SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CBS premiered its new Star Trek series "Discovery" on Sunday. The first episode was made available on OTA (over-the-air) CBS stations — but it and all subsequent episodes are available strictly on CBS's All Access streaming service. Cost is $6/month with ads, $10/month ad-free. (NOTE: The second episode was made available immediately after episode 1 aired. Episodes 3-7 will be released weekly, there will be a break, and then the remaining episodes will again be released weekly early in 2018.)
Ars Technica has a review that mostly praised the new show. (There were at least two technical inaccuracies in the review concerning the first episode.)
For those who may not yet have seen it, I kindly ask folks who comment on this story to make liberal use of the <spoiler>don't show this unless they click here</spoiler> tags.
What did you think? Was it entertaining? Did it hold closely [enough] to existing Star Trek canon? Was any 'ideology' change you saw sufficiently warranted?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:31PM (28 children)
Star Trek has always been globalist propaganda, depicting a world where government is all encompassing but somehow hasn't been co-opted by bad actors. I doubt it's gotten any subtler on that point in 2017.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:40PM (2 children)
What makes Star Trek a great series has been that it's written in a way that people of vastly different socio-political persuasions can find in the plot an allegory for each of their philosophies.
For instance, I have always found Star Trek to be patently libertarian—and not just any kind of libertarian, but anarcho-capitalist in nature. The fundamental principle that I see is voluntary interaction. Even with Deep Space 9, the heavy boot of government was something occurring outside of Starfleet.
Alas, though, the SJW (and therefore socialist) aspect has been creeping up in recent years.
See this comment, too. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:35PM
The original series was never libertarian. They violated the Prime Directive every other show! Next Generation did the same thing, but they spent more time hand-wringing about having to do it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @03:01AM
Anarcho-capitalism without money? Or are you suggesting there's no inherent contradiction there?
The Klingon tradition of passing ships from father to son along house lines seems to be a more complete realization of anarcho-capitalism than the Federation.
If I attempt to apply the anarcho-capitalist model to the Federation, I find that houses will eventually form as captains prefer recommending commissions along sectarian lines. Even if the Federation somehow made it into the 25th century (as in fan productions) without houses, I can't imagine the 29th or 31st centuries without houses. Of course, Captain Braxton and Daniels never went into too much detail about sociological landscape of the far future where timeships are common and there's a temporal prime directive.
If we can imagine getting to the 31st century without houses, then men have become angels. However, I think that was Roddenberry's intent, to present men as having evolved to a better state. Given angels, anarcho-capitalism in its purest form may be evident in the Federation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:41PM
Wasn't one of the main themes of Spaceport 9 how there were slime infiltrators in the Star Fleet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:44PM (17 children)
I 100% believe that humanity is capable of creating a system of government not so easily coopted. The planet educational average is still very low, and the aristocracy of old was never actually thrown off. They still squat in modern society, sucking the life out of society. Every large country is an exercise in all encompassing government, and what we're currently missing is a balance between local and central government. I think in the near future we'll come up with a Earth-wide Bill of Rights and hold countries to that standard. It will of course require all the major powers to get on board, play nice, and shun any loser countries that want to maintain their evil ways.
A world government should aim at having most everything legalized, with countries applying their specific laws as long as they don't violate the universal Bill of Rights / Constitution. That way each country can evolve on their own terms instead of trying to force a society wide change that would cause greater chaos.
Make no mistake, this isn't a problem with government we're facing, it is a problem with entrenched parties that subvert government to maintain their excessive wealth and power. You anti-government types have good points but you're being manipulated by propaganda to keep any real progress from being made.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:55PM (1 child)
It isn't a problem with entrenched parties that subvert government. It is a problem with human beings.
In the bible, Jeremiah (17:9) wrote: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Whether you believe that is not important. My point is simply is that wherever humans go, the human problem that we cannot fix will go with us.
I expect the future to look a lot more like The Expanse, or like Babylon 5, rather than the utopian view of Star Trek. Not that I don't find Trek an entertaining escape. It is just not realistic about people.
We've wanted a utopia for centuries if not millennia. But are we any closer? Not even with our superior tech? Well meaning people invent the tech. Others (eventually) recognize the power of it and recognize they must subvert and control it to enslave everyone. Does that sound about like how it really is?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @06:08PM
Human greed is the problem, but it is possible to structure society to minimize the harm caused by such greed. The world has gotten a LOT better in just a couple hundred years, we're still working on a lot of issues and as I said we never really got rid of the old aristocracy. It will be a while, the mindset of kings / queens is still deeply embedded in most societies.
A successful world government will be one that is very hands off, but the laws it does enforce will be accepted by all member countries. I see no reason why humanity can't unite, the main blockers are greedy assholes and ignorant masses easily manipulated. We already have successful governments for entire large countries, there is no reason it can't be done on the world scale.
PS: The trek universe has plenty of criminals and other non-gov parties.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Tuesday September 26 2017, @06:01PM (1 child)
Maybe that's true in the UK, where the old aristocracy literally still exists. But they murdered all of those people in France, and the people that came to America were the people escaping the aristocracy.
That's not to say we don't have aristocracy. But most of the wealthy people in America got their wealth within the last 150 years.
And by the way, if you really want to prevent aristocracies from regenerating after periods of revolution, the only successful tool thus far has been forced redistribution of wealth. In America we have a wimpy version they call the "death tax".
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Type44Q on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:23PM
They only murdered half of the Feudal Problem; the Church, unfortunately, was left intact.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @06:41PM (12 children)
I think you're displaying your cultural bias.
Killing people for their political or religious beliefs is a common thing in many parts of the world. This happens on a state level where Saudi Arabia executes people for everything from adultery, to apostasy, to sorcery (really [wikipedia.org]). And it also happens at the individual/social group level. For instance Iraq is broken into three primary groups of Muslims: Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. Shia and Sunni like killing each other because of a succession crisis that happened 1400 years ago after Muhammad died. The Kurds (which include both some Sunni and Shia) like killing all the other guys because they want their own special Kurd country.
The reason dictators are so common in the Mideast is because of these sort of social issues. Democracy doesn't work. Iraq is already rapidly regressing after our hand picked puppet government has effectively collapsed in on itself. I think we take things, like not frequently killing each other over religion or politics, for granted. And so when we see things like an iron fisted Mideastern dictator we naturally just assume he's oppressing a population not that different than we are. A different language, a different culture and religion - but fundamentally the same. But that's just untrue. What works for the west is not some magical pill for all the world. Our societies, and peoples, are radically different in very fundamental ways. And pretending that difference does not exist is something that is beneficial for nobody.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:01PM (11 children)
In the 50s/60s the middle east was on track for joining the rest of modern society, but then the various world powers (US and Russia mostly) went in and intentionally fucked up their politics and installed Israel as a pro-West nuclear power. Intentionally. It wasn't a cultural problem, but now it is. Ignoramuses like you want all the blame to be on them.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:06PM (8 children)
You're aware that Israel was a thing in 1948, right?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:28PM (6 children)
You're aware that a 2 year difference in a general time statement is insignificant and stupid to point out right?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:39PM (1 child)
You're aware the words you're typing have meaning, right? As in, the soonest the western powers could have mucked everything up was the 60s.
then = happened later in time
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:59PM
Israel wasn't the only thing that happened in the middle east, and much of the real mucking about was later. I'm so SORRY I didn't include a detailed timeline, I didn't think the precise year/month/day would be all that important to the overall point. THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING THE RECORD!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:10PM (3 children)
You're aware that was a VERY weak cover up to your ignorance, right? 1948 can just as well be said to be 22 years out from your 50s/60s comment.
The graceful thing would have been to admit your mistake or ignorance. Your response put you in the "oh, he's one of those kind of people" arena.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:20PM (2 children)
Nope, not gonna play into the minutiae game. The correction had very little bearing on my point. Grammar / detail nazis are not productive contributors to a conversation. The general point of the middle east getting destabilized in the 50s/60s stands. Just because I included the creation of Israel does not mandate that I must start my general timeframe at 1948.
You can put me in whatever mental category you'd like, doesn't make me wrong or the 2 year correction valid. Now if I'd stated a specific year I'd have been graceful and admit to my ignorance, but that is not what happened. It is more likely a nitpick to try and minimize my point.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @09:35PM (1 child)
LOL! You gave yourself a 20 year window, and you still couldn't hit the target. Then you turn around and still claim victory!
Good God, people, I think DJT is posting anon here!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:01PM
who?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:42PM
You're aware that 1948 Israel wasn't a "pro-West nuclear power", right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @12:03AM (1 child)
We didn't create Salifism or Wahhabianism. We didn't promote a book that literally says to toss gays from roofs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @04:37PM
We only made it very easy for them to gain power and force their fucked up values on the more moderate population.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Zedrick on Tuesday September 26 2017, @06:01PM
What's wrong with that?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:18PM (1 child)
If you don't like the premise then don't watch it. But I just see it as sci-fi that extrapolates transportation technology into the future. The easier it is to travel, the smaller the world looks. For example, we move and travel across US states relatively easily compared to 200 years ago. States felt more like nations back then because travel and relocation was a big endeavor. If we all had flying hypersonic cars, then country borders wouldn't mean much.
Also, in Trek lore, there was big war or two that reshuffled the world map. Hundreds of years from now it's not unrealistic to assume the world map could be much different.
In short, it's friggin' sci fi set hundreds of years future. Why view that as political and compare it to now?
As far as "socialism", machines and replicators probably do all the grunt work in the future such that most human labor is obsolete. We are starting to face that now as those without enough education get left behind in the economy because they are competing with machines (and cheap 3rd country labor). The demarcation of what's automatable will climb up the education ladder over time.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:25PM
Fully Automated Luxury Communism is the future.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:41PM
Star Trek is only globalist because when you discover that there are 1000s of worlds and you join a "Federation of Planets" you kind of have to join as one planet. Picard still tends a vineyard on Earth during one episode of TNG that I recall--a distinctively French activity. Earlier, Checkov exhibits Russian pride to comedic effect. McCoy is a "simple country doctor" with a Southern US effect. etc., etc. True, they don't get into any kind of issues regarding the equivalent of "states rights" on a global scale; but when the Borg is threatening to blow you away that's like quibbling over Oregon's gas pumping laws while ICBMs are arcing towards the coast.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday September 27 2017, @01:06AM
It's a matter of scale. Planets have replaced countries. Most of the causes of conflict and hardship in the world today are related to competition for land, resources and energy. If there's widespread unlimited energy and the freedom to travel to and inhabit other star systems, the localized utopia becomes a bit more plausible.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @03:46AM
This is a good point. In this, like other things, Star Trek is unrealistic. With its communistic type visions, it seems to be naive, one would hope not yearning for the usual results of such things, but the inevitable result is Stalin or Mao who collectively killed tens of millions . When you think about it, free market keeps things highly redundant, doesnt put all the eggs in one basket, so its more organic and can recover more easily from failure unlike grand centralized planning schemes which fail catasrophically