The Fascist Ideology of Star Trek by citizen

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And the British military is unlike the military of Anglo-Saxon England, so what? Militaries evolve to meet the threat. They always have. And modern militaries today are far more technical and scientific then they have ever been in the past. It is, in fact, quite in keeping with the theme and attitude of Star Trek that Starfleet should be a highly technical military with a strong emphasis in scientific research.

How do you know that Defence is secondary role of Starfleet? Just because Sweden isn't at war doesn't mean their Army thinks Sweden's defence is secondary, but I bet there is an Amy building somewhere in Sweden where scientific research, not war fighting, is the principle endeavour.

As for the degree to which the Starfleet appears to represent a science and exploration, how do you know that this isn’t simply because the Enterprise was charged with exploration? It actually makes perfect sense that, given the conditions assumed in Star Trek, that the military would want to explore and patrol their region of space.

So you agree with me, if Starfleet is a military it's completely unlike the militaries of today, the same as the militias of yesteryear are completely unlike the militaries of today, so why are you still arguing with me on that?

But how do I know defence is secondary? They spend nearly all their time on other things, nearly all the characters are Scientists or of Scientific backgrounds, and they've said so, on numerous occasions.

Quote:
Quote:
Although the implied militarism is about a military star ship, kind of like saying JAG implies America is militarist.
Citizen, ibid.

I wasn't aware that I wasn't allowed to come to a different understanding through the course of this discussion. Why are you bothering to say anything if you think it's wrong for me to change my mind?

Quote:
Quote:
The Regular Army is a force of full-time professional soldiers. The TA is a reserve force of civilians who fulfil soldier training and operational support on a part-time basis. The TA is not a separate Army. It is an integral part of the Army’s organisation and is designed to reinforce the Regular Army wherever necessary. [Emphasis mine]

Many standing armies included militias, that were still militias, this means nothing.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
I'm not sure what Sulu's nationality was . . .
I think there has actually been some debate over that. Originally, I think he was supposed to be Japanese, but at some time later, it was discovered that the name Sulu actually can’t be pronounced in Japanese. Or so I understand. I really don’t know for sure. What I do know is that Sulu is generally thought to be American now.

Actually, the best source I know of (a novel that hasn't been contradicted by anything [yet]) suggests that Sulu's father is Vietnamese. His mother is Japanese (she's the one who taught him how to fight --Sulus aren't fighters. . . but his mother is a Tanaka

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
We are told that a character is a reporter, but no one ever seems to read the paper or watch the news.
Not true, we don't see news channels, which would be the only way of expressly getting over the idea of an independent news service, because apparently people don't like watching TV and it's disappeared. I imagine it has something to do with holodecks .

It's also implied that Jake's stories were aimed at a print market. He was likely freelance, selling stories to either the Federation News Service or the Bajoran networks.

And we did see different ideas of media freedom when DS9 was occupied by the Dominion: Weyoun promised Jake that his work would not be censored, while the Cardassians demanded that it would be (Of course, we know from Garak that a free press is not a Cardassian concept).

In the post-series DS9 novels, we see that Bajor's infonet is as unregulated as our own (Kira posts a forbidden religious text, and is Attainted, but once something hits the infonet it can never be put back in the bottle), though there are attempts to curtail media freedoms, made possible by the fact that Bajor's government is effectively an appendage to the Vedek Assembly.

We never really needed to see people reading the paper (or the morning news downloads to their PADDs), because we were too busy watching the characters make news. (Actually, now that I think about it, we did see hundreds of scenes of people reading PADDs over raktajinos, so they very well could've been reading the morning news. 'Course, they could also have been reading this month's The NEW Adventures of Captain Proton, but whatever.)

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:23 AM

The Federation has no money, no capitalism and, by implication, a command economy.

Officially the wonderful thing that allowed the creation of what the Federation claims to be paradise on Earth, was contact between Earth and the outside universe. However the Prime Directive requires that all primitive non-warp capable civilisations be left alone and uncontacted and uninfluenced by the outside universe. Why, if first contact was so good for Earth?

Officially, Starfleet exists to explore, and is armed only for self-defence. It has enough firepower to fight the navies of the other major powers on at least equal, and usually superior terms. Why are Starfleets explorers so unwelcome that they need to be so heavily armed?

Every sizeable ship that calls at DS9 from the Federation is a Starfleet vessel. Private citizens are apparently unable to trade with the outside universe.

Officially the Federation has a free media. But we never see anyone pay any attention to a news report, even when there is a full scale war going on around them. Apparently, the official media is not worth listening to. Quarks bar does not even have so much as a TV showing the football scores, never mind CNN.
Note that Sisko should pay some attention to such stations, partly because they often react faster than the militaries own intelligence, and partly because, as station commander, he would have to know what the stations inhabitants have just heard.

Human nature “changed” when the Federation was set up. Why, did they start adding G-32 Paxilon Hydrochlorate to the air processors?

People in the Federation waste no opportunity to tell people, especially each other, how wonderful, paradisical, and perfect the society is. They say it a lot too often, and we never see any actual evidence to that effect.

And according to “Paradise Lost”, this utopia came within a hairs breadth of being overthrown by a single Admiral. Shouldn’t paradise inspire greater loyalty?

Now, there could be an innocent explanation for perhaps any one of these, but all of them?

Anyone would think that Star Trek was a propaganda show, designed to give the impression that the Federation is a wonderful place, and covering up anything questionable…

Of course, in a sense, it is. The writers were told the Federation is some wonderful post-capitalist paradise, and could not imagine what such a society would look like. So we just get people on the fringes, telling us that Earth really is wonderful really…

PS

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Except it was always maintained that Starfleet was formed for scientific research, and research is what they spend most of their time doing.
Quote:
As I understand your arguments, if the army took over the police and counterintelligence roles, as well as complete control over the economy, the army would cease to be a military organisation. After all, the defense of the country would no longer be its primary role. And you would deny, on that basis, that the resulting society was militarised.
I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying the Federation doesn't have a full time army. You're argument seems to be that if we were to disband the military and in times of war used Civilian planes to move police to the combat zone then all of a sudden that means the Police are all in the military even when they're acting as the Police in peace time and that all civilian planes are really military planes no matter where they're going or who they're taking there.

I am attempting to argue (perhaps not entirely clearly) that it does not matter why Starfleet was formed, or what it does when it is not defending the Federation. It clearly controls the vast majority of the mobile firepower of the Federation, and therefore serves the Federation as the functional equivalent of a military, whatever its mission statement.

To reverse your example, suppose the police were abolished, and the Army used to maintain law and order. The Army would now be acting as the police in peace time. Would the Army therefore cease to be a military or “full time army”?

To follow this argument to its logical conclusion, the more functions the Army carried out in peace time, the less like a military it would be. If the army controlled everything in the entire country, including food production, the courts, scientific research etc it would no longer be a military in what I believe is your sense of the term.

Therefore you would not consider the society militarised, precisely because the Army controlled everything.

Using this argument “Starfleet cannot be a military because it conducts scientific research” to prove that the Federation is not a militaristic society therefore risks implicitly admitting that the Federation is controlled by its de facto military.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
The Federation has no money, no capitalism and, by implication, a command economy.

I see so before the invention of money and capitalism there was only command economies. Nice propaganda and rhetoric, shame it doesn't have any relation to reality.

It seems the writers aren't the only people who can't imagine people living their lives in freedom without the motivator of greed, the acquisition of personal wealth.

Quote:
Officially the wonderful thing that allowed the creation of what the Federation claims to be paradise on Earth, was contact between Earth and the outside universe. However the Prime Directive requires that all primitive non-warp capable civilisations be left alone and uncontacted and uninfluenced by the outside universe. Why, if first contact was so good for Earth?

Yeah, except the real problem with your example is that Earth wasn't pre-warp at first contact. First contact was attained because of the first Human Warp flight. So first contact for Earth doesn't support you at all there.

So Earth wasn't contacted until after it attained warp drive. By comparison civilisations that were contacted prior to attaining warp drive ended up as vicious gangster regimes and so on. In fact relations between Vulcans and Humans were strained because the Humans thought the Vulcans were holding them back by NOT giving them the advances to warp five drives.

With martial arts as nice as it would be to be able to download all that ability like in the Matrix, if you could do that you'd have all the power and none of the discipline. Every technology has a good and a bad application, and if nothing else is a constant through history its that if something is given rather than earned it usually ends up being mistreated.

Quote:
Officially, Starfleet exists to explore, and is armed only for self-defence. It has enough firepower to fight the navies of the other major powers on at least equal, and usually superior terms. Why are Starfleets explorers so unwelcome that they need to be so heavily armed?

Exploring has always been dangerous, rarely because the explorers are unwelcome invaders from a militaristic nation, so again I fail to see how this supports anything.

Quote:
Every sizeable ship that calls at DS9 from the Federation is a Starfleet vessel.

All you have to do to disprove this is watch any episode without the blinkers. DS9 is constantly being visited by sizeable vessels, rarely Starfleet ones. I'm afraid the reality is the polar opposite of what you say.

Quote:
Private citizens are apparently unable to trade with the outside universe.

I've already disproved this, Federation citizens are clearly shown trading with the outside world. Ignoring anything I say that doesn't fit what you think doesn't make you right.

Quote:
Officially the Federation has a free media. But we never see anyone pay any attention to a news report, even when there is a full scale war going on around them. Apparently, the official media is not worth listening to.

Again, I've already indicated that the people read the news, there's overt references to it. I don't feel the need to keep disproving these things simply because you won't listen.

Quote:
Quarks bar does not even have so much as a TV showing the football scores, never mind CNN.

Hardly surprising considering TV doesn't exist any more. I've seen period dramas where people didn't have CNN on the TV too, I guess that means that the Victorians didn't have a free news service.

Or it means they don't have TVs, perhaps.

Quote:
Note that Sisko should pay some attention to such stations, partly because they often react faster than the militaries own intelligence, and partly because, as station commander, he would have to know what the stations inhabitants have just heard.

Actually I'm sure there are scenes of him referring to a civilian media, as I said.

Quote:
Human nature “changed” when the Federation was set up. Why, did they start adding G-32 Paxilon Hydrochlorate to the air processors?

Yes because a global nuclear war that nearly wipes out the entire Human race followed by contact with aliens are such minor events people would never re-evaluate their priorities in light of them. It's not like it's ever happened before, I mean even after the First and Second World Wars Europe is still constantly mired in regional conflict. I mean only today Britain invade France.

Quote:
And according to “Paradise Lost”, this utopia came within a hairs breadth of being overthrown by a single Admiral. Shouldn’t paradise inspire greater loyalty?

George Bush says there's Islamo-Fascists under your bed and people are prepared to turn a blind eye to wire tapping and torture. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Quote:
Now, there could be an innocent explanation for perhaps any one of these, but all of them?

All of them? You've just repeated points I've already disproved.

Quote:
I am attempting to argue (perhaps not entirely clearly) that it does not matter why Starfleet was formed, or what it does when it is not defending the Federation. It clearly controls the vast majority of the mobile firepower of the Federation, and therefore serves the Federation as the functional equivalent of a military, whatever its mission statement.

Well then that is exactly what you are arguing, actually.

Quote:
To reverse your example, suppose the police were abolished, and the Army used to maintain law and order. The Army would now be acting as the police in peace time. Would the Army therefore cease to be a military or “full time army”?

That's not an equivalent situation at all.

If a peasant in feudal Europe takes up arms in a war but goes back to his farm and uses his spear to toil his soil I maintain that doesn't turn his farm into a military food production facility, the basic logical conclusion to your argument is that it does. He and peasants like him may be the only defence in time of war, but at the end of the day he's still a farmer.

You maintain that makes him a full time soldier that does a bit of farming.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 28, 2006 2:22 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Actually, the best source I know of (a novel that hasn't been contradicted by anything [yet]) suggests that Sulu's father is Vietnamese. His mother is Japanese (she's the one who taught him how to fight --Sulus aren't fighters. . . but his mother is a Tanaka ).

I knew that there was some reference to Sulu’s origins on screen, but I couldn’t think of where, so I decided to star rewatching the movies and the first one that I watched, Star Trek IV, I found it. (Must have been some of HK psychic powers.

) Sulu says that he was born in San Francisco.

On another note, I found it rather telling that Starfleet headquarters as well as Starfleet Academy is located in San Francisco. I think there is a bit of a cultural nod in the direction of the Academic Left.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 29, 2006 4:49 AM

There's also the old joke about how the weird people move west. Europe to the Americas, across the continent to California --if you're too weird for San Francisco, you may be too weird for the planet.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 29, 2006 6:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
The Federation has no money, no capitalism and, by implication, a command economy.
I see so before the invention of money and capitalism there was only command economies. Nice propaganda and rhetoric, shame it doesn't have any relation to reality.

It seems the writers aren't the only people who can't imagine people living their lives in freedom without the motivator of greed, the acquisition of personal wealth.

If you think about it, all societies must contain elements of trade and command economics. To take an example, in a small group of similar people, such as a band of hunter-gathers or, possibly, a small group of farmers, people trade favours. We all do this with friends. But it is always expected that favours will be repaid. Someone who refuses to pay favours back is remembered, and people stop doing him favours.
As the group gets larger or more complicated it becomes harder to keep this system working as it becomes harder to decide whether a favour has been paid back in full. It may be hard to pay the favour back at all. If this is the first time you have met a man, and neither of you expects to see the other again, how can either of you return a favour?
So the trade becomes explicit: you do something for him, and he does something for you. The community has now invented barter. “I’ll give you these dilithium crystals, and you fix my warp core.”
If the community becomes larger or more complicated still, even barter has a problem. If you are an air traffic controller, and you want to buy some bread, what exactly can you give the baker in exchange? Or the guy you need to fix your vacuum cleaner?
So people start to use something that almost everyone will want at some time, and use it as a medium of exchange. It can be anything widely used. Rice, tobacco, gold, even sea shells have all been used.
This is the invention of money, when suddenly it becomes possible to get almost anyone to do you a favour, at almost no notice.
The latest step was the invention of fiat money (dollars, euros etc) which have absolutely no value, except as a medium of exchange.
In a complex society, the elimination of money would make trade almost impossible, because it would be rare for two people to have needs and abilities that matched exactly.
A complex society that lacks money is therefore one in which trade is almost impossible, or unnecessary.

The small group of people must also have elements of a command economy. Some things are done because a more important person, or group of people, or the group as a whole, tells you to. Again, in a bigger and more complex group things will tend to become more formalised, as people try to keep track of what decisions have been made by who about what and who will carry them out.

From this point of view fascism, communism, feudalism, democratic socialism etc are distinguished by who makes the decisions about what for which (declared or undeclared) purpose. And of course, they have different means of selecting the decision making entity or person. (e.g. town council, feudal overlord etc).

If the Federation has no money, internal trade must be unimportant, and by default the Federation must be largely a command economy. Post any alternative you can think of. People could still do favours for friends, and there may be some barter, but if trade with strangers were at all common they would still use money.

Note that all this has nothing to do with the motives “greed”, “altruism” etc, of the people who live in a society. Federation citizens could be perfectly altruistic in an entirely free market society. Those who earned more than average could give the extra money away to those with a below average income. And they could give the government however much money it thought it needed.

We are compelled to pay taxes only because people will not give the government as much money as it wants voluntarily.

Conversely of course, people living in a command economy may be altruistic, but they certainly can be otherwise.

I may post on Citizens other points later, but right now, I need a break!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Officially the wonderful thing that allowed the creation of what the Federation claims to be paradise on Earth, was contact between Earth and the outside universe. However the Prime Directive requires that all primitive non-warp capable civilisations be left alone and uncontacted and uninfluenced by the outside universe. Why, if first contact was so good for Earth?
Yeah, except the real problem with your example is that Earth wasn't pre-warp at first contact. First contact was attained because of the first Human Warp flight. So first contact for Earth doesn't support you at all there.

So Earth wasn't contacted until after it attained warp drive. By comparison civilisations that were contacted prior to attaining warp drive ended up as vicious gangster regimes and so on. In fact relations between Vulcans and Humans were strained because the Humans thought the Vulcans were holding them back by NOT giving them the advances to warp five drives.

Earth had possessed warp technology for less than one day at the time of First Contact. I find it hard to see how this development could have made First Contact so much more beneficial to humanity, than it would have been five, or even a hundred, years before.

Quote:
From memory alpha:
Starfleet officers are required to understand that allowing cultures to develop on their own is an important right and therefore must make any sacrifice to protect cultures from contamination, even at the cost of their own lives.
In all, there are 47 sub-orders in the Prime Directive. (VOY: "Infinite Regress")
Originally the Directive was a shield for primitive worlds. If such a world was in danger, Starfleet had been known to order ships to save that world, provided it could be done without violating the Directive (TOS: "The Paradise Syndrome").
The Directive was later amended, prohibiting Starfleet officers from intervening even if it would result in the extinction of an entire species or the end of all life on a planet or star system. By the 24th century the Federation had begun applying the Prime Directive to warp-capable species, refusing to interfere in internal matters such as the Klingon Civil War. (TNG: "Pen Pals", "Homeward", "Redemption, Part I", "Redemption, Part II")

It would appear that the primary purpose of the Prime Directive is to maintain the cultural purity of the worlds in question, and that it is thought better to let a species die than render them impure. I really do not think that that is a very good sign at all.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Officially, Starfleet exists to explore, and is armed only for self-defence. It has enough firepower to fight the navies of the other major powers on at least equal, and usually superior terms. Why are Starfleets explorers so unwelcome that they need to be so heavily armed?
Exploring has always been dangerous, rarely because the explorers are unwelcome invaders from a militaristic nation, so again I fail to see how this supports anything.

Because Starfleets explorers apparently require enough firepower to fight a full scale war against another major power. It is as if every expedition in the amazon took an army battalion with them. If you take that much firepower, people will assume that you are invading, and then you probably will have a battle.

Quote:

Quote:
Every sizeable ship that calls at DS9 from the Federation is a Starfleet vessel.
All you have to do to disprove this is watch any episode without the blinkers. DS9 is constantly being visited by sizeable vessels, rarely Starfleet ones. I'm afraid the reality is the polar opposite of what you say.

All the Starfleet ships have mostly human crews. Every non-starfleet vessel I have seen appeared to have a non-human crew, strongly suggesting that it did not come from the Federation. This was not true in Captain Archer’s day, but that was the time the Federation was created, about 200 years before DS9.

Quote:

Quote:
Private citizens are apparently unable to trade with the outside universe.
I've already disproved this, Federation citizens are clearly shown trading with the outside world. Ignoring anything I say that doesn't fit what you think doesn't make you right.

Quote:

From Memory Alpha:

When Nog suggests that Jake should bid for a baseball card in an auction, Jake says "I'm Human, I don't have any money." Nog replies "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement." Jake says "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." Nog then replies "What does that mean?" Jake responds "It means we don't need money!" (DS9: "In the Cards")

If Jake is unable even to buy a baseball card, that strongly suggests that individual Federation citizens do have problems trading with the outside universe. (My claim that it is impossible is admittedly an exaggeration.)

Note that all this is consistent with the Federations belief that to interfere with a culture is bad for it. Trade between two cultures would alter both cultures. IIRC we do see Sisko conducting trade negotiations, but that would imply that Starfleet or the Federation Government is trading, not private citizens (and as Sisko is the commander of a space station, trade negotiations cannot make up that much of his duties).

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
We are told that a character is a reporter, but no one ever seems to read the paper or watch the news.
Not true, we don't see news channels, which would be the only way of expressly getting over the idea of an independent news service, because apparently people don't like watching TV and it's disappeared. I imagine it has something to do with holodecks .
It's also implied that Jake's stories were aimed at a print market. He was likely freelance, selling stories to either the Federation News Service or the Bajoran networks.

And we did see different ideas of media freedom when DS9 was occupied by the Dominion: Weyoun promised Jake that his work would not be censored, while the Cardassians demanded that it would be (Of course, we know from Garak that a free press is not a Cardassian concept).

Fair enough. Does the media matter though? Is there, for example, any case where freedom of the press requires one thing, and the Federation desires another? And if so, how is the conflict resolved?

If Weyoun promised not to censor Jakes work, even when Jake was living in or near a major Dominion military base, in the middle of a war with the power Jake is presumably loyal to, Weyoun must not expect Jake to report anything of military importance. In Jakes position, I think I would feel a little insulted…

Quote:

Quote:
Human nature “changed” when the Federation was set up. Why, did they start adding G-32 Paxilon Hydrochlorate to the air processors?
Yes because a global nuclear war that nearly wipes out the entire Human race followed by contact with aliens are such minor events people would never re-evaluate their priorities in light of them. It's not like it's ever happened before, I mean even after the First and Second World Wars Europe is still constantly mired in regional conflict. I mean only today Britain invade France.

After the First and Second World Wars we had the Cold War. After Cortez arrived in the Americas, many cities took advantage to rebel against their overlords in Mexico City. The motives that drive Shakespeare characters are perfectly familiar to people today, 400 years later. People who survived the Killing Fields or death camps did not suddenly become more virtuous. The show can never show the mechanism by which this alleged transformation occurred. All it can do is have people assert that it happened.

Bear in mind that every attempt to remake human nature in recent history has invariably lead to disaster, and usually to a totalitarian state.

Quote:

Quote:
And according to “Paradise Lost”, this utopia came within a hairs breadth of being overthrown by a single Admiral. Shouldn’t paradise inspire greater loyalty?
George Bush says there's Islamo-Fascists under your bed and people are prepared to turn a blind eye to wire tapping and torture. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Indeed it is. A country facing war will often accept changes intended to make prosecuting that war easier and more successful. Usually a coup will not do that. It divides peoples loyalties and risks civil war, and certain political turbulence, on top of all the other problems. People fear to change the government under such circumstance cf the 90% approval ratings for Bush immediately after 9/11.

It is not the sort of thing you do unless the current government is thought irredeemably incompetent and unable. If the government has any strength at all no one is going to try to change it by unconstitutional means, unless it has already failed disastrously in the war. E,g, Napoleon in 1814 and 1815, Russia in 1917, Germany in 1918, France in 1940.

I think the important point is really Jakes:

Quote:

There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.

Star Trek tends to see virtue as loyalty to a higher collective. People are supposed to make life better for their people: humanity, bajorans, romulans etc. The point is not to make people free, but to make them think the right way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 30, 2006 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Earth had possessed warp technology for less than one day at the time of First Contact.

It's a milestone. Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki proves we had harnessed the atom and were moving into the atomic age.

Quote:
I find it hard to see how this development could have made First Contact so much more beneficial to humanity, than it would have been five, or even a hundred, years before.

So you think aliens turning up in medieval Europe with technology like nuclear weapons, handing them over and saying "go nuts" wouldn't have an adverse reaction?

Quote:
It would appear that the primary purpose of the Prime Directive is to maintain the cultural purity of the worlds in question, and that it is thought better to let a species die than render them impure. I really do not think that that is a very good sign at all.

But the Federation council has decided to not implement the prime directive under certain circumstances. Frankly I find the idea of a law that prevents one captain from beaming down and handing over nuclear weapons to an alien tribal chieftain who could never hope to understand the consequences of using them as a pretty good idea.

Quote:
Because Starfleets explorers apparently require enough firepower to fight a full scale war against another major power. It is as if every expedition in the amazon took an army battalion with them. If you take that much firepower, people will assume that you are invading, and then you probably will have a battle.

Actually many times in the series Starfleet ships have been shown to be less powerful than the individual warships of other nations. A Romulan warbird is superior, as is a Vor'Cha Klingon Cruiser, to the Enterprise D, apparently the most powerful ship in starfleet.

Quote:
All the Starfleet ships have mostly human crews. Every non-starfleet vessel I have seen appeared to have a non-human crew, strongly suggesting that it did not come from the Federation. This was not true in Captain Archer’s day, but that was the time the Federation was created, about 200 years before DS9.

Actually I think this is one of the circumstances where you can defer to the dictates of television budgets. They can't afford to stock the ships with cool looking aliens. I think that the fact that they mention Starfleet is open to all and show enough Aliens to indicate an alien presence is enough.

There's no reoccurring Asian characters in Firefly, but say so is enough to accept that America and China merged.

Quote:
If Jake is unable even to buy a baseball card, that strongly suggests that individual Federation citizens do have problems trading with the outside universe. (My claim that it is impossible is admittedly an exaggeration.)

Not really, my god daughter can't bid in auctions. I can't bid in an auction if they don't accept the currency I carry. I have to exchange it, which in the above episode is exactly what Jake does (I was actually going to bring that episode up myself, thanks). He trades what he does have to get Latinum so that he can bid in the auction. I don't see how that's fundamentally different to going to a Bureau de Change.

Quote:
Note that all this is consistent with the Federations belief that to interfere with a culture is bad for it. Trade between two cultures would alter both cultures. IIRC we do see Sisko conducting trade negotiations, but that would imply that Starfleet or the Federation Government is trading, not private citizens (and as Sisko is the commander of a space station, trade negotiations cannot make up that much of his duties).

Interference and trade with cultures of a similar technological level are different things.

Quote:
Fair enough. Does the media matter though? Is there, for example, any case where freedom of the press requires one thing, and the Federation desires another? And if so, how is the conflict resolved?

Can't think of an example off hand, but that's not indicative of anything, we don't see the Daily Planet in Superman have stories conflict with the powers that be, and the main character works for them.

Quote:
If Weyoun promised not to censor Jakes work, even when Jake was living in or near a major Dominion military base, in the middle of a war with the power Jake is presumably loyal to, Weyoun must not expect Jake to report anything of military importance. In Jakes position, I think I would feel a little insulted…

I don't think DS9 was a major Dominion base. But besides I imagined Weyoun trusted his security, we have reporters outside military head quarters all the time without fear of them giving away military secrets (save perhaps when the staff REALLY go home).

Quote:
After the First and Second World Wars we had the Cold War. After Cortez arrived in the Americas, many cities took advantage to rebel against their overlords in Mexico City. The motives that drive Shakespeare characters are perfectly familiar to people today, 400 years later. People who survived the Killing Fields or death camps did not suddenly become more virtuous. The show can never show the mechanism by which this alleged transformation occurred. All it can do is have people assert that it happened.

The cold war wouldn't have remained a cold war in old Europe. It's a matter of course that in different societies have different social outlooks and different priorities. Just because the culture of the Federation isn't based around the acquisition of personal wealth doesn't mean it doesn't have freedom. I find it perplexing bit of rhetoric from capitalists that seem to suggest the thing people want most is to get rich. Are we really that cynical about basic Human nature?

Quote:
Indeed it is. A country facing war will often accept changes intended to make prosecuting that war easier and more successful. Usually a coup will not do that. It divides peoples loyalties and risks civil war, and certain political turbulence, on top of all the other problems. People fear to change the government under such circumstance cf the 90% approval ratings for Bush immediately after 9/11.

If the American public had honestly thought that Bush was at fault for it? The rogue Admirals thought the Federation council wasn't doing enough to protect the Federation, Military coups have and do happen for these reasons. That doesn't mean that it is, merely that they thought it was, by a minority. This happens, I don't think it's necessarily indicative of anything, especially remembering that at the time the federation had been invaded by a number of hostile powers.

Quote:
I think the important point is really Jakes:
Quote:
There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.

Star Trek tends to see virtue as loyalty to a higher collective. People are supposed to make life better for their people: humanity, bajorans, romulans etc. The point is not to make people free, but to make them think the right way.

This is something most decent people feel intuitively isn't it? I mean bettering themselves? Making life better for future generations? Sounds more like the culture has shifted the emphasis from one basic instinct to another.

In fact it could be argued this is what Capitalists believe, they just go about it in a round about way.

But this ignores the basic thing, every culture programs it's citizens to a degree. You think it's normal to want the latest products? It's not a basic Human instinct to want the latest washing machine, and frankly I find the cultural programming that sets us up for commercialism far more insidious than programming us to improve ourselves. Our society doesn't just make us think the right way, it aims to make us buy the right way, and even behave in the right way (I reference companies that use colour schemes to ensure people eat quickly in fast food restaurants and the like). If we're being bombarded with 'programming' to buy the latest things from the latest brand names are we really free or do we just think we are?

My point is that EVERY culture makes us think the 'right' way. That's part of what a culture is, a framework on how we should think and behave, it's just when it's OUR culture we can't really see it, because that's just the way it is. We all see reality through the filter of our culture.

Just to touch on money again we know some things: The necessities of life are pretty much taken care of. Finn's arguments that only a magic wand allows the left to function aside we know that people have food and shelter and they don't need to buy it. So trade at least internally to the Federation is limited to what can't be replicated, luxury items of various types. There's no problem trading in a barter system for these, in fact due to the subjective nature of their worth I would argue that for a lot of things it's MORE efficient.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 8, 2006 3:26 AM

To take the least important points first:

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
It would appear that the primary purpose of the Prime Directive is to maintain the cultural purity of the worlds in question, and that it is thought better to let a species die than render them impure. I really do not think that that is a very good sign at all.
But the Federation council has decided to not implement the prime directive under certain circumstances. Frankly I find the idea of a law that prevents one captain from beaming down and handing over nuclear weapons to an alien tribal chieftain who could never hope to understand the consequences of using them as a pretty good idea.

It is a good idea and is a reason for having export restrictions on munitions. But the Prime Directive also bans any form of contact until the species is warp-capable. Including such ideas as the germ theory of disease, the printing press, and writing. And the milestone of warpdrive has nothing to do with culture, social sophistication etc – we know that from looking at the Klingons, Cardassians etc
Note the TNG episode “Who watches the Watchers”, where it is a disaster when members of a pre-warp race briefly see to people observing them.
Common sense suggests that the Federations desire is to preserve the cultural purity of other races until it is physically impossible to do so. After all, they explicitly give that as the reason.

Quote:

Quote:
Because Starfleets explorers apparently require enough firepower to fight a full scale war against another major power. It is as if every expedition in the amazon took an army battalion with them. If you take that much firepower, people will assume that you are invading, and then you probably will have a battle.
Actually many times in the series Starfleet ships have been shown to be less powerful than the individual warships of other nations. A Romulan warbird is superior, as is a Vor'Cha Klingon Cruiser, to the Enterprise D, apparently the most powerful ship in starfleet.

At Trafalger Nelsons flagship was the 102 gun Victory. I believe she was the most powerful ship in the British fleet (Admirals led their fleets into battle literally, so she must have been one of the most powerful). The most powerful ship in the Allies fleet was the 136 gun Santissima Trinidad. I gather the French Navy also had ships in the 120 gun range. But no one would have said that Victory was built primarily to explore, just because she was slightly smaller than the most powerful ships in the other major navies..
Compare this with the Endeavour, Beagle, Challenger which certainly were exploratory ships, and needed very little firepower. To be fair, it was possible to argue in TNG that the Federation had a huge technological advantage over the other powers (like the Culture in an Iain M Banks novel). This does not really work for DS9, when the other powers (especially the Dominion!) have to be taken seriously. The writers changed the universe around the Federation, which leaves everything looking a little odd…

Quote:

Quote:
All the Starfleet ships have mostly human crews. Every non-starfleet vessel I have seen appeared to have a non-human crew, strongly suggesting that it did not come from the Federation. This was not true in Captain Archer’s day, but that was the time the Federation was created, about 200 years before DS9.
Actually I think this is one of the circumstances where you can defer to the dictates of television budgets. They can't afford to stock the ships with cool looking aliens. I think that the fact that they mention Starfleet is open to all and show enough Aliens to indicate an alien presence is enough.

Agreed, but where are the human businessman? The only one we see is (maybe) Cassidy Yates, and she is working for Bajor.

Quote:

Quote:
If Jake is unable even to buy a baseball card, that strongly suggests that individual Federation citizens do have problems trading with the outside universe. (My claim that it is impossible is admittedly an exaggeration.)
Not really, my god daughter can't bid in auctions. I can't bid in an auction if they don't accept the currency I carry. I have to exchange it, which in the above episode is exactly what Jake does (I was actually going to bring that episode up myself, thanks). He trades what he does have to get Latinum so that he can bid in the auction. I don't see how that's fundamentally different to going to a Bureau de Change.

The reason Jake gives for not having money is not “I am young”, but “I am human. We don’t have any money”. Money is useful only for trade and accounting, so if Federation citizens have no money it seems safe to conclude that they rarely engage in trade, with each other or anyone else.

Quote:

So trade at least internally to the Federation is limited to what can't be replicated, luxury items of various types. There's no problem trading in a barter system for these, in fact due to the subjective nature of their worth I would argue that for a lot of things it's MORE efficient.

I should have thought it would be harder myself.

For example if I have a Ming vase, and want season tickets to the opera, I can sell the vase for money, and then buy opera tickets.

If money does not exist, what do I do?

Hope that someone at the opera likes Ming vases?

Exchange the vase for [barter good A], and buy the tickets with that? How do I know what [barter good A] the opera will want? How can I find someone prepared to give it to me in exchange for a Ming vase?

I really need everyone to agree to trade in the same commodity, so I can just sell the vase for that, and buy my tickets with it.

That is why money was invented.

Quote:

Quote:
After the First and Second World Wars we had the Cold War. After Cortez arrived in the Americas, many cities took advantage to rebel against their overlords in Mexico City. The motives that drive Shakespeare characters are perfectly familiar to people today, 400 years later. People who survived the Killing Fields or death camps did not suddenly become more virtuous. The show can never show the mechanism by which this alleged transformation occurred. All it can do is have people assert that it happened.
The cold war wouldn't have remained a cold war in old Europe.

There had been cold wars before. The UK had rather unhappy relations with the US and France throughout the 19th century, but the cold wars stayed cold. A cold war will stay a cold war as long as both sides fear the consequences of turning it into a hot war. With nukes around, that fear was naturally a lot more common.

Quote:

Quote:
Indeed it is. A country facing war will often accept changes intended to make prosecuting that war easier and more successful. Usually a coup will not do that. It divides peoples loyalties and risks civil war, and certain political turbulence, on top of all the other problems. People fear to change the government under such circumstance cf the 90% approval ratings for Bush immediately after 9/11.
If the American public had honestly thought that Bush was at fault for it? The rogue Admirals thought the Federation council wasn't doing enough to protect the Federation, Military coups have and do happen for these reasons. That doesn't mean that it is, merely that they thought it was, by a minority. This happens, I don't think it's necessarily indicative of anything, especially remembering that at the time the federation had been invaded by a number of hostile powers.

It could happen, if people hold the existing government in sufficient contempt. But what does that suggest about popular opinion of the Federation government?

Quote:

Quote:
I think the important point is really Jakes:
Quote:
There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.

Star Trek tends to see virtue as loyalty to a higher collective. People are supposed to make life better for their people: humanity, bajorans, romulans etc. The point is not to make people free, but to make them think the right way.
This is something most decent people feel intuitively isn't it? I mean bettering themselves? Making life better for future generations? Sounds more like the culture has shifted the emphasis from one basic instinct to another.

Now this is the most important point, and I would like to post about it separately.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 8, 2006 4:33 AM

Good to see you back Cavalier.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
It is a good idea and is a reason for having export restrictions on munitions. But the Prime Directive also bans any form of contact until the species is warp-capable. Including such ideas as the germ theory of disease, the printing press, and writing. And the milestone of warpdrive has nothing to do with culture, social sophistication etc – we know that from looking at the Klingons, Cardassians etc

I was using Nuclear weapons as an extreme example of perversion of technology.

The Milestone of warp drive shows that the culture is the one going out and deciding to meet with other races if they so exist, rather than having that intervention thrust upon them. Its a fundamental difference.

Quote:
Note the TNG episode “Who watches the Watchers”, where it is a disaster when members of a pre-warp race briefly see to people observing them.

That supports my point well.

Quote:
At Trafalger Nelsons flagship was the 102 gun Victory. I believe she was the most powerful ship in the British fleet (Admirals led their fleets into battle literally, so she must have been one of the most powerful). The most powerful ship in the Allies fleet was the 136 gun Santissima Trinidad. I gather the French Navy also had ships in the 120 gun range. But no one would have said that Victory was built primarily to explore, just because she was slightly smaller than the most powerful ships in the other major navies..

This isn't equivalent. The HMS Victory has 104 guns (I say has because she's still technically in service with the Royal Navy) where as the largest ship at Trafalgar, and the ship with the most guns in the world at the time was the Spanish Santísima Trinidad with 136. There were two other Spanish ships, the Santa Anna and the Príncipe de Asturias with ~112 guns. But despite their on paper superiority British sailors were better trained and better drilled so could fire more rounds per minute. Thus the HMS Victory in reality out gunned even the Santísima Trinidad.

The implication I was arguing against was that Starfleet built the most powerful warships, this is simply not the case. The other major powers put emphasis on fire power, Starfleet does not.

Quote:
Compare this with the Endeavour, Beagle, Challenger which certainly were exploratory ships,

They weren't exploratory ships, they were smaller warships. A purpose built exploratory ship would be a vessel like HMS Dolphin, a 24 gun Frigate and one of the first vessels to be outfitted with copper sheathing. A ship that lead skirmishes against the French and was the second ship to be outfitted with armour.

Quote:
The reason Jake gives for not having money is not “I am young”, but “I am human. We don’t have any money”.

doesn't argue against "I can't bid in an auction if they don't accept the currency I carry. I have to exchange it, which in the above episode is exactly what Jake does (I was actually going to bring that episode up myself, thanks). He trades what he does have to get Latinum so that he can bid in the auction. I don't see how that's fundamentally different to going to a Bureau de Change.".

Quote:
Money is useful only for trade and accounting, so if Federation citizens have no money it seems safe to conclude that they rarely engage in trade, with each other or anyone else.

So where do they get all those antiques and things in their quarters. Where do they get things like real alcohol? Steal it?

Quote:
The UK had rather unhappy relations with the US and France throughout the 19th century, but the cold wars stayed cold.

The UK and France went to war a number of times over the 19th century. Both the Battle of Trafalgar and the battle of Waterloo were fought in the 1800s. Following these France was mired in to much internal political strife to fight with anyone else. Likewise there were a number of armed confrontations between the UK and the US but both nations were to busy fighting other people to go to war.

Quote:
It could happen, if people hold the existing government in sufficient contempt. But what does that suggest about popular opinion of the Federation government?

That it isn't militaristic enough?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 8, 2006 4:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
And the milestone of warpdrive has nothing to do with culture, social sophistication etc – we know that from looking at the Klingons, Cardassians etc

Actually, the Klingons didn't invent warp drive, they got it from the Hur'q, a warp-capable race who conquered the primitive Klingons and bit off more than they could chew (the Hur'q are extinct now, and the Klingons rule an interstellar Empire with their back-engineered technology). That's why Klingon culture is so odd; they should be just inventing gunpowder about now, but instead they have starships, disruptors, and cloaking devices --the Klingons are an example of what happens when you break the Prime Directive.

There's also evidence that the Hebitians (before they called themselves Cardassians) got their warp drive from the ancient Bajorans. They seem to have had warp technology in the Hebitian age (the Hebitians were artistic, intellectual, and compassionate, much like the modern Bajorans), and there's evidence that Hebitia and Bajor were allies (and even shared the same religion --the Oralian Way seems linked to the Bajoran Prophets), before Hebitia's resources ran out and the "Cardassian Movement" took over. The Hebitian culture collapsed, and the revolution reformed the newly-named "Cardassia" into a military dictatorship, aimed at securing needed recources however they could (i.e., through conquest).

(In Enterprise, a lot of alien writing systems seemed to resemble ancient Bajoran [though Hoshi obviously wouldn't recognize this, I'm going by my own graphic design training --it looks like the Enterprise graphic designers borrowed stuff from DS9 surplus], perhaps implying that cultures in this area of the quadrant were "seeded" by ancient Bajoran starfarers, who would've needed some form of warp drive. . .)
*wanders off on tangent*

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 8, 2006 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
(In Enterprise, a lot of alien writing systems seemed to resemble ancient Bajoran [though Hoshi obviously wouldn't recognize this, I'm going by my own graphic design training --it looks like the Enterprise graphic designers borrowed stuff from DS9 surplus], perhaps implying that cultures in this area of the quadrant were "seeded" by ancient Bajoran starfarers, who would've needed some form of warp drive. . .)
*wanders off on tangent*

Didn't the ancient Bajorans use those weird solar sailing ships? That's actually something I could never get my head around, they weren't space age technology, no computers and the sails were controlled by hand winches. So great a 19th century space ship, but how did they get them in to orbit in the first place?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 8, 2006 5:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
I think the important point is really Jakes:
Quote:
There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.

Star Trek tends to see virtue as loyalty to a higher collective. People are supposed to make life better for their people: humanity, bajorans, romulans etc. The point is not to make people free, but to make them think the right way.
This is something most decent people feel intuitively isn't it? I mean bettering themselves? Making life better for future generations? Sounds more like the culture has shifted the emphasis from one basic instinct to another.

In fact it could be argued this is what Capitalists believe, they just go about it in a round about way.

I’d say that in most systems people move very directly towards bettering themselves.

Its just that in Capitalism it is difficult to better yourself without also bettering your business partners, customers etc. Other systems tend to be based on a logical fallacy, e.g.

1) Socialism requires everyone to be altruistic.
2) Therefore, under socialism, everyone will be altruistic
3) Therefore, under socialism, everything will be great

No one seemed to wonder what would happen if the government bureaucrats did not become altruistic under Socialism. (Not the only problem with Socialism, but certainly a serious one.)

Quote:
From Memory Alpha:

It appears that the Federation economy is built on a model that is neither capitalist or socialist, but something akin to communist model, however precise information is very scarce. The descriptions given by various Federation citizens are as follows:
 Kirk told Spock about 20th century Earth: "They're still using money. We need to get some." Later on, while Kirk was having dinner with Gillian Taylor and was unable to pay in the restaurant, Gillian asked sarcastically, "Don't tell me they don't use money in the 23rd century," and Kirk told her "Well, we don't." (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home)
 Picard tries to explain to Ralph Offenhouse from the 20th century that there would be no need for his law firm any longer: "A lot has changed in three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of 'things'. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions." (TNG: "The Neutral Zone")
 When Lily Sloane asked how much the Enterprise-E cost to build, Picard tells her "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." (Star Trek: First Contact)
 When Nog suggests that Jake should bid for a baseball card in an auction, Jake says "I'm Human, I don't have any money." Nog replies "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement." Jake says "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." Nog then replies "What does that mean?" Jake responds "It means we don't need money!" (DS9: "In the Cards")
 Jake: "(big smile) I sold my first book today. Quark: "Really? How much did you get for it? Jake: "It's just a figure of speech. The Federation News Service is going to publish a book of my stories about life on the station under Dominion rule. But they're not paying me." (DS9: "You Are Cordially Invited...")
 Tom Paris says about the significance of Fort Knox: "When the New World Economy took shape in the late 22nd century and money went the way of the dinosaur, Fort Knox was turned into a museum." (VOY: "Dark Frontier")

The point is that if you ask how the Federation economy works, the first thing you get is a lecture on how altruistic everyone in the Federation is.

For comparison, if you had to explain in a few sentences how capitalism worked to a medieval monk, you would probably not spend half your time telling him “People no longer desire to serve their overlord, or take revenge for slights against them etc” You could just say that no one had to do anything for anyone anymore unless they wanted to, e.g. in exchange for money. (Not true when dealing with the government, of course

.) And that if someone did commit a crime against you, tracking him down and punishing him could be left to the police.

It is hard not to conclude that the Federation is much more dependent on people thinking the right way than is our own society.

After all, if everyone on Earth turned into a perfect altruist, it would cause no problems for General Electric, or the people who sell each other things on eBay. Instead of seeing ads which told you how much better off you would be if you bought the advertised product, you would see ads which told you how much better off everyone else would be if you bought the advertised product. Advertisers might well prefer such a world – it would be harder for customers to tell if the product really had made everyone better off (on average), than if it had made the customer better off.

(This is why it is generally a mistake to say that Big Giant Firms want us all to want Evil Thing X: they really do not care what anyone wants, as long as they can figure out some way of selling it to him. Even if they could control our minds, they would have no incentive to.)

Quote:

But this ignores the basic thing, every culture programs it's citizens to a degree. You think it's normal to want the latest products? It's not a basic Human instinct to want the latest washing machine, and frankly I find the cultural programming that sets us up for commercialism far more insidious than programming us to improve ourselves. Our society doesn't just make us think the right way, it aims to make us buy the right way, and even behave in the right way (I reference companies that use colour schemes to ensure people eat quickly in fast food restaurants and the like). If we're being bombarded with 'programming' to buy the latest things from the latest brand names are we really free or do we just think we are?

If advertising was as effective as all that, New Coke and the Ford Edsel would have been a great success, children could be persuaded to eat their vegetables by an ad campaign, no one in the English speaking world would still be smoking, and the War on Drugs would be a complete success.

The idea that advertising is very powerful seems to be the only thing that advertising executives can sell with any reliability…

That said, the Federations altruism has the problem that it is not enough to want Nice Things for everyone. You have to decide what the Nice Things are.

If I want a school to be built, and someone else wants the same resources to be used by a hospital, we could both be perfect altruists, and still disagree violently. After all, peoples lives are at stake!

The Federation could only stay in its state of perfect utopian non-conflict if everyone agrees with each other about priorities, as well as being altruistic.

If you have that much control over peoples thoughts, you should be able to persuade them that the current leadership is the best possible. And in the Federation, of course, the current leadership must believe that they are the best possible leadership, or their altruism would cause them to abdicate in favour of the leaders they believed superior…

Quote:

My point is that EVERY culture makes us think the 'right' way. That's part of what a culture is, a framework on how we should think and behave, it's just when it's OUR culture we can't really see it, because that's just the way it is. We all see reality through the filter of our culture.

But some cultures can take a lot more disagreement than others. For example, a culture where the current leader is supposed to be selected by God has a problem with religious toleration, because members of different religions will find it difficult to believe that God did intend for their country to be ruled by someone they must see as a heretic, or at least severely mistaken.

If the Federation does require altruism of its citizens, than it could not allow many people to have the same goals and loyalties that have driven almost every actual human being in the known world. Because most of the time, most people put themselves and their family first. If the Federation cannot survive that, it cannot survive human nature as we know it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 8, 2006 6:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
And the milestone of warpdrive has nothing to do with culture, social sophistication etc – we know that from looking at the Klingons, Cardassians etc
Actually, the Klingons didn't invent warp drive, they got it from the Hur'q, a warp-capable race who conquered the primitive Klingons and bit off more than they could chew (the Hur'q are extinct now, and the Klingons rule an interstellar Empire with their back-engineered technology). That's why Klingon culture is so odd; they should be just inventing gunpowder about now, but instead they have starships, disruptors, and cloaking devices --the Klingons are an example of what happens when you break the Prime Directive.

There's also evidence that the Hebitians (before they called themselves Cardassians) got their warp drive from the ancient Bajorans.

I’m beginning to wonder if anyone but Earth invented warpdrive on their own. If the Vulcans did, what does that say about the Romulans?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 8, 2006 6:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
1) Socialism requires everyone to be altruistic.
2) Therefore, under socialism, everyone will be altruistic
3) Therefore, under socialism, everything will be great

No one seemed to wonder what would happen if the government bureaucrats did not become altruistic under Socialism. (Not the only problem with Socialism, but certainly a serious one.)

Depends what sort of socialism your talking about. Now current system is perfect though, capitalism collapses in to corporatism, as I'd say it has done or is in the process of doing so in the US.

Quote:
It is hard not to conclude that the Federation is much more dependent on people thinking the right way than is our own society.

Because we're living in our culture and it's much harder to see you're own indoctrination than it is too see others.

Quote:
After all, if everyone on Earth turned into a perfect altruist, it would cause no problems for General Electric, or the people who sell each other things on eBay. Instead of seeing ads which told you how much better off you would be if you bought the advertised product, you would see ads which told you how much better off everyone else would be if you bought the advertised product. Advertisers might well prefer such a world – it would be harder for customers to tell if the product really had made everyone better off (on average), than if it had made the customer better off.

Ahh but of course it would. In order to make a profit someone else has to make a loss, there's not infinite money, ergo. If we were altruistic the idea of making profit would be abhorrent, as it is by its very nature succeeding on others failure. Making profit is the underpinning nature of modern capitalism.

Quote:
(This is why it is generally a mistake to say that Big Giant Firms want us all to want Evil Thing X: they really do not care what anyone wants, as long as they can figure out some way of selling it to him. Even if they could control our minds, they would have no incentive to.)

Of course there's an incentive. If you can tell the customer what they want rather than react to it you're in for making much more profit. Telling people what they want would be the perfect situation for a corporation.

Quote:
If advertising was as effective as all that, New Coke and the Ford Edsel would have been a great success, children could be persuaded to eat their vegetables by an ad campaign, no one in the English speaking world would still be smoking, and the War on Drugs would be a complete success.

Which completely ignores several factors:
Their competitors are also marketing and advertising. New Coke fails because Old Coke has better advertising both because it has more money and is better established, branding and word of mouth are both forms of advertising. There is as much in our culture discouraging kids from eating vegetables as encouraging, and I mean that. Look at films and literature, listen to children in the playground, stack that against under funded occasional government ads that say "you should eat vegetables you know" and parents that often just stuff McDonald's down their kids throat to shut them up. Cultural conditioning to hate vegetables starts at a young age and for many continues in to adult life. My Father is the perfect example, he coincidently indoctrinated me against vegetables by his own refusal to eat them. Bizarrely enough part of my rebellious stage was to start liking vegetables, go figure.

Smoking, again our culture has a big plus for smoking that is only NOW beginning to change. I'll remind you that smoking is on the decrease, as culture has changed and advertising less prevalent. I'll also remind you that people won't just stop smoking after they have started, Nicotines addictive. The same can be said of drug taking, it's an accepted part of our culture, albeit underground, it's almost expected that teenagers will try it.

Quote:
The idea that advertising is very powerful seems to be the only thing that advertising executives can sell with any reliability…

And the vast amount of evidence that suggests just that.

Quote:
That said, the Federations altruism has the problem that it is not enough to want Nice Things for everyone. You have to decide what the Nice Things are.

If I want a school to be built, and someone else wants the same resources to be used by a hospital, we could both be perfect altruists, and still disagree violently. After all, peoples lives are at stake!

The Federation could only stay in its state of perfect utopian non-conflict if everyone agrees with each other about priorities, as well as being altruistic.

Who said they had no internal conflict. We see internal conflict all the time, people disagreeing with each other. We know they have elections, which are by their very nature confrontational. This is a fallacy.

Quote:
If you have that much control over peoples thoughts, you should be able to persuade them that the current leadership is the best possible.

So we're confusing cultural conditioning with mind control here. If our culture has the ability to control what we think, which to a degree it does, then it should be able to convince us that our culture is the best, which it erm, does. Reference the people who bang on and on about the American way being the best, or others how striving for profit is not only the best but the ONLY way, how the capitalist system is the only way to be free.

Quote:
And in the Federation, of course, the current leadership must believe that they are the best possible leadership, or their altruism would cause them to abdicate in favour of the leaders they believed superior…

This is different to how we run things now how exactly? Do you think the blue party when they're running for election think the red party would do a better job but they want power power POWER!!! and vice versa, or do you think that the Blue party thinks they'll do a better job?

Quote:
But some cultures can take a lot more disagreement than others. For example, a culture where the current leader is supposed to be selected by God has a problem with religious toleration, because members of different religions will find it difficult to believe that God did intend for their country to be ruled by someone they must see as a heretic, or at least severely mistaken.

Yes and democracies appear to be the best systems for preventing that, the Federation has elections, it is a democracy.

Quote:
If the Federation does require altruism of its citizens, than it could not allow many people to have the same goals and loyalties that have driven almost every actual human being in the known world. Because most of the time, most people put themselves and their family first. If the Federation cannot survive that, it cannot survive human nature as we know it.

Where has it been suggested that this is the case? Better ourselves, and Humanity, bettering themselves is just as if not more important. The Federation has merely made the addendum that bettering the rest of the species is also a worthy goal, rather than some stupid thing only hippies think is a good idea as our own society preaches.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 8, 2006 6:56 AM

RABBIT2

Quote:
I’m beginning to wonder if anyone but Earth invented warpdrive on their own. If the Vulcans did, what does that say about the Romulans?

They are the same race.
The Romulans are the decendents of Vulcans who left their homeworld at the time of Surak, rejecting his teachings.
Whether they used warp drive or sub-ight ships isn`t entirely clear.

--------------------------------------------------

Flight Instructor: Son, know what the first rule of flying is?
Me: Don`t crash?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 8, 2006 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Ahh but of course it would. In order to make a profit someone else has to make a loss, there's not infinite money, ergo.

Why does someone have to make a loss, for me to make a profit?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 8, 2006 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Why does someone have to make a loss, for me to make a profit?

I'll ask the opposite question, if someone doesn't have to make a loss for you to make a profit where does the extra money come from?

Remember we're talking about a finite system, in a finite system resources can move around but not grow, thus for one person to have more of something someone else must end up with less.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 8, 2006 9:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Why does someone have to make a loss, for me to make a profit?
I'll ask the opposite question, if someone doesn't have to make a loss for you to make a profit where does the extra money come from?

Remember we're talking about a finite system, in a finite system resources can move around but not grow, thus for one person to have more of something someone else must end up with less.

Creating extra money is easy as many central banks have demonstrated. All you need is a printing press…

Creating wealth is harder, but not impossible!

The Earth is not a closed system (solar radiation strikes it, and it rejects waste heat into space). The human economy contains only a small fraction of its energy and land resources, and a negligible fraction of its mineral reserves.

Even if the economy was a closed system it might still be possible to rearrange it to increase the total “wellbeing” (wealth, if you like) of the people in it.

Notice that if this were not true, it would remain impossible to make the average man better off with any social system, capitalism, socialism or something as yet uninvented. The average man is better off now than he was a few hundred years ago (never mind a few thousand), despite the fact that there are so many more people to divide resources between.

And of course, this must be true in the trekverse as well, as the average Federation citizen is supposed to be so well off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 8, 2006 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Creating extra money is easy as many central banks have demonstrated. All you need is a printing press…

If you just print more money the money you have is worth less, this is called inflation.

Quote:
Creating wealth is harder, but not impossible!

So capitalism works by assuming we live in a world of infinite resources. That's interesting isn't it...

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cuhmal:
I think it says something about the Leftist ideals of Marxism and other egalitarian economics that the only way such economics could be seen as feasible is with the assumption of infinite resources.

But it appears the same is true of capitalism...

Quote:
The Earth is not a closed system (solar radiation strikes it, and it rejects waste heat into space). The human economy contains only a small fraction of its energy and land resources, and a negligible fraction of its mineral reserves.

The scientific community is at a fair consensus that we are running out of a great deal of mineral wealth. Perhaps they are wrong and the economists who assume the Earth has infinite resources are correct, but I don't think so some how.

Our resources with exception of solar radiation, comes from the Earth, and may only exist for some here. Fossil fuels for instance, the fossilised remains of plant and animal matter. Since the vast majority of the resources our economies require may not exist else where, or are firmly out of our reach we can assume the Earth is a closed system from an economic point of view.

Quote:
Even if the economy was a closed system it might still be possible to rearrange it to increase the total “wellbeing” (wealth, if you like) of the people in it.

Indeed, and this is what socialism, not capitalism, aims to do.

Quote:
Notice that if this were not true, it would remain impossible to make the average man better off with any social system, capitalism, socialism or something as yet uninvented. The average man is better off now than he was a few hundred years ago (never mind a few thousand), despite the fact that there are so many more people to divide resources between.

The finite existence of resources is a fact, it is perfectly possible to increase the well being of the average man in a finite resource system, you merely distribute the resources more evenly. People are better off in western nations because the common man has more resources than they once did. However many other nations are in fact worse off, because those extra resources had to come from somewhere.

Quote:
And of course, this must be true in the trekverse as well, as the average Federation citizen is supposed to be so well off.

We've already ascertained that to all intents and purposes with inventions like replicators resources are infinite. However currently we do not have replicators, thus our resources must come from somewhere.

You see people like Finn earlier denigrate leftist ideals for "requiring" infinite resources in order to function, but fail to mention that the continued existence of Capitalism also requires infinite resources. We have to get more and more and more out of the ground, but those supplies are limited.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 9, 2006 6:02 AM

I direct your attention to the plenitude of dilithium mines scattered throughout the Alpha/Beta Quadrants.

By the 24th century (TNG/DS9/Voy --the "present day" of Star Trek) we've seen that dilithium can be "recrystalized" (extending its useful lifespan), but apparently not replicated: the Federation, the Klingons, the Romulans, and probably the other governments all run dilithium mines. In fact the Federation's mines currently rely on holographic slave labour (using decommissioned EMHs like Voyager's Doctor). Before them, there were probably paid miners (I can't see the UFP condoning slavery --holograms don't count as "people," but organic and cybernetic life-forms do).

(It should also be noted that the Federation does have "prisons," so there's obviously still a crime problem, despite what Deanna says. We saw bits of the "penal colony on New Zealand in Voyager [Tom Paris was serving time when Janeway recruited him --and we can extrapolate the effect it had on him from that alternate timeline episode, where Harry and Tom were back on Earth, having never signed on to Voyager]. Granted, these prisons seem pretty cushy, and tend to be based more around the idea of rehabilitation and respect for others than the idea of dehumanization and institutionalized brutality in the name of "discipline." It wouldn't surprise me to learn that inmates are allowed to volunteer for low-risk jobs as a way of earning their way back into society --not so much being sentenced to hard labour as being offered a chance to make use of your skills in a productive way.)

There's your collateral wealth: dilithium. I'd also note the Romulan-controlled mines on Remus, and point out that Romulans don't use matter/anti-matter engines, so they obviously don't use dilithium to regulate the reaction. They must be using it for something else --like trade currency. This also explains the need for expansion: need more dilithium, which means you need to explore/claim/conquer more planets. The recrystallization means that dilithium isn't as valuable as it once was, but the fact that it can't be replicated means there is a finite amount (for now, at least).

This might also explain why there don't seem to be any massive trade ships (the commercial vessels we've seen are rarely larger than the Defiant). While you can certainly own your own ship, being able to afford dilithium to run the FTL drives takes a great deal of credits. Perhaps the Federation's capital is mostly involved in paying for Starfleet's engines (and replacing the ships we seem to lose regularly).

Maybe Jake's comment about human = moneyless was less an economic observation than a commentary on the exchange rate of Federation "pesos" versus anyone else's currency.

Inside the Federation, it's not an issue because everyone has 100% buying power (thanks to replicators), but when dealing with folks outside the Federation, there's a huge gap. Who knows, maybe that random Klingon bekk makes twice as much per year as a waiter at Sisko's Creole Kitchen, but the UFP citizen gets everything for the equivalent of 90% off (by Klingon prices). It's not too great for private citizens looking to buy original Klingon manga (or whatever), but on the scale of medium-to-large trade consortiums it works fine: more people buy from Federation merchants, which means disproportional amounts of wealth coming in, which means more buying power against other stellar nations.

Remember when Nog and Jake formed the Noh-Jay Consortium and went into business? It seemed to work fine (before it was mismanaged into the ground, but that wasn't about money per se).

I'd imagine that, as an example, Kassidy Yates owns her own trading company, that provides for care and feeding of her ship and pays the crew's salaries. She likely functions as an independent importer, buying stuff from Federation companies and selling them outside UFP territory (which brings in a good chunk of change, even with competitive prices). She's probably quite wealthy in terms of credits to her name, but it just doesn't matter because you can live in the Federation for a credit a day.

Of course, the ultimate upshot of this is that all the money-based problems in Federation society go bye-bye. You can't bribe someone, 'cause they probably have just as much wealth as you do. You can't get someone to do something unpleasant for a handful of pretty paper --you have no choice but to either apply to their better nature or try to intimidate them. A sufficiently open and educated society tends to deal with the intimidation problem on its own, leaving few other options.

It must be noted that all the altruistic qualities that the Federation is based on (kindness, politeness, dignity, respect, responsibility for one's actions, etc) do exist --we Browncoats in particular get to see them in action anytime one of us has a problem. It's just a matter of creating an environment that cultivates them instead of greed, arrogance, and hatred. Nature versus Nurture, but in this case Nurture is serving as a positive force. That's how you cange behaviour, not by drugging the population or by enforcing rule of law, but by rewarding the good people who're already out there, making everyone else want to emulate them, and trying to limit the causes of the problem.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 9, 2006 7:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
In fact the Federation's mines currently rely on holographic slave labour (using decommissioned EMHs like Voyager's Doctor). Before them, there were probably paid miners (I can't see the UFP condoning slavery --holograms don't count as "people," but organic and cybernetic life-forms do).

I forsee the EMH being classified as some sort of sentient life soon enough, at which point they'll be taken off of 'slave' labour duty. BTW I think slavery is rather a misnomer, since as far as the Federation is concerned the EMH is nothing more than a fancy computer program. I mean my web browser doesn't get a choice over what it can do with it's time, it doesn't get paid and I own it, but it's hardly a slave and I'm not dabbeling in slavery.

Quote:
It must be noted that all the altruistic qualities that the Federation is based on (kindness, politeness, dignity, respect, responsibility for one's actions, etc) do exist --we Browncoats in particular get to see them in action anytime one of us has a problem. It's just a matter of creating an environment that cultivates them instead of greed, arrogance, and hatred. Nature versus Nurture, but in this case Nurture is serving as a positive force. That's how you cange behaviour, not by drugging the population or by enforcing rule of law, but by rewarding the good people who're already out there, making everyone else want to emulate them, and trying to limit the causes of the problem.

This is more or less what I've been trying to get at. The fact that because there culture has different priorities to ours doesn't mean ours is better than theres by the virtue of being ours. We have as much social conditioning as the Federation or anyone else, we just can't see it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I'll ask the opposite question, if someone doesn't have to make a loss for you to make a profit where does the extra money come from?

Remember we're talking about a finite system, in a finite system resources can move around but not grow, thus for one person to have more of something someone else must end up with less.

The US has a population of > 250 million. That is more than the entire population of the world few thousand years ago. If a group of people has a fixed total wealth the average wealth per person can only depend upon the number of people in the group. This allows us to deduce one of three things. Either –

a) The average American now, is poorer than the average human being in the Late Stone Age.
b) The US has taken more from the rest of the world, than the rest of the world had to begin with.
c) The total wealth of the world is not fixed in any meaningful sense.

I am going with proposition c). Notice notice that although total wealth can increase it has still always had some finite value at any moment in time – resources have never been infinite, and still would not be if the replicator was invented tomorrow.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
B]After all, if everyone on Earth turned into a perfect altruist, it would cause no problems for General Electric, or the people who sell each other things on eBay. Instead of seeing ads which told you how much better off you would be if you bought the advertised product, you would see ads which told you how much better off everyone else would be if you bought the advertised product. Advertisers might well prefer such a world – it would be harder for customers to tell if the product really had made everyone better off (on average), than if it had made the customer better off.
Ahh but of course it would. In order to make a profit someone else has to make a loss, there's not infinite money, ergo. If we were altruistic the idea of making profit would be abhorrent, as it is by its very nature succeeding on others failure. Making profit is the underpinning nature of modern capitalism.

Consider a thought experiment. Badger and Mingo are both trapped on an island. Badger has the only supply of water, Mingo has the only supply of food. Both have more than enough for two. If Badger trades some of his water for some of Mingos food, both of them will survive. Clearly, both of them have profited. No one has lost. Why would this be abhorrent to an altruist?

I presume you earn money somehow. If employing you is to your employers disadvantage, why does he continue to employ you? If being his employee is to your disadvantage, why do you continue to work for him? If you both benefit from this trade of your time for his money, it is difficult to say that all trades disadvantage one party or the other.

Returning to the Star Trek v Firefly point we started with, it occurs to me that the difference between the two is similar to one of the differences between the modern left and right.

Star Trek sees the important issues as being entirely a matter of personal moral virtue. It seems to me that this view is much more common on the left these days (not in Mussolini’s time).

We are given hardly any positive information about how life in the Federation actually works. We are given the negative fact that in the Federation money is vanishingly rare, and that Picard was unable to give an estimate of the cost of the Enterprise-E (in ST: First Contact), from which we may deduce the rarity of trade and the absence of accounting. Almost the only positive information we get is about the generosity, kindness enlightenment etc of all Federation citizens. Usually this information comes from the mouth of a Federation citizen. :tries to find deadpan icon:

What information we do get about how things work suggests that most economic activity is either collectively undertaken (Federation News Service, Earth Cargo Service, Starfleet) or semi-legitimate at best (Quark, Morn etc). Some vineyards, restaurants etc on Earth are shown, but they cannot be privately organised trading entities, like their present day equivalents, because such organisations must trade extensively to survive (sell products, pay rent etc), and therefore use money extensively. I always get the impression that the typical Federation citizen – and the person who conceived Star Trek – had Citizens opinion of trade.

The Federation, then, is a utopia designed by a man who believed in a collectivist ideology. Such persons in the modern English speaking world are typically found on the left, but they can occur on the right, and have been common there at various times and places in the past. Mussolini was an example, which is where the Federation-is-fascist idea comes from.

In Firefly, on the other hand, having pure and virtuous goals is not enough. If you consider the people who exemplify the Core of the Alliance, and are drawn from its leading classes, they look very similar to their equivalents in the Federation. They are all portrayed as good as their job, desire the best for their fellow man etc. Admittedly the Operative was ruthless, and the Miranda experiment disastrous, but Section 31 has done some pretty unpleasant things too. Some Alliance officials are officious and some, in the bottom layers, corrupt, but that is not unheard off in the Federation either. It is not difficult to imagine Inara, Simon or (pre-Academy) River on the Enterprise. The Operative would fit well into Section 31.

The Independents we see, on the other hand, are largely a bunch of criminals. Our BDHs, even Kaylee, are, if you look at it frankly, a gang of armed robbers. The fact that two of them are largely concerned with the getaway vehicle does not make them any less implicated. The fact that Kaylee, of all people, can join a gang of thieves, and not think it anything special, says a lot about the view of life held on the Rim.

And yet, often enough, the BDHs are in the right, and the Alliance is in the wrong.

In Star Trek, the good intentions are, on the whole, all that you need. In Firefly, the good intentions of the authorities are not enough.

These days that is a viewpoint that seems more common on the Right, and it is also the sense in which Firefly is the anti-Trek.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:06 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Holographic slave labor? I thought I had seen it all, but evidently there is still more lunacy in the description of Star Trek Economics. That has to be something from Voyager.

Wealth creation. Yep. A very fundamental concept of economics. In fact, it’s literally Economics 101 where I first heard of it. My economics professors told me, way back in the day, that for every US dollar printed, there will be on average 7 dollars created. That was such a fascinating idea to me back then. I was only in my second or maybe third year of an undergraduate physics degree, and by that time I had had conservation laws drilled into my head, but in economics was where I first studied, in detail, a concept that is not conserved. It was a really exciting class. It almost made me think about going into economics, but the next semester when I took microeconomics, I wasn’t as thrilled with it.

Capitalism is basically built around the concept of wealth creation. The whole point of capitalism is to exploit an economy’s ability to generate wealth, it’s an ingenious concept. However, you don’t need a first world capitalist economy to create wealth. You can go all the way back to the Stone Age. Consider a caveman who chops down some trees and builds a shelter. The shelter is worth more then the trees that were used to create it, ergo the caveman has just created wealth. He has created something more valuable then the some total of its parts. Now fast forward to today in the US, and we chop down trees to make paper, which is more valuable then the trees used to create it; the paper is in turn used to create literature, which is more valuable then the paper used to create it; that literature is then used to operate a company, whether through advertising, training or just generation operations, but in doing so it creates wealth in the company that is more valuable then the literature. When everything is said and done, those simple trees have output threefold in the economy. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of people have benefited, gone home with some form of payment. Enormous wealth has been created that did not previously exist.

Man, that’s such a fascinating concept.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Holographic slave labor? I thought I had seen it all, but evidently there is still more lunacy in the description of Star Trek Economics. That has to be something from Voyager.

Yep.

The first generation of Emergency Medical Holograms (like Voyager's Doctor) were discontinued, but instead of just deleting them, whoever operates the Federation's dilithium mines bought the programs and set up holo-emitters throughout the mine (presumeably, the emitters are mobile enough to be moved). Presto: instant cheap labour.

Despite the Doctor's efforts, at the time of Voyager's return, holograms still aren't considered "life." However, the Doc's holo-novel is circulating among the miners, potentially stirring up a revolt (one of them was seen describing it as "inflammatory").

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 15, 2006 3:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
The US has a population of > 250 million. That is more than the entire population of the world few thousand years ago. If a group of people has a fixed total wealth the average wealth per person can only depend upon the number of people in the group. This allows us to deduce one of three things. Either –

a) The average American now, is poorer than the average human being in the Late Stone Age.
b) The US has taken more from the rest of the world, than the rest of the world had to begin with.
c) The total wealth of the world is not fixed in any meaningful sense.

I am going with proposition c). Notice notice that although total wealth can increase it has still always had some finite value at any moment in time – resources have never been infinite, and still would not be if the replicator was invented tomorrow.

No, technology to extract resources has improved. You are equating that with infinite resources, incorrectly. Resources are now running out, Capitalism requires those resources to expand indefinably, the supply of resources can only expand indefinably if they are infinite. Perpetual growth is the very core of capitalism, and perpetual growth requires perpetual resource.

You're option C is fallacious because it implies that although we only have finite resources at any one time resources here on Earth are infinite.

Quote:
Consider a thought experiment. Badger and Mingo are both trapped on an island. Badger has the only supply of water, Mingo has the only supply of food. Both have more than enough for two. If Badger trades some of his water for some of Mingos food, both of them will survive. Clearly, both of them have profited. No one has lost. Why would this be abhorrent to an altruist?

Maybe you can explain what that has to do with the Capitalist idea of profit?

In fact by Capitalisms standards no one has profited. There's no possibility of growth for either operation because there's no profit, they are just breaking even. In a business sense what they've done is made back exactly their outgoings, sure they've 'profited' by virtue of their business not going bankrupt, but they haven't profited in the Capitalist sense, I.e. getting more money out than they put in.

So let's try another thought experiment. There is a fixed amount of credits in the world. We use money to represent these credits, but if you print twice the amount of money what happens is where $1 would have bought you eight credits yesterday will buy you four today.

Now you have a business making stamps for FOX that say CANCELLED (a very profitable business obviously). Your total outlay amounts to 5000 credits, and your total income amounts to 6000 credits. Where did the extra 1000 credits come from?

They came from FOX. But if FOX made their own stamps it would cost them 5000 credits instead of 6000, so FOX is losing out 1000 credits.

Quote:
I presume you earn money somehow. If employing you is to your employers disadvantage, why does he continue to employ you? If being his employee is to your disadvantage, why do you continue to work for him? If you both benefit from this trade of your time for his money, it is difficult to say that all trades disadvantage one party or the other.

I work for the British military, I don't think they make all that much money out of my work.

However, something can be advantageous to both parties in comparison to their alternatives while still disadvantaging one party.

An area that has experienced a natural disaster, there's no food anywhere so I pack up my cupboards and generously sell a can a beans for the low low price of a $100 a throw. We've all profited from the deal, the people I sold to get a can of beans so they don't starve, and I get $100 for a 50c can of beans.

Quote:
Returning to the Star Trek v Firefly point we started with, it occurs to me that the difference between the two is similar to one of the differences between the modern left and right.

Star Trek sees the important issues as being entirely a matter of personal moral virtue. It seems to me that this view is much more common on the left these days (not in Mussolini’s time).

We are given hardly any positive information about how life in the Federation actually works. We are given the negative fact that in the Federation money is vanishingly rare, and that Picard was unable to give an estimate of the cost of the Enterprise-E (in ST: First Contact), from which we may deduce the rarity of trade and the absence of accounting. Almost the only positive information we get is about the generosity, kindness enlightenment etc of all Federation citizens. Usually this information comes from the mouth of a Federation citizen. :tries to find deadpan icon:

What information we do get about how things work suggests that most economic activity is either collectively undertaken (Federation News Service, Earth Cargo Service, Starfleet) or semi-legitimate at best (Quark, Morn etc). Some vineyards, restaurants etc on Earth are shown, but they cannot be privately organised trading entities, like their present day equivalents, because such organisations must trade extensively to survive (sell products, pay rent etc), and therefore use money extensively. I always get the impression that the typical Federation citizen – and the person who conceived Star Trek – had Citizens opinion of trade.

The Federation, then, is a utopia designed by a man who believed in a collectivist ideology. Such persons in the modern English speaking world are typically found on the left, but they can occur on the right, and have been common there at various times and places in the past. Mussolini was an example, which is where the Federation-is-fascist idea comes from.

In Firefly, on the other hand, having pure and virtuous goals is not enough. If you consider the people who exemplify the Core of the Alliance, and are drawn from its leading classes, they look very similar to their equivalents in the Federation. They are all portrayed as good as their job, desire the best for their fellow man etc. Admittedly the Operative was ruthless, and the Miranda experiment disastrous, but Section 31 has done some pretty unpleasant things too. Some Alliance officials are officious and some, in the bottom layers, corrupt, but that is not unheard off in the Federation either. It is not difficult to imagine Inara, Simon or (pre-Academy) River on the Enterprise. The Operative would fit well into Section 31.

The Independents we see, on the other hand, are largely a bunch of criminals. Our BDHs, even Kaylee, are, if you look at it frankly, a gang of armed robbers. The fact that two of them are largely concerned with the getaway vehicle does not make them any less implicated. The fact that Kaylee, of all people, can join a gang of thieves, and not think it anything special, says a lot about the view of life held on the Rim.

And yet, often enough, the BDHs are in the right, and the Alliance is in the wrong.

In Star Trek, the good intentions are, on the whole, all that you need. In Firefly, the good intentions of the authorities are not enough.

These days that is a viewpoint that seems more common on the Right, and it is also the sense in which Firefly is the anti-Trek.

I'm assuming your American, because you're opinions of what constitutes the left and what constitutes the right shows the disparity I see between American ideas of left and right and Europe's.

I think to put it simply the modern left over here is aiming to make life better for everyone, the right is trying to make life better for oneself, with the obvious side effect that this should result in a better life for all.

The idea that the left is blinded by idealism, requiring people to be better seems to be more along the lines of a partisan attack, like if I were to say the right basis it's policies on scaring the electorate into voting for them

.

Just to meet something head on:
What information we do get about how things work suggests that most economic activity is either collectively undertaken (Federation News Service, Earth Cargo Service, Starfleet) or semi-legitimate at best (Quark, Morn etc).
Federation News Service? How's that any different to ABC News? The charge of collectivism because most undertakings are done so collectively seems to ignore the fact that most trade today is conducted by corporations. I also hardly think Quark being a corrupt businessman is the Federations fault.
Some vineyards, restaurants etc on Earth are shown, but they cannot be privately organised trading entities, like their present day equivalents, because such organisations must trade extensively to survive (sell products, pay rent etc), and therefore use money extensively
So?
I always get the impression that the typical Federation citizen – and the person who conceived Star Trek – had Citizens opinion of trade.
And what is, exactly, my opinion of trade?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:50 AM