The Dangers of Star Trek Fundamentalism

"And yet we can *strongly* argue that the Federation itself is a static culture, and not a 'living, growing one.' It's been 80 years since TOS in TNG...and yet there's clearly been very little technological progress..."

Good point. The Prime Directive seems to be as much obeyed in the Trek universe as the ban on Romulan Ale.

...and yet in Next Generation Picard cites the Prime Directive as justification for allowing drug addicts to languish in their addictions. Later on, when a planet is about to be destroyed by natural cuases, Picard sites the PD as an excuse to let the sentient aliens all die, *Despite* the fact that it's clearly easily within the abilities of the federation to save all of 'em. Later, when they find out that Worf's brother has done the humane-yet-illegal task of saving a handfull of the aliens, Picard has the *timerity* to get angry with him about it.

And of course they refuse to help out 'inferior' cultures when it's convenient to do so, yet justify Kirk knocking over 'static' culturs like the examples you cited. And yet we can *strongly* argue that the Federation itself is a static culture, and not a 'living, growing one.' It's been 80 years since TOS in TNG, and yet there's clearly been very little technological progress except in entertainment (hoodecks), no evident legal progress, no social progress, merely bigger ships and different uniforms. We've got a monolith, static state that's every bit as 'locked in' as Landru's or Vol's imitation of the Garden of Eden was.

3.0: "What we can consider to be self-evident laws are the things that no one wants done to them: don't kill me, don't rape me, don't beat me up, don't rob from me, don't enslave me, and so forth."

As Rabbi Hillel said, teaching a gentile all of Torah while standing on one leg: "That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

Of course, this all comes from the commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself." Not more, not less, but AS yourself. Such a statement is exceedingly self-evident, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

2.0: "However, Federation Culture says- 'Gee, those aliens with the bumpy foreheads are living in shacks, and we possess the means to end their suffering... but if we give them relief, we've impacted their culture and development'"

I am reminded of another old saying: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."

That Federation Culture would only be serving those bumpy foreheaded aliens well by teaching them to solve their problems on their own rather than giving them what they need, lest the BFHA's become totally dependent on the Federation for solutions. Such is the sin of the "progressive" welfare state.

The best Trek episodes about the Prime Directive argue against it. "The Apple" and "Return of the Archons," where Kirk defends the need to destroy Landru by arguing the PD only refers to a "living, growing culture." Archons should be required viewing for conservatives. "You said wanted freedom; it's time you learned that freedom is never a gift, it has to be earned."

I was at an SF convention in the early 90s and Majel Barrett Roddenberry was speaking. Someone asked her an overly-fannish question about the Prime Directive and she said, "Look, you've got to understand that Star Trek was a show who's only real purpose was to sell toothpaste and stuff. They cooked up the prime directive just to add some tension to a script that was lacking conflict, no one ever thought they'd come back to it again in other episodes." I take this to mean that she, herself, was somewhat annoyed by it, though she never actually said that.

On any moral grounds you care to list, it's completely indefensible and demonstrably amoral.

What's interesting about that is how it's pervaded society. I knew a missionary that was talking to this girl about these amazingly poor people in Africa who were starving and the usual, and this one girl said "But you can't interfere in their natural development." It's weird how people take random bits of crap off of TV and just assume they're the 11th commandment. It's every bit as ludicrous as if I watched Lost in Space and concluded that the universe was entirely populated by fey closeted actors and robots.

It's ignored whenever the captain feels like ignoring it.

I say it's cultural relativism, and I say the hell with it.

B5 made a point of pointing this out several times, the most overtly was when Dr. Stephen Franklin came across some aliens - the Lumati - who refused to get involved. Franklin said "So if all you had to do was lift a finger to save the life of an entire race that was dying out...?" To which the aliens replied, "It would be wrong to impose our will on the universe" or some such pseudo-enlightened claptrap.

Anyway, I agree that our morality is ultimately based somewhere on the line on "God" or "The gods" said it. Hell, the only reason we have jury trials is because the greek god Apollo mandated them. Written law? We can thank the Babylonian gods Anu and Bel for dictating them to Hammurabi. That said, in a culture without an official religion, it's good to have some less culturally-tied way to justify laws. This is a good thing, though it's frought with difficulty.

What we can consider to be self-evident laws are the things that no one wants done to them: don't kill me, don't rape me, don't beat me up, don't rob from me, don't enslave me, and so forth. These are self-evident regardless of one's religion because we all know they'd be unpleasant subjectively, and by extention of the golden rule, we know they'd be unpleasant for others as well, and therefore we shouldn't do 'em, yeah? Make sense?

yes, the Golden Rule is inherently religious, but you get my point, I'm sure.

Laws that are *not* self evident, however, are speed limits.

I picked the "All men are created equal" thing because it's in the declaration of independence, and most people wouldn't argue against it. It's one of the basic assumptions of US law. It's my possibly-mistaken understanding that Jefferson chose that phrase because he personally believed all people were *created* equal - equal in the ammount of respect they were due, at least, equal in terms of their own responsibilities for their actions - but where you went from that starting point was up to you. The race starts at the same time for everyone, it doesn't end that way though. That's my impression of what he meant.

Since Mike mentioned it...

Star Trek makes a big to-do about the Prime Directive-
As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive [emphasis mine]

When a culture deliberately makes the policy of "Don't Get Involved" their highest moral duty, that culture needs to be set upon with pitchforks and torches: it is a monster.

If you can feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless- it is morally imperative that you do so.

However, Federation Culture says- 'Gee, those aliens with the bumpy foreheads are living in shacks, and we possess the means to end their suffering... but if we give them relief, we've impacted their culture and development'

My answer to Fed Culture is:"ABSOLUTELY!" If sentient life is precious, then culture must take a backseat to basic human needs. If the culture is CAUSING the problem, then it must be altered or replaced. Diversity is one thing, culturally mandated suicide is another.

Oh and you NEED to read this http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/orthodoxy-and-science-fict...

But you're using that argument to free morality from its religious trappings, and I don't think it works.

"A self-evident truth remains a self-evident truth ("All men are created equal") whether or not people choose to act on it."

But "all men are created equal" is self-evidently false. People are different in every way: physically, mentally, socially, and financially. The only way that statement makes any sense is to assume a Creator who loves each person simply because he is a person..

And I don't think there's any way (although I'm not 100% sure) that without some sense of religion you can show that the principle of "every man for himself" is immoral. You can say, "because it's selfish," but then why is it wrong to be selfish? You can answer, "because it harms the group's chance for survival and that hurts your own chances." But then I'd say you were not arguing against selfishness, but for a "higher" selfishness. You can say "because that's the way humans have evolved to feel!" And I'd answer that we've also evolved to look out for number one.

I'm not saying that the only reason not to feel selfish is that God says not to be. What I'm saying is that we just understand that selfishness is wrong, but have no way to justify that without presupposing a Creator who instilled that in us.

But all this has very little to do with Star Trek.

No, no, thank you! It's good to ask these kinds of nagging questions and challenge stuff.

I picked Slavery because we're all on the same side of the fence w/r/t/ that one nowadays, but the self-evident point that everyone always instinctively knew was "I don't want to be a slave." That much is self evident: "Slavery is bad for me, personally." From that point on, you can choose to argue it away ("Slavery isn't bad for them because they're sub-human") or ignore it ("Slavery is just part of our society, no different than owning horses") or fight against it, or just not give a damn, but those reactions are all individual ways of dealing with the central self-evident truth that "Slavery is bad for me, personally."

A self-evident truth remains a self-evident truth ("All men are created equal") whether or not people choose to act on it ("All men are created equal, but chicks don't get to vote, and slaves only count for 4/5ths of a person, and we haven't made up our minds yet wether Jews are humans or not. They might be, but don't piss us off about it."). Because people are selfish greedy bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling* who choose to misrepresent or ignore a truth that calls their own personaly bastardly behavior in to question doesn't mean that the fundamental truth isn't still true.

*- thank you Dr. Cox!

3.0 said: "It goes like this: If I say "Slavery is wrong," (Which it is), "Because everyone knows it's wrong for them, personally, to be a slave" then we have a self-evident point."

I'm not sure how "self-evident" a point this is, given that it was overlooked by so many for so long.

To play Devil's Advocate, what if I were to acknowledge that I would certainly not want to be a slave, but since I'm not one and nobody is threatening to make me one, then slavery is fine with me? If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave!

Which raises the issue of what kind of society they lived in. The Soviet Union, for instance, was obsessive about classical and romantic era music, but they actually passed laws from time to time to prevent the dissemenation of Jazz, Rock, Swing, Blues, which they considered "Degenerate" and contrary to the good of the people. Given that everyone on the enterprise spent their off hours listening to French Ballet Music, one can suppose that either (A) they lived in a society that closely supervised the arts or (B) that they lived in a society that had not produced any noteworthy art in 400 years or so.

Either way, that's a bad deal!

My old roommate's biggest gripe about TNG was that their entertainment and fun consisted entirely of pretentious classical music, plays, opera, chamber music, ballet, poetry recitals, etc. "Nobody really likes that stuff!" he'd say. "Where is the rebelliousness, the cutting edge? Hell, where's the Buck Rogers attempt at bad Disco even!" He had a good point, at least for most of the TNG era. It was all Grandpa Picard in space, at least for the crew's off hours, and the only kids were annoying whiners.

Yeah, true Burt, true. But my point was simply that Trek appeals to vaguely aspergery people who find money, religion, politics, romance, art, family, music, culture, and ethnicity to be kind of tedious and undesirable. I probably should have emphasized that more, since Deadfrog was mostly responding to Smithcommajohn anyway....ah well.

As a big fan of TOS, and a casual fan of the rest of "Trek" (i.e. I have seen them all and pretty-much enjoyed them but have no desire to watch them in reruns), I have read these discussions and can't help but thinking of the words of Homer Simpson:

"It was the early 90's. We were all obsessed with clear soft drinks and the Internet was allowing people all over the world to find out what some nerd thought about 'Star Trek'."

First of all, Deadfrog, thank you very much for visiting the site, taking the time to register, and posting your comments. We greatly appreciate that, and we hope you stick around on the site for some time to come!

I'm gonna' hit some of your comments item by item:

First off, you said:
>>>In response to the posted article, there are fanatics involved in every single aspect of human life, Star Trek is no different than any other activity in that. For every rabid fan dressed up as a Kilngon you have another dressed I would guess a lot like you. The same goes for any sort of entertainment, sport, religion, or political ideology. In short ANYTHING that involves people will have fanatics about it.<<<

I totally agree with that. Anything worth doing will find people taking it to ludicrous extremes, and anything that isn't worth doing will also find people taking it to ludicrous extremes.

Secondly, you said:
>>As to the statement that Star Trek has "devolved" into something "socialist" is I think to have missed a major point of the Star Trek universe, and is a mistake to load the entire thing down with the label of "Mushy Liberalism". <<<

I personally didn't say it "Devolved," but it's only fair to point out that the subject of economics - when it comes up - has always been portrayed rather inconsistently in the Trekiverse: In TOS they used a credit system on ship, and it was stated that money was used in the federation at large. In TNG they were more avowedly socialist, however they did still use Gold Pressed Latinum. The difference between the series, I think involves them not wanting to define the system used in TOS, and Roddenberry's incresing didacticism over his utopian world view where there'd be no money in the future. (And in fact, Latinum was only introduced after he died so they could introduce some dramatic tension on DS9)

Thirdly, you said:
>>>There are 4 main technologies that exist in Star Trek that, if in actual existence would force a fundamental change of our society. The Replicator, FOL Travel, Transporters, and a practically unlimited energy supply would force a RADICAL change on how we interact and live. "Work" would take on a very different meaning if there was no personal incentive for it, beyond personal achievement. <<

I overwhelmingly agree, except for the last line which is subject to debate. But mostly I agree with you: Technology changes the way we live and think about our lives, and all of those techs are massive paradigm shifters. Moving on, you said:

>>Think about it. Money exists as an universally acceptable IOU for your labor, that can be redeemed anywhere for the products of other people's labor. Replicator + Near Infinite power means anyone can have any physical object at anytime. If there is no more need for labor to produce anything, what than becomes our standard for achievement and success? If every single person gains the resources to become whatever they wanted, with no worry about providing the basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, education) or even luxury items (entertainment, travel, ETC) for themselves and their loved ones, how would Capitalism survive in it's present state of labor based rewards?<<

Have you ever read the "Venus Equilateral" stories by George O. Smith? "Special Delivery" written in 1945 involves the development of a matter replicator, and "Pandora's Millions," written later that same year deals with the total economic collapse that results from exactly what you're talking about. Since everyone can have anything at any time, what incentive is there to work, to strive, to even learn? Money is, as you point out, a scorekeeping method for civilization, but if you don't keep score then everyone stops playing. The civilizaton of the entire solar system collapses overnight as people stop working, live sybaritic lives of ease, grow more and more ignorant, and eventually become violent. The story posits - validly, I think - that *any* society more massive than a simple tribal structure *needs* to have some agreed-upon system of exchange in order to hold together, whether it's a big-fish-eat-the-little-ones society like us, or one of universal prosperity like in Venus Equilateral and TNG-era Trek. Ultimately the solution in both cases was the development of a substance that could not be replicated, which then became the medium of exchange, and some semblance of an economy, and hence a civilization resumed. Whether or not it's entirely sensible, as Captain Kirk once said, "There are things men must do to remain men."

But my original point was not whether a money-free society would actually *work* or not, my point was that the absence of any economy in Trek naturally attracts people who find this aspect of mundane life tedious and troublesome, and wish it didn't exist.

You said:
>>>Freed from the need to work for resources or physical reward, we add limitless personal freedom within a certain framework (in the case of transporters it is within a single star system according to the mythology) You can travel anywhere in the world, or even solar system at will. Instantaneously. For Free. How would the idea of countries function in such an environment? Borders become completely meaningless with such freedom, and as such how could any geographical based government hope to function? <<<

Well, first of all DS9 made it very clear that on earth they use "Transporter Credits," and you're only allotted so many at a time, because Sisko kept using his up to come home and visit his dad. Also, IIRC, they don't have interplanetary transporters, they're like 50,000 mile range, max. Enough for a planet, but wouldn't even reach the moon.

That's a very valid point you make, though, and one that's been explored in SF quite a lot, particularly in Larry Niven's Known Space stories and his less-known "Teleporter" stories. As a general rule, as transportation improves the ammount of land that can be integrated in to a society increases vastly, thus horses make city-states possible, and the wheel makes kingdoms possible, and boats make empires possible, and trains make continent-spanning countries like the US, Canada, and Australia possible, and the car makes highly-integrated continent-sized countries possible, and the plane - who's full potential hasn't been realized yet - makes supercontinent-sized countries possible. So, yeah, you're right, you more than likely will get a blending of borders thanks ot increased transportation, but cultural or religious frontiers tend to put the kaibosh on this. Spain and Portugaul are touching, have great transportation, and languages that are less different than English and German, and yet they remain two countries. Canada and the US are as alike as it's possible for two english speaking countries to be, and yet we haven't merged and are unlikely to do so. True, there may only be a 3% cultural difference between us, but there's only 3% can be a lot, it's the difference between a cloud and a watermellon, between a man and an ape.

So, yeah, what you're saying makes sense and is plausible if we ignore the fact that Germans don't want to speak french and the french don't want to speak German, and nobody wants to speak English, but they'll do it if it means more money for them. My own opinion - which may be wrong - is that if you want to build a world state, you need transportation (Which you've pointed out), but you also need an incentive to overlook the fact that no group of people much likes any other group of people, and the best one of those around is....money.

You swaid:
>>The only two ways for a system of government to exist in such an environment, would be to either have universal jurisdiction or have a fanatically controlled and supervised society, in which everyone is watched all the time, in order to insure their movements comply with your regional cohesion. <<

I'd argue there's many different potential systems of government you could use in a situation like that, from despotism to an open-source online democracy, and a zillion different options in between. But if you've got Transporters, then effectively each individual planet becomes a country unto itself. It doesn't automatically mean the end of countries per se, it just redefines them a bit. But really, it defines them less than the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) did. When you get right down to it, our concept of a country would seem inconceivable madness to anyone from 1500

You said:
>>>Obviously Star Trek is not a Police State, in which such surveillance is undertaken in order to force compliance with it's rules. Having a government with universal jurisdiction is the only option in which to maintain cohesion and a modicum of control over such a liquid populace.<<

The "Police State" thing is a discussion for another day, but what you're talking about is a 'world state' and yeah, I get your point. But again, *My* original point wasn't whether or not such things were feasable, but simply that the lack of ethnicity, culture and regionalism in Trek naturally attracts people who find this aspect of mundane life tedious and troublesome, and wish it didn't exist.

As for me, personally, I find it distressing that there are no Germans in the trek version of the future, no Argentinian Gauchos, no Ainus worshiping bears, no emperor in Japan, no log-drumming polynesians, no Greek people diving for crosses, no NASCAR-crazed midwesterners. I think the world would be a far far poorer place without all of that stuff, particularly when they don't seem to have been replaced by any *new* cultures or art forms or subcultures or ethnicities.

I understand that there are people who find things like money and religion and romance and art and politics completely insufferable, but I admit I've never understood that. It's like saying "I could enjoy my life if it weren't for all this tedious eating and breathing, which I just can't stand."

You said:
>>Finally you have this massive populace, freed of all resource constraints, and geographical barriers (one should note that language barriers also appear to have been overcome in this universe, removing the need for awkward translation or the need to distinguish between regionally distinct meanings) we add the last piece, Faster Than Light travel. Provided with a limitless expanse within which to expand and propagate, coupled with the first 3 technologies, humanity would naturally begin to aggressively explore and colonize. And this is where a government of the future would position itself, first as the source of the colonization effort (think of how the U.S.A was settled, or Canada or Mexico) and than after wards by being the cohesive link and support mechanism between the disparate human settlements.<<<

Well, I'd like to think that's the ideal, and as much as the pioneer aspect of things appeals to me, I'm not convinced that most people in the real world really have that drive to "Aggressively explore." If a majority of people actually had that drive, we'd be aggressively exploring space now, even without FTL drive. We'd have people on Venus and Mars, LaGrange colonies, you name it. Instead we haven't even been to the moon in in 37 years. That's probably neither here nor there, though. Getting back to what you said:

>>>Whereas there are certainly surface similarities between a Marxist "Utopia" and the Star Trek universe, the overriding ideological "purity" described by Marx and Engles (and practiced by every government based on their ideals) is nowhere to be seen. If anything, the over riding principal throughout Star Trek has been decidedly democratic, as it shows diverse groups of beings working together despite their differences, not forced into an all covering arc of conformity. Just look at the Prime Directive, an overriding belief that the differences among people must be respected and understood. <<<

Is it "Democratic?" We know they've got a president, but so did the soviet union, and Cuba and the Confederate States of America (The Democratic Party was the only one allowed in the CSA. Curiously, the modern Democratic Party is awfully quiet about their sorted past). We know nothing of their internal politics, but the absence of any discussion of politics strongly implies they're a one-party state and the examples we have of that on hand are democratic in name only. There's always been something vaguely offputting for me, personally, about a franchise that's been running for 45 years without us understanding anything about their political system. (Conversely, by the 2nd episode of Babylon 5 we knew roughly how the Earth Alliance worked, and that it had three major parties and a unicameral legislature). All we can say for sure is that the Federation strives to be benevolent, but facts beyond that are hard to come by. In terms of culture, it's got a Maoist bent, and certainly, the Prime DIrective is demonstrably immoral by any measure you want to use.

But again, my point wasn't whether or not such things are plausible or even desirable, my point was that the absence of any nationalism in Trek naturally attracts people who find this aspect of mundane life tedious and troublesome, and wish it didn't exist.

That's just my opinion anyway, thanks for reading, and I really do hope you stick around on the site. This was fun!

In response to the posted article, there are fanatics involved in every single aspect of human life, Star Trek is no different than any other activity in that. For every rabid fan dressed up as a Kilngon you have another dressed I would guess a lot like you. The same goes for any sort of entertainment, sport, religion, or political ideology. In short ANYTHING that involves people will have fanatics about it.

As to the statement that Star Trek has "devolved" into something "socialist" is I think to have missed a major point of the Star Trek universe, and is a mistake to load the entire thing down with the label of "Mushy Liberalism".

There are 4 main technologies that exist in Star Trek that, if in actual existence would force a fundamental change of our society. The Replicator, FOL Travel, Transporters, and a practically unlimited energy supply would force a RADICAL change on how we interact and live. "Work" would take on a very different meaning if there was no personal incentive for it, beyond personal achievement.

1. Think about it. Money exists as an universally acceptable IOU for your labor, that can be redeemed anywhere for the products of other people's labor. Replicator + Near Infinite power means anyone can have any physical object at anytime. If there is no more need for labor to produce anything, what than becomes our standard for achievement and success? If every single person gains the resources to become whatever they wanted, with no worry about providing the basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, education) or even luxury items (entertainment, travel, ETC) for themselves and their loved ones, how would Capitalism survive in it's present state of labor based rewards?

2. Freed from the need to work for resources or physical reward, we add limitless personal freedom within a certain framework (in the case of transporters it is within a single star system according to the mythology) You can travel anywhere in the world, or even solar system at will. Instantaneously. For Free. How would the idea of countries function in such an environment? Borders become completely meaningless with such freedom, and as such how could any geographical based government hope to function?

The only two ways for a system of government to exist in such an environment, would be to either have universal jurisdiction or have a fanatically controlled and supervised society, in which everyone is watched all the time, in order to insure their movements comply with your regional cohesion.

Obviously Star Trek is not a Police State, in which such surveillance is undertaken in order to force compliance with it's rules. Having a government with universal jurisdiction is the only option in which to maintain cohesion and a modicum of control over such a liquid populace.

3. Finally you have this massive populace, freed of all resource constraints, and geographical barriers (one should note that language barriers also appear to have been overcome in this universe, removing the need for awkward translation or the need to distinguish between regionally distinct meanings) we add the last piece, Faster Than Light travel. Provided with a limitless expanse within which to expand and propagate, coupled with the first 3 technologies, humanity would naturally begin to aggressively explore and colonize. And this is where a government of the future would position itself, first as the source of the colonization effort (think of how the U.S.A was settled, or Canada or Mexico) and than after wards by being the cohesive link and support mechanism between the disparate human settlements.

Whereas there are certainly surface similarities between a Marxist "Utopia" and the Star Trek universe, the overriding ideological "purity" described by Marx and Engles (and practiced by every government based on their ideals) is nowhere to be seen. If anything, the over riding principal throughout Star Trek has been decidedly democratic, as it shows diverse groups of beings working together despite their differences, not forced into an all covering arc of conformity. Just look at the Prime Directive, an overriding belief that the differences among people must be respected and understood.

That's just my opinion anyway, thanks for reading,

-Dead Frog

I used to think that Trek was edging towards culthood - certainly they have a lot of the attributes - but over the last year or so I've begun to wonder if perhaps it might just be that it tends to attract a certain type of person who, by their very nature, is a bit over-emphatic.

That might sound chicken-or-egg, but think about it: Trek has no money, no sports, no religion, no observable ethnicity, no families, no economy, no real art, no apparent music, no politics in their government beyond 'we're the good guys and they're the bad guys', and many of their episodes arguably have no real conflict. Yeah, yeah, I know that there's exceptions to all these observations, but for the most part it's true: we're told The Federation is a Utopia, but in fact it's more like a utilitarian Maoist paradise.

So of course the cultural defecits of the more rabid Trekies have long been noted - a lack of social graces, awkwardness around women, rigid analytical thinking (Much like Spock/Data/Etc), frequent inability to manage their own financial affairs,discomfort around squishy non-rational concepts like "God" and "Love" and "What's it all about, Alfie?" I don't think Trek causes these problems, I think that there's a set of people who simply have these problems inherently, and they're drawn to Trek for it's clean lines - literally and figuratively - and it's utter lack of any of the aspects of mundane life that trouble them. They feel comfortable in the hypothetic world in a way they can't in a world with mold and mildew and people arguing about baseball and things going on around them that make no rational sense.

In short, Trek tends to attract people with Aspergers-like symptoms, who, by their nature, tend to be overstrident in their adoration of it. I mean, when you think about it, the *kind* of fans you get for Trek are completely different on a bunch of different levels from the kinds of fans you get for 'Wars, B5, Dr. Who, Galactica, Firefly, whatever. So the difference must be in the auto-selection process itself, right? The blandness of Trek tends to attract people who are specifically put off by the grit of Galactica and the multilayered multicultural adult narative of Babylon 5 and the freeform anarchy of Dr. Who.

Just a theory. Whadya' think?

Yeah, they ran their article on Friday after ours on Tuesday...
That's quite alright, they're welcome to the party, as long as they behave themselves.

All levity and one-upsmanship aside, this is not a new question--- it's been asked since the early days of fandom and the first Trek conventions. It's just gotten more... obvious.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, Trek may exhibit some cultic tendencies, but so do the followers of certain sports. Trek may just be an easy target, since it is still the elephant in the powder room.

Weirdly well timed, io9 ran a bit earlier about the 'cult of trek.'

I've got a friend who's a professional anthropologist. I'll have to get his assesment on it.

John Comma Smith,
That "Southernmost part of the galaxy" thing just flew right past me, I never even noticed it. (Not being southern, I guess it didn't have the impact for me that it would have for you) Geez, that's none-too-subtle is it?
TOS is a pretty liberal show if you compare it to it's peers - Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea or Lost in Space or The Wild Wild West or Mission: Impossible. Part of that is the spirit of the times. Part of that is - I think - Gene Roddenberry's massive overcompensation for being from a reactionary conservative non-west-coast society. (He was Texan, and went to college in North Carolina IIRC). Part of it was simply trying to justify his swinger lifestyle, ad naysayers be damned. But whatever the reason it was a damn liberal show, but at least it was grounded in some kind of semi-believable society. Somewhere between the end of Trek and the preproduction work for the ultimately abandoned "Star Trek: Phase 2" in 1977, he just completely went off the rails. If you've read the proposals and scripts for that show, they read like TNG. Really bad TNG. First season TNG.

I don't know if it was that he was living entirely in his own head and decided to ignore swashbuckling space fun in favor of heavy-handed didacticism, or if maybe he no longer had the Lennon/McCartney relationship he'd enjoyed with Gene Coon to reign him in (Coon died in '73). If so, then he was always a selfrighteous, preachy lockstep liberal who simply no longer had a sensible person to reign him in. Whatever the cause, his subesequent shows are unwatchable.

But yeah, even though they didn't work out as villains, and ended up being comedy relief, it's always bugged me that the bad guys for TNG were intended to be capitalists: The Ferengi. I mean, how out of touch with society can a guy be?

R3, When I read your article I couldn't help but remember a couple of quotes from the Trek episode of Futurama:

"By the 23rd century Star Trek fandom had evolved from a loose association of nerds with skin problems into a full blown religion."

...Why is it so important you?"
"Cause it.. it taught me so much. Like, how you should accept people, whether they be black, white, klingon or even female."

My love for Star Trek is limited strictly to TOS (original episodes). The philosophy of later shows and movies devolved into something embarrassingly mushy, liberal and socialist. TOS has its warts as well, as you mentioned. My personal dislike is "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" when the racist planet Cheron is described as being in the "southernmost part of the galaxy." As a southerner, I find that obvious stereotypical jab offensive.

It has been said that if JFK, considered a liberal in the 60's, were running for office in the present day, his views would be perceived as conservative. ST was one of the most liberal shows on TV in the 60's but could be considered relatively conservative by today's standards. Consider, for instance, "The Omega Glory." Liberal critics slam this episode for having such a heavy-handed message, but constitutionalists love it because of Kirk's stirring speech. When Old Glory is brought into the room, our characters rise to their feet in respect. Where else would you see that? Certainly not "Encounter at Farpoint" where Picard calls patriotism "nonsense" and the US Marine uniform a "costume." Not to mention he ultimately reveals ST's Marxism in "First Contact".

My love for TOS is part childhood nostalgia and part appreciation for TV shows made when there were still censors. But that love stays within the boundaries of an informed, logical world view, lest I become a useful idiot.

Thank you for that, I couldn't remember his name.

Yes, definitely: we believe in things becaue there is an evolutionary advantage to do so, and it's been with us a long, long time. I mean, Neanderthal burrial rites indicate they had some concept of an afterlife. I suspect that it's this semi-irrational ability to completely believe in something when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary that is the great big quantum leap between our own intelligence and that of other animals, even primates. God is one of the things we believe in, but by no means the only one. While I'll totally admit that our being specifically wired for faith doesn't prove the stuff we believe in is true - as you assert - it doesn't mean that it's untrue, either.

I occasionally get in to rather frustrating discussions with people in church about this, and the difference between "Faith" and "Knowledge."

I don't think *all* trekies are trekevangelizing nitwits, but just like less than 1% of Christians are missionaries, those tend to be the ones who get most of the attention. Realistically there's a spectrum here ranging from 'casual fan' on through to 'militant nutjob who torched all his college roomate's vintage B5 novels because Rick Berman once said that show was the enemy.' Even so, this new movie is making them come out of the woodwork, and they're a bit more confused and annoying this time out than they usually are because their playing field has been upset.

And, yes, you're absolutely right about there being a sliding scale for criticism. I'm much more generous to Lost in Space than I am to X-Files for the same reason I'm far less critical to a 5 year old who wrote his name - badly - than I would be to a 40 year old who writes like crap.

Heh. ""Science" (Said in a Thomas Dolby voice)" is actually my nickname in certain quarters. (Strictly speaking, it wasn't Dolby but Magnus Pyke that delivered the signature line.)

I'm a firm believer that humans are wired for belief, and that the reason is that it is ultimately an evolutionary/cultural advantage. I don't, however, subscribe to the idea that it reveals an essential truth of the universe beyond that.

That said, I don't think any but a handful of fans approach Trek with what I would call a 'religious' intensity. The GF self-identifies as a "Trekker," but she fully recognizes the problems with TOS, et al. (I'm just barely young enough to be of the school that thinks the 'Trekkers' are self-important and delusional.)

One insight we've stumbled across in watching NuTrek and our cherished TOS/TAS DVDs is that you will forgive a hell of a lot if you see something before you have the skills to dissect it critically. Moreover, you will continue to forgive it after you do develop those skills. When I pick the new movie apart, I'm picking it apart. When I pick "Spock's Brain" apart, I'm commenting humorously on a show I love. I now understand the old(er)timers' affection for Flash Gordon etc.

Fair enough. Everyone has to make up their own mind based on available information - that's what 'conservatism' is all about in my thinking - rather than being told what to believe by a party or whatever. I think you, R2 and I kind of represent the broad spectrum of Conservatism anyway. You're obviously left of center a bit, R2 is somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun (By his own admission - he loves that gag) and I'm pretty solidly in the middle.

I like to think that's part of our charm here - we're not didactic.

That said, here's my point of view:
*EVERYONE* is religious, be they atheist, agnostic, believer, fundamentalist, whatever. *EVERYONE* is religious, it's built in to us. But if you don't have a defined traditional religious/social framework to fit in to, you'll turn something else in to your religion. It can be Trek, or militant vegitarianism or intolerant condescending atheism, or "Science" (Said in a Thomas Dolby voice) or the Democratic Party, or the Republican party or whatever, but you *will* have some form of religious expression in a social sense because it's a fundamental part of the human bonding mechanism. So expecting rational thought from a Trekie is like expecting rational thought from a flat-earth fundamentalist. Ain't gonna' happen.

I am leary of fundamentalism in any form (coming from a religious tradition that is frowned upon by mainstream American Christianity - and even within my own tradition I am uncomfortable with the fundamentalist branches that can range from extremely destructive to just naive and silly) and the religious right is the main reason I am reticent to call myself a republican(I consider myself more of a Penn Jillete Libertarian). I am sad to say that I am just as suspect of the religious right as I am of the fundamentalist cause driven looney left, which I consider weirdo trekkies to a part of.