![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
syredronningSo there's another thinky post linked around, namely Not your granddaddy's Iowa... which includes much thinking about the effects of the Eugenic Wars and WW III.
I'm the first to admit that I never really worked with these wars, but OTOH there are things that aren't completely round for me in the argumentation.
* The Eugenic War itself. It's all over the place in Star Trek what exactly it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek#Eugenics_Wars_and_World_War_III
"First Contact" is the one movie that used the theme, so it might be canon that Earth was devastated at that point. The original references don't necessarily add up to this. I like the idea of Cox' novel that the Eugenic War happened in the 1990's (which is the first, specific time reference given TOS about it) but behind the scene, though I never read the novel. I just think it's a clever way to deal with a war in a time we already passed. The danger of dating Sci-Fi too close to one's own time...
* Let's assume we really had a big war of apocalyptic prospects. Humans had to unite against the Augmented - yes, they probably would. But in many conflicts, after the unification due to external pressure, new conflicts develop once that external source is gone (think WW II and the allied nations). Europe united after WW II (and it took some pains and about forty years) but did not after WW I - in fact, the catastrophe of the first war was the direct foundation of the next war. So just because you went through major disaster together does not automatically unite everyone in one happy party, it depends on all the details that happened before and during the conflict.
* Then "First Contact" is a very good example how contact would probably NOT work out, at least when you believe this scientist regarding the impact of direct contact:
"During contacts between different human cultures in the past it didn’t matter whether the ‘discoverers’ met the ‘discovered’ close inshore or on land. In both cases the roles mentioned were the same. For the ‘discoverers’ the discovery far from their home proved their superiority, correspondingly for the ‘discovered’ the fact, to be confronted with strangers on their own territory, proved their inferiority. In all historic cases the discrepancy regarding the technical level of transport was interpreted by both sides as a sign of superiority and inferiority respectively.
Much more probable [than a positive scenario] would be a global existential shock which would lead to the collapse of many social, religious and political institutions on earth. And this is independent of the motives, goals and technological capabilities of the extraterrestrials."
(source: SETI and the Consequences (PDF, p.5); German articles by the same author: 1, 2)
The author scientist is rather concerned that this might happen to us, so he suggests we move our outposts and satellites as far out into space as possible, because the farther the contact point is away from your home, the less frightening first contacts will be. Landing with a spaceship in the middle of unsuspecting, poor, post-catastrophic humans might not be a good idea.
* Regarding the future: Starfleet is often supposed to be completely multi-racial - nothing in canon ever showed this, IMVHO. We mostly see ships with humans, with a headquarter on Earth (soCal, even ;). Vulcans have their own ships. Other races have their own fleets and agenda. In ST VI the Klingons comment on the Federation being a Homo Sapiens Club and despite the various aliens, it sure looks as if humans call the shots rather often, after starting out (if you believe ENT which I don't necessarily do) as the bad-behaved kiddie that lays the Federation foundation in the end. I see the main species having their own headquarters per planet, their own fleets that all somehow are in one Federation, but not necessarily ONE fleet.
* The Federation will have to find some smallest common denominator, but we don't know how it looks like and AFAIS each planet will have a lot of possibilities and leeway for "local" politics. As we do in Europe right now, a constant battle between national and international interests with quite some energy put into the details, and many people of the involved countries unsatisfied with the results.There will be a broad variety of lifestyles but very likely not all in one place.
Dang, I wanted to write story instead of meta but I love all these ongoing discussions - even though it seems I'm not half as optimistic as the general Star Trek fan.
Here, have a classic DS9 quote at the end:
"Let me tell you something about Hew- mons, Nog. They're a wonderful, friendly people -- as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Just look at those faces... look in their eyes." (Quark)
*hearts DS9 for its realism*
I'm the first to admit that I never really worked with these wars, but OTOH there are things that aren't completely round for me in the argumentation.
* The Eugenic War itself. It's all over the place in Star Trek what exactly it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek#Eugenics_Wars_and_World_War_III
"First Contact" is the one movie that used the theme, so it might be canon that Earth was devastated at that point. The original references don't necessarily add up to this. I like the idea of Cox' novel that the Eugenic War happened in the 1990's (which is the first, specific time reference given TOS about it) but behind the scene, though I never read the novel. I just think it's a clever way to deal with a war in a time we already passed. The danger of dating Sci-Fi too close to one's own time...
* Let's assume we really had a big war of apocalyptic prospects. Humans had to unite against the Augmented - yes, they probably would. But in many conflicts, after the unification due to external pressure, new conflicts develop once that external source is gone (think WW II and the allied nations). Europe united after WW II (and it took some pains and about forty years) but did not after WW I - in fact, the catastrophe of the first war was the direct foundation of the next war. So just because you went through major disaster together does not automatically unite everyone in one happy party, it depends on all the details that happened before and during the conflict.
* Then "First Contact" is a very good example how contact would probably NOT work out, at least when you believe this scientist regarding the impact of direct contact:
"During contacts between different human cultures in the past it didn’t matter whether the ‘discoverers’ met the ‘discovered’ close inshore or on land. In both cases the roles mentioned were the same. For the ‘discoverers’ the discovery far from their home proved their superiority, correspondingly for the ‘discovered’ the fact, to be confronted with strangers on their own territory, proved their inferiority. In all historic cases the discrepancy regarding the technical level of transport was interpreted by both sides as a sign of superiority and inferiority respectively.
Much more probable [than a positive scenario] would be a global existential shock which would lead to the collapse of many social, religious and political institutions on earth. And this is independent of the motives, goals and technological capabilities of the extraterrestrials."
(source: SETI and the Consequences (PDF, p.5); German articles by the same author: 1, 2)
The author scientist is rather concerned that this might happen to us, so he suggests we move our outposts and satellites as far out into space as possible, because the farther the contact point is away from your home, the less frightening first contacts will be. Landing with a spaceship in the middle of unsuspecting, poor, post-catastrophic humans might not be a good idea.
* Regarding the future: Starfleet is often supposed to be completely multi-racial - nothing in canon ever showed this, IMVHO. We mostly see ships with humans, with a headquarter on Earth (soCal, even ;). Vulcans have their own ships. Other races have their own fleets and agenda. In ST VI the Klingons comment on the Federation being a Homo Sapiens Club and despite the various aliens, it sure looks as if humans call the shots rather often, after starting out (if you believe ENT which I don't necessarily do) as the bad-behaved kiddie that lays the Federation foundation in the end. I see the main species having their own headquarters per planet, their own fleets that all somehow are in one Federation, but not necessarily ONE fleet.
* The Federation will have to find some smallest common denominator, but we don't know how it looks like and AFAIS each planet will have a lot of possibilities and leeway for "local" politics. As we do in Europe right now, a constant battle between national and international interests with quite some energy put into the details, and many people of the involved countries unsatisfied with the results.There will be a broad variety of lifestyles but very likely not all in one place.
Dang, I wanted to write story instead of meta but I love all these ongoing discussions - even though it seems I'm not half as optimistic as the general Star Trek fan.
Here, have a classic DS9 quote at the end:
"Let me tell you something about Hew- mons, Nog. They're a wonderful, friendly people -- as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Just look at those faces... look in their eyes." (Quark)
*hearts DS9 for its realism*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-06 09:42 pm (UTC)I'm sure sometimes the planets also cut deals with each other, for example A stops to push for some common rights or privileges that they believe B should implement in order to have B on board on e.g. Starfleet support. This way, you could actually make a case for the law becoming more restrictive/less supportive of minorities in the ST:XI timeline...
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-07 07:39 pm (UTC)[Planets cutting deals] This way, you could actually make a case for the law becoming more restrictive/less supportive of minorities in the ST:XI timeline...
Uh-uh, I didn't even think of that yet - yes, quite believable too :/
Thanks for commenting! Loved to read your thoughts.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-07 08:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-07 08:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-07 01:24 am (UTC)I agree that the reality of a post contact, post apocalyptic earth-wide war will not likely be the utopia that Roddenberry dreamed up.
I also agree that it was very homo sapiens specific, but it's a grand idea and one that we can hope for. I just hope it doesn't take 250 years for there to be true equality for all people regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-07 07:37 pm (UTC)I just have my realism fetish kick my ass when it gets too cozy. Because we humans won't change magically unless our psyche gets some reforming, I fear... (now that is a thought!)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-07 07:07 pm (UTC)But is a general trend in sci-fi. that the social anthropological side of things is seldom treated as a possible speculative science aspect beyond throwing around cultures resembling differnt earth periods and almost always inferor to our "own" earth culture as represented by Enterprise, so again, a monolithic, onse sided version of earth culture.
And apologies for spamming but I'm checking in for "draws" updates and running instead into my pet subjects.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-04-07 07:36 pm (UTC)P.S. I posted a state report on Draws, not just for you, but definitely because you reminded me that I have fans :) Thank you!
♥
so late to the party
Date: 2010-04-09 02:52 pm (UTC)I think that we are pretty much in the same boat. The entire time I was reading affectingly and medie's posts, something just kept pinging in my mind as slightly 'off'. And I think it was just that they see Trek as a utopian vision of our future. I, on the other hand, do not see Trek as utopian at all, but as what it is--a hopeful vision of the future with shinier technology that is hopelessly mired in our current sociological outlook.
Your points on the power of the majority in terms of heteronormativity, monogamy, and the tyranny of the human majority in Trek were especially salient. (For all our slashy subtext, there is what, one version of Trek with a non-hetero couple?)
I would say the same for religion--even as religion decreases in its power to be a governing force in the community, I think that many cultures of the world will continue to be influenced by the cultural marks of religion for some time. I see it every time someone says "oh my god", or my Jewish friends that eat apples and honey for Rosh Hoshanah but are agnostic, or my friends from culturally Muslim countries who don't go to mosque but keep their heads covered, or my Japanese friends whose daily lives aren't governed by Buddhist thoughts but will occasionally dash into a temple, clap three times, and pray for success in final exams. And maybe I am being blind, but I can't see that disappearing in a mere 200 years, although I think enhanced communications technology will push it along. And there will be new religions too--maybe one day there will be a group of people who worship black holes.
And I loved the point you made about the Eugenics War! I really didn't think that it was true that after a worldwide crisis, we would all come together and sing songs about how enemy of my enemy is my friend and let's give piece a chance and all that. I didn't know how to adequately respond as I'm not a scholar of many global conflicts, but I do know that in addition to WWI/WWII, there have been many earth-shaking conflicts across history, and none of them have resulted in peace and harmony. They just give birth two new factions, new rivalries, new conflicts.
bah--I'm such a pessimist! I'm just going to hold out hope that one day I'll get my flying car. That's all I need to be happy :)
Re: so late to the party
Date: 2010-04-15 07:58 pm (UTC)The entire time I was reading affectingly and medie's posts, something just kept pinging in my mind as slightly 'off'. And I think it was just that they see Trek as a utopian vision of our future. I, on the other hand, do not see Trek as utopian at all, but as what it is--a hopeful vision of the future with shinier technology that is hopelessly mired in our current sociological outlook.
Roddenberry had an Utopian take on trek but AFAIS not all of it landed in canon. There's a lot of equal rights stuff in TOS, especially considering the time it was filmed, but it still has its moments of downfall.
In Trek, men and women have afais the same rights, do cool jobs, and still - no visible homosexual pairings around :/ Big canon fail here. That's why canon should be taken with a grain of salt - people can't claim that it proves all their points but then go on seeing slash and sexual enlightenment as quasi-proven. It's not.
As for religion, I think scientol*** may point the route to modern religion which is a mix of technology and self-belief systems and some fantasy inside. In a hundred years, they'll be just as established as other religious stuff.
People will believe in wormhole aliens and subspace gods and whatnot. I'm very happy that Roddenberry had Kirk and his people be agnostics/atheists and I bet that many but not all 'Fleet officers will be like that. Religions will never die out, afais, not in the normal population.
Tyranny of humans in the Federation mostly comes from the lack of money for the alien outfits when filming first ;) but while it may not be true inside the Federation, the Klingons etc see it like that from the outside. I also think that it's vastly proven that Vulcans are NOT very open to other species, that they're doing a lot of looking-down on humans and anyone who shows emotions (bad, bad taste!), and Spock getting bashed for being half-human is canon too. I doubt he would have had received a lot less bashing on Earth.
It's nice to read glorious visions of the future but while trek is hopeful, it's not Utopian to me. And given my realism fetish, I can work a lot better with that than with the gloss-all-over-peace-on-Earth-no-war-ever stuff.