Skip to main content

teacherken has long been a Daily Kos writer whom I've followed and I've read a lot of what he's written here over the years. Most of which has inspired me to dream bigger and to reach higher in my own thinking.

In particular, this diary, written on November 8, 2012, entitled No, you cannot have your country back, America is moving forward caused me to think about our nation, and the future we are all moving towards, and what it will look like.

The following is the content of a comment I made in that diary.

Join me below the Fleur-de-kos for the rest of the story...

Ken, I think we're into #StarTrek territory here
and by that, I mean this younger, more diverse portion of the Electorate are trending to approve and support political stances which graphically and realistically showcase the ideology of both (slightly altered to more fit our current paradigm)  "The needs of the many outweigh the needs desires of the few" and the ultimate in (not, as the conservatives fear, #socialism) #HumanSociety which works to the betterment of all members equitably, regardless of personal abilities or fiscal status.

A society in which the goal of a person's life is not merely the acquisition of (as the late George Carlin so succinctly put it) #Stuff, but the betterment of their fellow man - because in doing so, each member of this Society is benefiting themselves, too.

It's my personal version of the difference between democrats and republicans, writ large:

A democrat says, "I support this, because it will be good for everyone, and that'll come back and be good for me, too."
A republican says, "I support this, because it'll be good for me and my friends and family."
Me, I've been longing to be a member of the #SocietyofMan since I first found the mind-opening and entrancing ideas on the pages of books written by Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov and Aurther C. Clarke and Robert A. Heinlein, among others in the 1970s.

I never understood, as a young person, why the older generation was so enraged by the idea of a #OneWorldGovernment. To me, it seems ideal. Come to think of it, aren't the Republicans always barking mad to "reduce the size of government" and save money they are certain that governmental agencies and departments are "wasting everywhere"? Well, then, a #OneWorldGovernment should be right up their alley! Consolidate all citizen services to all nations into a single entity, and look at the savings there are to be had on a global scale. The reduction in 'administrative' costs will be staggering, to all nations. Yes, Republicans, after consolidation into a #SingleGlobalGovernment, your nation still remains "sovereign", just as US States remain "Sovereign" within the United States of America. There are just about 5000 of them now, in the #TerranHomeworldUnionofNations....

Ok, so I drifted offpoint there (sort of), but it shows you how I view this issue and any relating to the evolution of our American political system. I see a great future, but it is completely dependent upon a diverse population free of bigotry and racism. I don't see any space there for the current Republican and Tea Party members.

There is no future for them, in the future.

It makes the increasing insanity of them over the past few years a bit more understandable; as they (at least some of them) have started to realize this fact, and it's driven them stark-raving-mad.

 "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

  by Angie in WA State on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 11:35:22 AM PST

It's been nearly four months since those words were first written.

If anything, the #GOP and the conservative Republicans have gotten even nuttier than they were during Election Week in 2012.

Now, the members of their own Party are having what appears to be the beginnings of fratricide among the ranks.
Minnesota state Sen. Branden Petersen is poised to be the first GOP co-sponsor of a marriage equality bill — and the National Organization for Marriage is ready to punish him for it.

Petersen, who intends to break with his party and support same-sex marriage in the state, has said that he is more “concerned about doing the right thing” than playing politics and will “let the chips fall where they may” come reelection. But NOM has pledged $500,000 to stack the deck against the senator and any other GOP lawmaker who endorses equal marriage for gay couples.

In a blog post on Monday, NOM wrote (emphasis mine):

“Republicans like Branden Petersen don’t realize that not only is voting to redefine marriage a terrible policy, it is also a career-ending vote for a Republican,” said [NOM president] Brian Brown. “NOM will do everything in our power to defeat any Republican who votes in favor of same-sex marriage. Legislators need look no further than what happened to GOP Senators in New York. Four of them were responsible for passing gay marriage. We helped take out three of those Senators by repeatedly informing their constituents of their betrayal on marriage. They are now out of office. We will not hesitate to do the same thing in Minnesota.”

The danger of those views is seen on the Daily Kos front page, in kos' article Madison Avenue hoists rainbow victory flag. America and her People are in flux, changing faster than anyone has expected based on the recent past few decades - when Social changes came at the speed of glaciers - where victory was garnered by inches.

But today? We're leaping and bounding into the future, by the mile kilometer.

Which is why I was correct back in November, 2012 and even more correct today, when I reiterate my thought that -

I see a great future, but it is completely dependent upon a diverse population free of bigotry and racism. I don't see any space there for the current Republican and Tea Party members.

There is no future for them, in the our future.

It makes the increasing insanity of them over the past few years a bit more understandable; as they (at least some of them) have started to realize this fact, and it's driven them stark-raving-mad.

Good. It means that future which I keep dreaming of is getting closer, for all of us. One in which the Republican Party is merely a footnote in history books;  where, if it's members refuse to acknowledge the evolving nature of the American People and to join the rest of us, they belong.

As for the rest of us? I want us to live long, and prosper, and the sooner we reach for that #SocietyOfMan envisioned by the late, great Gene Roddenberry, the better off all of us will be. Even the conservatives, although they'll fight us tooth and nail whilst we drag them into the future.

I'm pretty sure Ken would agree with me.  I know he's busy these days with Leaves on the Current, so send him some good vibrations people, and hopes for better days ahead in their journey.

The future is calling...

Originally posted to My .02¢ from The Other Washington on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:08 PM PST.

Also republished by Star Trek fans.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Dilithium Containment Jar (50+ / 0-)

    for all the hopes and wishes for a more prosperous and humane future for all of Earth's People.

    Even the asshats who are stuck in 18th century thinking.


    "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

    by Angie in WA State on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:08:40 PM PST

  •  There's no money in a Star Trek future. (9+ / 0-)

    But they still play poker.  It's a puzzler.

    •  that's because poker in NOT about the money (9+ / 0-)

      it's about the winning.

      We are, as a species, all kinds of competitive.

      It's why sports are so popular, and always have been, no matter how far back in history one looks.


      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

      by Angie in WA State on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:19:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They play for Quatloos (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, NYFM

      Bqhatevwr, dude. Srsly. Bqhatevwr.

      by Fordmandalay on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:21:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Federation's Economics..... (9+ / 0-)

      Is something that, if you think about it at any length, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

      Don't get me wrong. I love "Star Trek," and I hope more than anything that it's humanity's future, but there are some fundamental aspects of supply & demand that I just can't see going away even in a future with Warp Drive.

      For example, Joseph Sisko (the father of DS9's Captain Sisko) has a restaurant in New Orleans. (and I'm going to say he "owns" the restaurant since all indications are that private property rights exist, since Picard's family owns a farm, etc.) Since everyone has food replicators, I would assume that the appeal of going to a restaurant in the 24th century would be for having a meal with "real," cooked food. Since there would still be finite amounts of meat, produce, etc., even in the 24th century, the law of supply & demand should still apply.

      But it's a currency-less society & we've been told 24th century human economics is based on people working for "the betterment of themselves & their fellow man," so the implication is that Captain Sisko's father operates the restaurant just because he likes operating the restaurant & people can just come in, eat, get up, and leave.

      Also, if you follow's Trek's theory of no money out to its logical conclusion, you end up with most of humanity probably being employed by the state. Since there's no money, all indications would be that there's no corporations. Which would mean that there's no 24th century equivalent of Lockheed Martin or other defense contractors. So all of the starships, their weapons & other technological features, must be developed, built, and maintained by Federation/Starfleet controlled & operated industries. Going beyond just Starfleet, it would also mean most of (if not all) other civilian infrastructure was state owned & operated.

      •  Roddenberry, nor any of those who have (6+ / 0-)

        continued the Star Trek™ brand have ever, to my knowledge, given any more concise of an explanation, than the one you note - 24th century human economics is based on people working for "the betterment of themselves & their fellow man.

        I think I recall the character of Jean-Luc Picard once discussing this, although I don't recall if it was from an episode of the TV show or from one of the movies.

        Remember, their society was formed following a limited-nuclear exchange in a WWIII our Earth has never seen AND affected by interactions with alien species like the Vulcans and the technology and societal mores they brought with them.

        Perhaps under those circumstances, our world too would be able and willing to forego capitalism in favor of the #SocietyOfMan.

        I'd like to think it's possible we may get there all on our own, minus the nukes.

        #Forward doesn't have to be just a political meme, it can be the future of our world, if we all try a bit harder to get there, together.


        "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

        by Angie in WA State on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 06:14:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've noticed that (6+ / 0-)

          that they don't seem to expand much on the details of either 24th century politics or economics. I almost preferred it that way. One of those suspensions of disbelief that are fun to discuss off-screen but might end up muddying the story a bit too much.

          But the conclusion I always come to is simply that we made it. We are still around in the 24th century and even have managed to make peace with ourselves. So whatever system we have, works.

          "My God, it's full of stars"

          by Hammerhand on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 06:32:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Roddenberry obviously had ideas about it (5+ / 0-)

          but knew that some of them would be unpopular. He was an atheist, he accepted the '60s idea of limits to population growth (in the older series, planetary populations are always quoted in the millions, not in the billions), he believed that technology (plus sustainable population sizes) would lead to such huge abundance that there would be no need for money. He was well aware that indefinite growth would always cause scarcity, but the need for indefinite population growth, like the need for "gods", was something he thought humanity could outgrow (with, perhaps, a little help from more advanced neighbors such as the Vulcans).

          As the canon developed, the idea essentially became that the Federation has an information economy: energy was not (usually) limiting, and with replicators you can make anything you have the information to make -- so therefore, the main economic goal was to obtain more information. This was to be accomplished through research and exploration, and it required smart, well-educated people. Hence: "better yourself and all mankind".

      •  It depends on how deep you want to dig (5+ / 0-)

        into the canon.  In some of the novels they detail the economics some, and there is still currency.  And the Ferengi still use currency and trade in a gold standard of gold-pressed latinum and trade with the Federation.  If you want to stick to on-screen, Harry Mudd was a trader.  

        Picard's rant to the 21st century capitalist was pretty much a moral admonishment, and not a true description of the economic state of affairs.  Replicator technology and Warp Drive energy have made poverty a thing of the past, but some things still can't be replicated.  Those things are valuable, and are traded for, using Federation credits.  But because most of the stuff everybody needs can be replicated using free energy, there's little need for money in everyday life.

        This is how Joseph Sisko's restaurant works:  People don't need to keep livestock anymore.  Any meat that people need or want can just be replicated, and will be if they otherwise have to pay anything at all for it.  

        Some people still keep livestock because they like to, and it's easier and basically free to do now with replicator tech, to carry on with their cultural heritage, and so on and so forth.  As anyone who keeps livestock as a hobby can tell you, eventually you'll need to find some way to dispose of your excess animals.  The butcher or chef who takes those animals off your hands is doing you a favor, far from being inclined to charge him, you might be inclined to pay him, if it also weren't equally free to dispose of your excess animals with a common phaser.

        The butcher and chef prepares those meats and dishes for the same reason the farmer keeps livestock, because they like to produce a lot of good food for a lot of people.  But now they've got all this food, and what are they gonna do, throw it away?  Why not offer it to people who would come in and eat it?  And why should you charge them?  They're doing you a favor in helping you get rid of what amounts to your "waste."

        It's interesting, isn't it, that the only distinction between "waste" and "excess product" is a purely subjective one.  And yet, capitalism is founded on getting people to pay for the privilege of disposing of other's waste.

        From such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned. -Immanuel Kant

        by Nellebracht on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 06:32:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I would love this to be its own diary! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rimjob, Angie in WA State

        I have tried to game-out the economic system myself.  Replicators and effectively free energy would be tremendously destabilizing - if not disastrous - to capitalism in any form.  It is a very fun concept to think about.

        Please do not be alarmed. We are about to engage... the nozzle.

        by Terrapin on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 05:59:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's a post-scarcity civilization. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb92

      They were a little glib about the realistic consequences of such a thing - e.g., that most people, not just the Reg Barclays of the Federation, would spend most of their time locked in sex-addled holodeck fantasies.

      How can it be a "free" market if you're forced to work for it?

      by Troubadour on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:17:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Repubs to poor; "Here, put on these red shirts..." (11+ / 0-)

    Don't worry, they come with jobs!

    Bqhatevwr, dude. Srsly. Bqhatevwr.

    by Fordmandalay on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:21:03 PM PST

  •  To the fourth chakra (love) and beyond........ (3+ / 0-)

    It's much more fun than being stuck in the first chakra (security).

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:25:25 PM PST

  •  They're Campaigning for the 2014 Midterms (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State, ozsea1

    being just as crazy as they were this time in 2009 before the 2010 contest. Since they massacred us that time, they're rerunning the same plays.

    Moderates don't mostly vote in the midterms, the energized base are a much bigger factor than normal. So they gin up their base knowing that the Democrats rarely do the same.

    Now the Dems and the WH both seem more engaged at this point in the cycle, much more than they were in 09, so maybe they learned their lesson and the Republican strategy won't work nationally.

    But it will work in many states, we have to be prepared for the states to become more starkly divided.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:47:36 PM PST

  •  First. What is with the number signs? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State

    or are they hash tags and do they have a meaning other than quantitative indicator or tweet meme?

    2nd. Unfortunately while today's Tea Partiers or their progeny may evolve on current issues, there will always be room for conservatives in the future standing athwart new frontiers of history. That's what they do. That's what they've always done.

    They may not be clinging dearly to Feudalism, slavery, sexual discrimination, white economic entitlement and fossil fuels. But there will be fossil politics forever.

    You may find yourself, one day, pining for the good old days of the early century as a new generation's imagination and social comity presses you to evolve on taboos you take for granted now.

    I like to see progressivism as your diary seems to invision. Perpetual change, improvement; the ability to discard worn out policies that have run their course, even "liberal" ones.

    Progressive policies should be designed to end or they are not solutions they are structures and the clinging to historical social, political and economic structures is conservatism.

    Conservatism has it's place in stabilizing a safe productive society and maintaining traditions that give a great deal of meaning to our existence. Unchecked "enlightened" social engineering and change is often untested and has devastating, even catastrophic potential.

    Conservatism is necessary and will always be. It's grandma telling you to be careful on your first date. She knows something you don't. But the free spirit will test all boundaries and push forward regardless, discovering new beauties and new dangers.

    The founders built a government in order to form a "more perfect union" of human beings. There is no expiration date on that. No finality.

    •  Yes hashtags. I Tweet as much as I blog (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fisheye, mamamorgaine

      anymore, even started the DKos group (DKos TWEETers).

      Shorthand and takes less typing, also stands in for more old-fashioned grammar tricks to "spice up" written prose, for emphasis.

      I'm not so sure I buy your theory on designing policies to have what amounts to a "use by" date. Or that long-term, boundless policies amount to Structure instead of policy. But I think I get your point, nonetheless.

      I too think humans need more flexibility in their thinking, which reflects the overall political basis of "progressivism" to a T, and mirrors most of my own ideas about politics - which is that without the ability to evolve and meeting changing requirements with new and inspired ideas, any sort of group or organization is doomed to eventually fail and fade into history.

      In addition, I don't believe necessarily in the idea that conservative societal mores tend to be stabilizing or safe. Sometimes they are bear-traps that keep our society stuck in a former era's restrictive ideology, without any escape path.

      I really like that final thought though.

      The founders built a government in order to form a "more perfect union" of human beings. There is no expiration date on that. No finality.
      Live long, and prosper; in other words.

      :)


      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

      by Angie in WA State on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 06:03:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I must assimilate to the tweet (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angie in WA State

        Conservatism must be broken again and again. But the founders also feared mob rule. A notion that gains my respect as I get older. Which is hopefully a sign of maturity and gaining insight into our world and not the growth of cynicism in very challenging world.

  •  Unfortunately there are no gay people in Star Trek (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rimjob, Angie in WA State, dinazina

    - Gene wanted them there, but he lost that battle.

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

    by Bob Love on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 06:09:36 PM PST

    •  Well, you know, it's a conservative show. (0+ / 0-)
    •  Not Necessarily (7+ / 0-)

      To date, there has never been an openly gay main character, or even side character, in any of the Trek series or films (although, some people have interpreted Garak to be gay or bisexual, and the actor who played him, Andrew Robinson, has said that at points he played the relationship with Dr. Bashir as being flirtatious). Some of the books make references to certain characters being gay. However, the books aren't considered part of Trek "canon."

      On the other hand, there have been plenty of on-screen "hints" over the years. And those involved with "Deep Space Nine" argued the fact that none of the characters object or find it odd for two women to have a relationship in "Rejoined" is evidence same-sex relationships are considered normal in the 24th century.

      This episode features Star Trek's first same-sex kiss and is one of the most controversial episodes in the show's history. According to Ronald D. Moore, "some felt betrayed, didn't want to see this in their homes. An affiliate down south cut the kiss from their broadcast." Similarly, René Echevarria says, "my mother was absolutely scandalized by the episode. Shocked and dismayed. She told me 'I can't believe you did that. There should have been a parental guidance warning'." Steve Oster says that a man called the show and complained, "you're ruining my kids by making them watch two women kiss like that." Much of the public response mirrored that of the famous Kirk-Uhura kiss.

      There is a story regarding the man complaining about his kids seeing the kiss: It was a production assistant who took the call. After hearing the man's complaint, the PA asked if the man would've been okay with his kids seeing one woman shoot the other. When the man said he would be okay with that, the PA said "You should reconsider who's messing up your kids".

      •  Amply discussed in previous diaries. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angie in WA State, Dartagnan

        Every gay person knows the discussion backwards and forwards.

        "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

        by Bob Love on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 06:25:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't forget about "the Outcast" (5+ / 0-)

        Episode very sensitively dealing front and center with homosexuality and gender issues, I thought.

        •  It's Interesting..... (3+ / 0-)

          That episode was criticized from both sides when it originally aired.

          Social conservatives were upset for the usual reasons, but gay groups criticized the episode too. Apparently Jonathan Frakes (Riker) lobbied to have the J'naii portrayed by male actors. However, that was vetoed by executive producer Rick Berman.

          GLAAD: On the one hand, Soren gave an impassioned speech saying "I am female. I was born that way... All of the loving things you do with each other, that is what we do. And for that we are called misfits and deviants and criminals." But in the end she is "cured," or maybe brainwashed, and rejects Riker. Many found the conclusion ambiguous and disturbing. While there were elements to praise, no mention was made of gays or lesbians in the future or about anti-gay discrimination in Earth's past. Both would have been natural to mention.
          •  That's very telling (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rimjob, Angie in WA State
            While there were elements to praise, no mention was made of gays or lesbians in the future or about anti-gay discrimination in Earth's past.
            Had that episode been created and aired today it the producers would have had no reservations at all about referencing "anti-gay discrimination in Earth's past." Probably would've been leaping over themselves to highlight it.

            Another sign of how rapidly times are changing, relatively speaking.

        •  We all know that one too. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dartagnan

          Real gay people don't exist in the Star Trek version of the future.  

          This episode was so obviously designed to skirt the issue that it rendered gay people even more peripheral. I mean, you got gender-changing hominids and shapeshifters but no gays?

          Frankly, it was insulting even then.

          "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

          by Bob Love on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:55:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think if you watch the new movie out this year (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fisheye, Bob Love

      that we might see something on that front.

      Besides, if Captain Kirk didn't have a problem sleeping with the ladies with green skin back in the 1960s, I'm pretty sure that racism is just another part of history as far as Star Trek is concerned.


      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

      by Angie in WA State on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 06:17:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ferengi, card-carrying Republicans all. n/t (4+ / 0-)

    "My God, it's full of stars"

    by Hammerhand on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 06:36:08 PM PST

  •  Post Scarcity Society (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State

    I've become skeptical that we can achieve the Star Trek utopia through social development.  Look at the issues with income inequality and "welfare" and the concerted attack on the working poor for an example of how we're moving backward.  

    I think our main hope may lie in technology.  Star Trek basically as free energy, and an ability to turn energy into basic goods.  If all basic goods are free, maybe, just maybe, we will stop getting so worked up about the idea that a checkout worker, janitor, teacher, government lawyer, or any other number of jobs get paid as well as they do, have benefits, or allow retirement before death.

  •  gene roddenberry (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rimjob, Angie in WA State, NYFM

    was contacted by the federation, in order to help lay the groundwork for when we will be ready for first contact. nowm it won't be such a surprise. and roddenberry was instructed to purposely give us a dystopian interregnum, to help us prevent it from actually happening, so we will be in better shape when first contact does finally arrive.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 06:45:51 PM PST

    •  oh, if only... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis, NYFM, Nellebracht

      I'd only say that while First Contact as portrayed in Star Trek: First Contact is something that would benefit all mankind; the truth is there is a lot to be wary of, when considering such an event in the real world.

      There are really only two reasons some Extraterrestrial species would drop in on Earth, and both stem from our "out in the boonies" location, galactically speaking. Our solar system is at the far end of a long spiral arm from galactic center, and it's not in a densely packed area of space either.

      Thus, we're waaaay far out there for anyone to come visit. Our Earth isn't made up of any significant quantities of unique elements or transuranics or anything which might bring traders or First Contact parlay visits. What ET might more likely be doing here is:

      1. Searching for new planets to colonize
      2. Searching for new planets to harvest from

      Either way, it won't be good for homo sapiens sapiens. See any Earth culture subject to either of those scenarios, and see our own future if it does happen.

      The only chance we have to a meaningful First Contact, is if we meet them somewhere in space, not at either of our homeworlds. Even that will be a scary prospect, for the reasons of 1 & 2 noted above.


      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

      by Angie in WA State on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 07:45:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's because of that fear (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angie in WA State

        and all those 50s movies, that the federation decided to find someone, to help prepare us. now, we have that positive alternate narrative, so when first contact happens we won't freak out.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 07:58:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  On the other hand (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tb92

        Any race that had the technology to make it all the way here in the first place probably wouldn't be interested in Earth or any of its raw materials.  If you think about it, the ability to control the amount of energy it takes to move between stars in anything like a reasonable time would let them create their own planet from loose rubble and gases if they felt the need, engineered to suit.  The Vulcans dropped by because they saw we developed FTL travel, and that was their basic criterion for interesting species to contact.  It makes sense to me that in a post-scarcity society, which any Warp-level civilization should be unless they screw up their social dynamics (or, like the Ferengi, aren't ready for it), would value cultural exchange over material gain.

        From such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned. -Immanuel Kant

        by Nellebracht on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:08:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, interstellar travel, minus a "warp drive" or (0+ / 0-)

          "folded space drive", would by all current theories require nearly infinite amounts of energy.

          It's in Einstein's Relativity equation:
          E=MC2

          and his following work on the Unified Field Theory (which has not yet been completed IIRC).

          Which says that while travel faster than light is not possible, you can get right up to it, infinitely close to the speed of light. But the faster you go, the more energy it takes to get you there... so infinitely fast speeds = infinitely massive amounts of energy.

          Ships couldn't hold enough mass to convert to energy (even if we had a Direct-Mass-To-Energy device) to achieve near-light-speed.

          Unless humans find a way to circumvent the restrictions of our space-time continum, and travel via warp or folded-space, we're pretty much stuck to close distances or to Generation ships (where you plan for more than one generation to live aboard while en route to the destination due to the extremely long length of time to get there, maybe 100s or 1000s of years at sub-light speeds).  

          But you've mistaken why the Vulcan's visited for 1st Contact. It's not about "interesting species". It's the Prime Directive (which the Federation had before humans showed up). They were forbidden to contact any species which is still bound to it's homeworld. Only those species who have achieved warp drive and are able to explore the galaxy and/or be a security risk to other species and other worlds are exempt from the Prime Directive:

          The Prime Directive dictates that there can be no interference with the internal development of alien civilizations.

          It has special implications, for civilizations that have not yet developed the technology for interstellar spaceflight ("pre-warp"), since no primitive culture can be given or exposed to any information regarding advanced technology or the existence of extraplanetary civilizations, lest this exposure alter the natural development of the civilization..


          "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

          by Angie in WA State on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 01:40:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Star Trek version of Fox News (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State, fumie

    The Game. The crew gets addicted to a stupid game that distracts them from reality. Ashley Judd makes an appearance.

    Some people have short memories

    by lenzy1000 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 07:19:39 PM PST

  •  Really? A TV show is not a basis for political (0+ / 0-)

    theories.

    The primary theoretical basis of Star Trek is the projection of Modernity (look it up) into space. Anyone who actually knows anything about political theory knows that Star Trek is firmly embedded in past ideologies. There is nothing "futuristic" about what its narratives present. Case in point: what do they do when they encounter a collective intelligence (the Borg)? They teach it to say "I" (and turn it into a subject).

    I like Star Trek. It's fun. I love SF, in general, but Trek is not a reasonable basis for ideas or thought. Far from being forward looking, everything in the show is a projection of our past (with little or no regard for what is truly "new" or different RIGHT NOW) into the future. With re: to social and political ideas, Trek is, at best, 19th century (and then not even critically!!!)

    I get your impulse, but ...

    •  Did you read more than the title? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't equate the TV show with our own future.

      I discussed the values and ideologies within the show which are becoming more like real life in recent years.

      i.e., this portion specifically:

      I think we're into #StarTrek territory here and by that, I mean this younger, more diverse portion of the Electorate are trending to approve and support political stances which graphically and realistically showcase the ideology of both (slightly altered to more fit our current paradigm)  "The needs of the many outweigh the needs desires of the few" and the ultimate in (not, as the conservatives fear, #socialism) #HumanSociety which works to the betterment of all members equitably, regardless of personal abilities or fiscal status.

      A society in which the goal of a person's life is not merely the acquisition of (as the late George Carlin so succinctly put it) #Stuff, but the betterment of their fellow man - because in doing so, each member of this Society is benefiting themselves, too.

      Then compared those values and ideologies to what is driving the modern conservative #GOP into what looks like it's final hurrah, just before they sail off into the sunset crewed by a bunch of bigots and racists who cannot find a place in our world anymore - because too many of us are simply rejecting their ideas.


      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

      by Angie in WA State on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 01:47:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've watched and loved Star Trek for 40 years (0+ / 0-)

    but, our future is not going to be like Star Trek (unless we get assimilated by the Borg, or conquered by the Klingons, or bought-out by the Ferengi).  Our future is more likely to be like the "Alien" saga.  Where most of the population lives in little pods, the sun never seems to shine, everyone is out for themselves, and a big evil galactic Weyland Industries instructs that "All other priorities are recinded" and "crew expendable", so that they can have a new resource for the bio-weapons division.

    This is the future I see coming.  So, you'd better start now looking for one of the better jobs with the company, and never let them send you to LV 426.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site