The Sociology of Star Trek Part Two : Federation Utopia

The Sociology of Star Trek Part Two : Federation Utopia

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.

Native English speakers don't know how to communicate

Quite nice follow-up to yesterday's article about the EU negotiations being even more muddied than strictly necessary by linguistic conventions.

“A lot of native speakers are happy that English has become the world’s global language. They feel they don’t have to spend time learning another language,” says Chong. “But… often you have a boardroom full of people from different countries communicating in English and all understanding each other and then suddenly the American or Brit walks into the room and nobody can understand them.”

“The native English speaker… is the only one who might not feel the need to accommodate or adapt to the others,” she adds.

I do try and avoid British colloquialisms when speaking with non-native colleagues. But it does get frustrating if you've been an expat for a few years.

And then there’s cultural style, Blattner says. When a Brit reacts to a proposal by saying, “That’s interesting” a fellow Brit might recognise this as understatement for, “That’s rubbish.” But other nationalities would take the word “interesting” on face value, he says.

When a Brit says, "I'm not sure that..." they generally mean, "that was a really dumb thing you just said". Then again I have a Czech colleague who, frustratingly, never believes me if I say I'm not an expert in some specialist area. He thinks I'm being polite when I'm actually trying to say, "I have no idea what you're talking about, make it simpler".

That’s why Nerriere devised Globish — a distilled form of English, stripped down to 1,500 words and simple but standard grammar. “It’s not a language, it’s a tool,” he says. Since launching Globish in 2004 he’s sold more than 200,000 Globish text books in 18 languages.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161028-native-english-speakers-are-the-worlds-worst-communicators

The Brits don't pretend to say what they mean and expect everyone else does the same

Some interesting insights.

"Now girls," the teacher explained, "when someone offers you something to eat, and you want it, you say yes, not no." These well-brought-up young ladies would usually say: "No, I couldn't possibly" to that plate of biscuits the first time round, and wait to be persuaded before giving in with a gentle: "Oh, go on then."

This is all quite straightforward to Brits, and the subtext is clear. In Germany it's baffling.

Last year David Cameron tried to persuade German Chancellor Angela Merkel to let the UK have a special deal to opt out of free movement of people, while staying in the single market. She said no. And she meant, well, no. Not "no-but-ok-if-you-push-hard-enough-maybe-yes". Just no. But in the UK politicians and journalists are still asking the question: what does Merkel really think?

And amid all the talk of red lines and not revealing your hand, there is ongoing speculation about how to interpret the signals coming out of Berlin. In fact, it's all quite simple. Merkel means what she says. And German politicians are getting increasingly frustrated by London not seeming to understand this.

In the rough-and-tumble world of confrontational British politics, we're all used to hearing things which sound like one thing, but mean another. Politics needs to be exciting in the UK to keep voters and journalists interested. So rhetorical bluster and the odd showy, overblown promise, with a bit of backtracking later, is often forgiven, especially if you've managed a witty gag or two along the way.

Yes - although we're not used to say, promises being stuck on the side of a bus and driven up and down the country and then ignored. Or a blunt statement that tuition fees will be scrapped which is then ignored. We expect the government to at least be seen to be trying, unless it's very obvious that there's no way in hell the promise can be kept as advertised. It's a bit like the standard negotiating tactic of asking for more than you know you'll get so that a reasonable compromise can be reached. You wouldn't start off by stating the absolute worst you're prepared to accept, because that guarantees you'll get a lousy deal.

In Germany - where the tradition of consensual, coalition-building means co-operation and compromise are more highly valued than macho posturing - not saying what you mean is not forgiven. It's seen as dishonest, confused and ineffective.

Which is probably why coalition governments in Britain are lousy. Politics is already confused. Throw in yet another level of compromise and no-one has a clue what they're voting for and everyone hates it (well, most people, anyway).

In fact, that's the word that explains the whole point: you hear the German word "konsequent", which roughly translates as consistent, a lot here. And it's a highly prized virtue. It means you'll do what you say, and live by the consequences if you don't. Some might say we haven't seen much evidence of that in British politics recently.

Indeed. We expect a certain number of u-turns and inconsistencies. But not on this scale.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37799805

Review : Doctor Strange

No spoilers.

I'm not a fan of superhero movies in general but I did enjoy this one. It doesn't take itself too seriously and people seem to actually enjoy superpowers instead of drowning in their own angsty tears the whole time. Even Benedict Cumberbatch tones down the usual in-your-face arrogance. He's still... well, not all that nice, but nowhere near the level of assholery that defines Sherlock. Plus the man was practically born to wear a cape (the cape itself has some acting talent, which is unusual). He really should play a Time Lord at some point.

It's pretty well-paced film with a halfway interesting plot about mystical philosophy. But then I've always had a soft spot for movies in which scientists are forced to confront observations which break their view of reality into itty-bitty pieces... in this case literally. Special effects are like Inception on steroids. Lots and lots of steroids. What could have just been "a big glowy thing" instead becomes quite beautiful. There's some real creativity gone into depicting a fractured reality and spiritual dimensions. Think Inception+The Matrix+Dr Who.

I give this a totally solid 7/10, maybe pushing an 8. It's a very nice work of light entertainment. There's nothing groundbreaking here, but it's enjoyable from start to finish, never loses its humour, and is generally well executed in every regard. Its only real weakness is the main villain, who is introduced a bit too suddenly without sufficient explanation. He somewhat lacks any real sense of menace as a result, which would have been nice. But it doesn't really matter, and I'd rather something fun than yet another "oh woe is me, my only superpower is my sheer angsty mopiness and capacity to endlessly complain the whole time!"

Stay in the cinema until the very end of the credits, because there are couple of extra bits after the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSzx-zryEgM

Ulugh Beg, the battle astronomer

Who says you can't be a warmongering astronomer ?

In 1428, he built an enormous observatory, called the Gurkhani Zij, similar to Tycho Brahe's later Uraniborg as well as Taqi al-Din's observatory in Istanbul. Lacking telescopes to work with, he increased his accuracy by increasing the length of his sextant; the so-called Fakhri sextant had a radius of about 36 meters (118 feet) and the optical separability of 180" (seconds of arc). Using it, he compiled the 1437 Zij-i-Sultani of 994 stars, generally considered the greatest star catalogue between those of Ptolemy and Brahe.

In 1437, Ulugh Beg determined the length of the sidereal year as 365.2570370...d = 365d 6h 10m 8s (an error of +58 seconds). This value was improved by 28 seconds in 1525 by Nicolaus Copernicus, who appealed to the estimation of Thabit ibn Qurra (826–901), which had an error of +2 seconds. However, Beg later measured another more precise value as 365d 5h 49m 15s, which has an error of +25 seconds, making it more accurate than Copernicus' estimate which had an error of +30 seconds.

Beg also determined the Earth's axial tilt as 23.52 degrees, which remained the most accurate measurement for hundreds of years. It was more accurate than later measurements by Copernicus and Tycho Brahe.

When he heard of the death of his father Shahrukh Mirza, Ulugh Beg went to Balkh, where he heard that his nephew had claimed the emirship of the Timurid Empire in Herat. Consequently, Ulugh Beg marched against Ala-ud-Daulah and met him in battle at Murghab. Having won this battle, Ulugh Beg advanced toward Herat and massacred its people in 1448, but Ala-ud-Daulah's brother came to his aid, defeating Ulugh Beg.... Within two years, he was beheaded by the order of his own eldest son while on his way to Mecca.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulugh_Beg

The Finnish approach

Another article irritatingly ruined by the BBC's penchant for one-sentence paragraphs.

Aaaargh.

When will the madness end ?

While children in England and Wales are still toiling away in school into the middle of July, the Finns have already been on holiday for six weeks, in a summer break that lasts 10 to 11 weeks. And completing this picture of less is more, Finnish children do not in theory have to start school until they are seven - although most will have been in classes from an earlier age. But when it comes to the international Pisa tests, Finland is in sixth place and the UK is 23rd in reading; and Finland is 12th and the UK is 26th in maths.

There is little homework, compared with UK schools, and there is no culture of extra private tuition. A key concept in the Finnish school system, says Mr Tuominen, is "trust". Parents trust schools to make the right decisions and to deliver a good education within the school day - and schools put trust in the quality of their teachers.

Teaching is a high-status job in Finland and teachers are accorded a great deal of professional independence. It's a different philosophy from the system in England, says Mr Tuominen, which he sees as being built around a check-list of tests, league tables, targets and public accountability.

But before making any assumptions that the laid-back Finnish approach must be the way forward, you could just as easily look to the educational hot houses of Singapore or South Korea. Their children also do better than those in UK schools, but with an entirely different cultural approach, based on long hours and relentless pressure.

I would also point out the UK is miles ahead in terms of higher education, while South Korea has a suicide rate four times higher than the UK (and the Finnish rate is slightly more than twice the British rate).

"In Finland there's a long-term approach to education policy that means plans remain in place for a significant amount of time, giving them a chance to work," he says. "In England the opposite is true. The government is constantly tinkering with policy and there's an obsession with structure - such as grammar schools and academies - rather than a focus on evidence."

The OECD's education director, Andreas Schleicher, says extra hours are linked to better results. "You teach one hour of science more per week and you will see that reflected in higher average scores," he says. But that doesn't mean it's going to be enough to catch up - because countries such as Finland, he says, can "deliver greater value in learning in fewer hours".

There's also bad news on the homework front. Even if the Finns don't need it, research suggests it makes a positive difference. Prof Susan Hallam from the Institute of Education says there is "hard evidence" that homework really does improve how well pupils achieve. "There is no question about that," she says. A study for the Department for Education found students who did two to three hours of homework per night were almost 10 times more likely to achieve five good GCSEs than those who did no homework.

Saku Tuominen, director of this HundrEd project, says parents in Finland don't really want longer hours in school. He says there is a "holistic" approach to education, with parents wanting a family-friendly approach.

So this article mentions a bunch of interesting facts, but doesn't really tie them together to answer its own question : how is Finnish primary education delivering better results per hour of teaching than British education ? I suppose it's nice to point out than the Finnish system is more holistic and less self-centred than the British idea that personal success in work must be put ahead of family life (e.g. longer summer holidays would be extremely difficult in the UK), but what is it, specifically, in those teaching hours that makes the Finns better ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-37716005

Star Trek as Sociological Fiction

Part 1/2. In which I explore some of the sociological and political aspects of Star Trek.

Trek is also frequently and entirely justifiably accused of resorting to essentially magic when it comes to the science and technology aspect. This is absolutely true but mostly irrelevant. The thing that fans clamouring for more realism are missing is that Trek is to some degree sociological fiction, not science fiction. Alien species aren't usually there to speculate on what alien species would actually be like, they're plot devices. They're there to explore some aspect of human societies, usually to contrast with the utopian Federation to examine why they don't work. Sometimes they've developed advanced tech that's caused social chaos or cohesion, other times they've got some arse-backwards political idea that's easily exposed as nonsense when you compare it to Federation benevolence.

Trek examines sociological issues primarily by means of other species. Sometimes it does so by asking purely speculative, science fiction questions to examine how some technological development might affect us. Sometimes it looks at purely societal issues, often pointing out the flaws of taking things to extremes and the virtues of moderation. Usually, it examines the effects of both technology and politics simultaneously. Because that's the thing about the human condition : you can't fully examine humanity without considering both. Humans like building clever gadgets, and those gadgets influence and change their politics and philosophy, which in turn influences the clever gadgets they build.

In part two, I'll look at the nature of the Federation utopia and how a combination of technology and politics is essential in maintaining it.

What Some Nerd Thinks About Star Trek (I)

Part One : The Sociology of Star Trek A long time ago on an island far, far away, I wrote about why Star Trek is a better show than Battlestar Galactica. That is, Trek is an optimistic piece of science fiction whereas BSG could be accurately titled, "The Very Depressed People Who Got Chased By Sex-Mad Emo Robots And Then They All Died"...

Renewables are now bigger than coal

This article has the stupid BBC curse of one-sentence "paragraphs", so here it is reformatted into something readable.

The International Energy Agency says that the world's capacity to generate electricity from renewable sources has now overtaken coal.

The IEA says in a new report that last year, renewables accounted for more than half of the increase in power capacity. The report says half a million solar panels were installed every day last year around the world. In China, it says, there were two wind turbines set up every hour. Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and hydro are seen as a key element in international efforts to combat climate change.

At this stage, it is the capacity to generate power that has overtaken coal, rather than the amount of electricity actually produced. Renewables are intermittent - they depend on the sun shining or the wind blowing, for example, unlike coal which can generate electricity 24 hours a day all year round. So renewable technologies inevitably generate a lot less than their capacity. Even so it is striking development. The IEA's Executive Director Fatih Birol said "We are witnessing a transformation of global power markets led by renewables".

The expansion of renewable capacity reflects cost reductions for onshore wind and solar panels that the report describes as impressive; reductions that would have been "unthinkable just five years ago". The IEA expects the trend of declining costs to continue. Those two technologies are likely to account for three quarters of future growth in renewables. Hydropower will continue growing, the report says, but it is likely to do so more slowly than before.

Declining costs are also one reason the agency has increased its forecast for renewable capacity in the future. Another factor mentioned by the report is government policies that provide financial incentives for using renewable power sources. The United States, for example, has extended tax credits. The report says policy changes in China, India and Mexico have also been important forces behind the increased forecast for the growth of the sector.

The IEA says the centre of gravity for renewable growth is moving to emerging markets. China, the report says, "remains the undisputable global leader of renewable energy expansion, representing close to 40% of growth". Although this report does point to a much bigger role for renewables than seemed likely very recently, it still thinks there's a need for more.

Mr Birol said: "even these higher expectations remain modest compared with the huge untapped potential of renewables". And in other areas of energy use, beyond electricity, renewables have made less impressive inroads. In transport and heating "progress in renewables penetration… remains slow", the report says.

It also says there is a need for more action on climate change. Renewable energy - for electricity and other uses - is a key group of technologies for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide. Renewables are supplying energy that would probably otherwise have come from burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, which yield greenhouse gases as a waste product.

The IEA says that international targets for limiting climate change will "require stronger decarbonisation rates [which means the replacement of fossil fuels] and accelerated penetration of renewables in all three sectors: power, transport and heat".
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37767250

Psychology research can be spoooooky

OK, this is wonderful. Thoroughly wonderful. In fact it's so wonderful I've decided not to spoil it with a summary, you'll have to read the whole thing for yourselves. You get one quote, that's it.

On the 28th May 1960, at precisely 7:40pm, AD Cornell valiantly attempted to ‘haunt’ a cinema audience who were sitting down to enjoy an X-rated film. Before emerging from the shadows, Cornell draped himself in a white muslin sheet, the fabric covering him from head to toe. He then emerged before the unsuspecting audience and was bathed in the light of projector. He moved in front of the screen, from the left edge to the right edge and back again. For Science!

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161024-the-strange-tale-of-an-x-rated-haunting

The NSF just want to break things

And lo ! The NSF are again considering bonkers options for defunding one of the world's most advanced radio telescopes. Good job, team ! Let's normalise the process of considering radically stupid actions ! YAY !

Alternatives to be evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement will be refined through public input, with preliminary proposed alternatives that include the following:
Continued NSF investment for science-focused operations (No-Action Alternative)
Collaboration with interested parties for science- and education-focused operations with reduced NSF-funded scope
Collaboration with interested parties for operation as a technology and education park
Mothballing of facilities (suspension of operations in a manner such that operations could resume efficiently at some future date)
Deconstruction and site restoration

Woo-hoo.

http://greenbankobservatory.org/eis-statement