world with infinite energy run by the Flat Earth society ? Or (urrrgh) a member of UKIP ? Can we manage the social and political developments without a massive world war and the arrival of the Vulcans ?
Perhaps - but even if we avoid war, the future won't be easy. Certain philosophies are simply going to have to be abandoned. Discrimination of all forms is something that desperately needs to die. No, I don't care if you think free speech is more important - it isn't. Society must in all things aspire to be a meritocracy.
There's a peculiar idea that democracy is great but government interference sucks. Or the reverse, that the good of the state is always more important than the individual. A bizarre and wrong-headed notion that taxation is theft. That healthcare, housing, and sanitation aren't basic human rights.That laws must be absolute. That freedom of speech and democracy are more important than anything else, even if they harm the entire populace. That everyone's opinion on every subject is for some reason worth listening to - not just on social media, but that freedom of the press should be sacrosanct no matter what. All these notions will have to go extinct, and a lot of people are going to be very unhappy about that.
What Some Nerd Thinks About Star Trek (II)
Last time I looked at how Star Trek is a work of sociological science fiction. Human and other Federation societies have achieved something of a utopia, with alien species illustrating what might have happened if we'd chosen the wrong path. Sometimes the aliens make wrong choices because they're stupid - that is, it could have happened to any society.
A big problem right now is zero-sum game thinking. There are so many people in various positions of power (not just major political/big business - can be seen on school-board/village level on up) that see every decision as win/lose and these people are determined not to lose.
ReplyDeleteHow to get past this sort of thinking is beyond me.
The Sociology of Star Trek Full tường nhéRhys Taylor
ReplyDeleteAn even worse problem is the idea that it's not enough for your opponents to fail, they must be punished for their failure and humiliated. This is a theme I didn't really develop too much here, but in the Federation it's possible to win but it isn't really possible to lose. It's sort of like the + 1 button - the numbers can go up or down but never below zero. If all your plans come to nothing, you still have a pretty comfortable life.
ReplyDeleteThis sort of thinking might come about inevitably as technological unemployment forces a UBI. Coupled with advances in energy and automation, it should be possible for even the laziest wastrel to live a comfortable life - which studies show actually prompts _most) people into action rather than turning them into parasites. The problem is that this is likely to be accompanied by the development of AI, which is present only at a marginal level in Star Trek.
There's a twisted form of the Protestant Work Ethic that ascribes moral failure to lack of economic success (see Millennial critiques). I think it's people that ascribe to this world view that are fighting against any form of universal benefits; whether healthcare, UBI, housing, or even water and food. Another roadblock I have no idea how to get around. I just don't get people.
ReplyDeleteThat way of thinking has been around since at least the days of Socrates :
ReplyDeleteMy very good friend, you are an Athenian and belong to a city which is the greatest and most famous in the world for its wisdom and strength. Are you not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give no attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of your soul?
See, I could understand this way of thinking to a degree. If resources were very limited, it makes sense than everyone who can work should work. And work gives money, so the more money you have, the more work you're doing and the more valuable you are to society. It's a small step to infer that if you're not earning money, you're merely draining the state of resources and aren't as valuable. And it's not too much more to suggest that such people shouldn't receive benefits.
The problem is twofold. First, yes, there are indeed very lazy people who scrounge off the system. But this is not true for everyone or even most people on benefits. If you're very lazy and not working you'll be on state benefits, but it does not automatically follow that if you're on state benefits you're lazy. You might be medically unable to work. You might really want to work but can't find employment. If you're reduced to the level of begging, it's very hard indeed to work your way out of that. It's easy to be a saint in paradise, and all that.
Second, resources haven't been nearly that limited for several generations. I would agree that a few centuries ago, giving benefits to lazy people might have been a bad idea because it was simply unaffordable. But no longer. In the western world we have a minimum standard of living that includes digital television access, for heaven's sake. Extra income from automation hasn't been channelled (at least directly) into providing extra benefits for the lost workers, it's just gone into making companies richer. The only way this affects the lost workers is through the extra taxes paid... and the phrase "trickle" down was never more apt. In the future we might have to consider a much more direct relation between automation and benefits.
What I don't understand is the vitriolic passion and closed-mindedness with which people defend the ideas that people should be judged by the economic status. Such people never take the time to look into the individual circumstances of people on benefits; they swallow the Daily Mail's line that they're all benefit scroungers without the least effort to check if that's really true. While it's true that unlimited resources and full automation are some way off, it's also true that we already have the resources needed for everyone to live moderately comfortable lifestyles. Why anyone would consider this to be less important than a few rich billionaires having superyachts is something I don't think I'll ever fully understand.
But how do we get past this attitude, when this seems to be what a good portion of the governing and the governed approve of?
ReplyDelete