|
Spaceman Future! posted:Its not a matter of superiority. I mean, theres really only 2 tracks humanity can take, one where we continually and consistently advance our technology, eventually spread out through the solar system and cement our long term existence. The other we stall, regress, or straight up die off in which we wont have to concern ourselves with it. And so on... There is far more to humanity than our fancy doodads. By being freed from having to design circuit boards or determine the optimal load-bearing strength of a pillar, humanity will allow itself to focus on expanding it's cultures and societies in ways that we can't even imagine. I'm far more interested in what people can accomplish in art in all of it's forms, philosophy, societal structures, etc. when people don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or how to create a faster processor. To write that humanity thrives solely in guiding technological progress and that without doing so humanity will stagnate and die is to ignore tens of thousands of years of people creating things just because they like the way the object looks, and nearly three thousand years of people exploring the nature of what it means to be human. Technology is the means to an end, not an end in and of itself. That isn't to say that technological progress is not important, or that technological progress cannot be the driving force of an individual, but to believe that human progress is summed up in how complex our tools are is to ignore much of what makes us human. Lots of other species have shown the capacity to use tools; there aren't other species that can have an aesthetic appreciation of what is around them, create something for the sake of wanting to create it, or question and examine the nature of existence itself. Star Trek is much more about exploring that side of humanity, but it's limited by being a collection of syndicated television shows.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 10:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Well, who decides what gets engineered out? How about instead of "hey, let's delve right into trying to genetically weed out religious belief" (accepting that such a thing is even possible, because it frankly sounds kind of implausible to me but I'm not a genetics expert) why don't we, I dunno, try something more like "hey, let's boost the immune system to be better suited to fighting off the alien disease of the week, we can optimize some things here and there for overall health and wellness, and augment memory retention and learning capacity for better assimilation of new skills and languages." Truly a chilling nightmare vision of the future right there. Genetic engineering also, in addition to not having to be "don't let the lesser races breed," doesn't have to be about trying to engineer people into atheists (or heterosexuals or whatever) either. This doesn't mean that "who decides what gets engineered out" isn't a good question, but you sort of immediately take it to the far end of the slippery slope (what if THEY TOOK AWAY YOUR ABILITY TO BELIEVE IN GOD, HUH?). There are already plenty of tricky questions to address without delving into the realm of Orwellian dystopia. Take deafness. Like, you might think "hey, with genetic engineering we can ensure that no one is ever born deaf again, doesn't that sound like a good idea?" But deaf culture is a for-real thing and they take their identity very seriously. If you suggested genetically engineering deafness out of the human species like it was nothing but a flaw to correct there are no small number of them that would call you a straight-up Nazi. There's plenty that's interesting, and even relevant, to explore in the concept without going straight for the "evil future overlords will weed out your free will gene." Nessus posted:What if, say, "propensity to religious belief" is defined as a mental illness and edited out? I imagine huge swaths of humanity would object violently to having that sort of engineering inflicted on them[...] Genetic engineering also doesn't have to be "inflicted" on anyone and I highly doubt the Federation would do that anyway. We, right now in the really real world, don't "inflict" vaccines on people even though antivaxxers are buying into a proven hoax by a guy who lost his medical license over it and there's a huge established body of scientific research which very strongly supports the idea that vaccination is beneficial to peoples' health. That's for poo poo that can kill or cripple your children. I imagine if the Federation ever relaxed its policy on genetic engineering that it would be pretty much "you can have this done if you like...or not, we respect everyone's right to choose what they feel is best for themselves in the spirit of utopian cooperation and snazzy jumpsuits." Nessus posted:Anyway, taking that idea further, if you're now declaring that you're a huge fan of genetically modifying yourself to remove negative traits, and consider this to be an unalloyed good, other species may be concerned about entering into an intimate political, social and economic union with you. Some might be like 'cool, super powers', and others might be more like 'oh, so you're going to make our children and grandchildren incapable of faith in the Prophets?' I'm actually kind of curious, now that you bring this up, what everyone else's excuse for not pursuing genetic engineering more freely than the Federation is. Like, humanity's excuse is "the last time we tried it Ricardo Montalban nearly took over the world," so fine, fair enough. What about the Romulans? Or the Cardassians? Or hell, even the Klingons. Okay, I can guess that the Klingons wouldn't find it "honorable," that's their go-to excuse/justification for everything. The Founders did it with the Jem'Haddar and Vorta which fit Star Trek's narrative of genetic engineering being the province of eeeeeeevil. Any other species ever weigh in on the matter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
The Klingons did use genetic engineering. It erased their foreheads. That's why they refuse to mess with it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 11:12
|
|
|
I thought that was caused by tribbles or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 11:14
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I thought that was caused by tribbles or something. Enterprise established that they tried to exploit humanity's work on genetic engineering from the Eugenics Wars era; the work resulted in human-ish Klingons with smooth heads and less aggressive personalities, and then the genetic alteration process escaped in virus form.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
To be fair Khan and other augments were made to be superior in literally every way, which I assume psychologically goes a long way, and even then we can't be sure that every augment wanted to rule the world, we were only shown the ones who did. Getting rid of AIDS and cancer is not really the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 11:19
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Enterprise established that they tried to exploit humanity's work on genetic engineering from the Eugenics Wars era; the work resulted in human-ish Klingons with smooth heads and less aggressive personalities I would love to see the meeting where some poor Klingon geneticist proposes that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
Humans are superior. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5eiqsHjGc8
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 11:42
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I would love to see the meeting where some poor Klingon geneticist proposes that. It was an accident. They were all 'well that's poo poo' and declared it a failure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
This is my favourite Riker thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NOM-kLfDR8
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Take deafness. Like, you might think "hey, with genetic engineering we can ensure that no one is ever born deaf again, doesn't that sound like a good idea?" But deaf culture is a for-real thing and they take their identity very seriously. If you suggested genetically engineering deafness out of the human species like it was nothing but a flaw to correct there are no small number of them that would call you a straight-up Nazi. Yyyyeah, I ran into that years ago. I was seeing a girl who had hearing aids, so she wasn't completely deaf, but she still exploded on me for asking if she could have a procedure done to gain full hearing, would she? I mean, I have awful eyesight and if I could take a shot in the arm to have my eyes rewired, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But "deaf culture" is different, somehow. I don't think less of deaf people, like they're broken or worthless, I just... don't get it. If I could get rid of my disability, I would, no question. Suffice to say, we didn't last much longer after that conversation 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Uh, no not really, "how you get there" is pretty loving important actually. Eugenics is all about "we're going to improve humanity via genetics! How? By selectively breeding people as well as disallowing "undesirable" stocks to breed. You can't just say "all genetic engineering is eugenics" because it's fallacious as hell to ignore that very important aspect of what eugenics has long been about...being racist as hell under the guise of "social philosophy." That's not true at all. Eugenics has nothing to do with the means you use to get there. Selective breeding and artifical selection happened because it was the only technology available when eugenics was popular as a political tool. Turning the world into Brave New World through genetic engineering is literally eugenics but cutting out all that pesky genocide in the middle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Yyyyeah, I ran into that years ago. I was seeing a girl who had hearing aids, so she wasn't completely deaf, but she still exploded on me for asking if she could have a procedure done to gain full hearing, would she? I mean, I have awful eyesight and if I could take a shot in the arm to have my eyes rewired, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But "deaf culture" is different, somehow. I don't think less of deaf people, like they're broken or worthless, I just... don't get it. If I could get rid of my disability, I would, no question. You should see how the deaf community attacks parents who get cochlear implants for their deaf children. It's loving crazy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
I shouldn't judge I guess but what's to stop people getting the implant but still hangin' out with other deaf dudes, using sign language and doin' whatever deaf dudes do (which until now I thought was pretty much the same stuff except for listening to music). I see no reason why you'd have to lose out on "deaf culture". Maybe you get kicked out of the cool deaf club when you get an implant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
My question is what the genetically-enhanced society does with people who don't want the gifts being offered: do you force them into it anyways, or do you leave them be and create an underclass that's incapable of making any meaningful contribution to society? Or do you tie the hands of the gifted so they can be frustrated because their gifts go underutilized?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Yyyyeah, I ran into that years ago. I was seeing a girl who had hearing aids, so she wasn't completely deaf, but she still exploded on me for asking if she could have a procedure done to gain full hearing, would she? I mean, I have awful eyesight and if I could take a shot in the arm to have my eyes rewired, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But "deaf culture" is different, somehow. I don't think less of deaf people, like they're broken or worthless, I just... don't get it. If I could get rid of my disability, I would, no question. I'm not deaf so I hope I'm not misrepresenting things here, but as I understand it the key thing that makes Deaf cultures unique is the language thing. Sign languages like ASL or BSL aren't just spoken languages converted into hand signals, they have their own grammar, syntax, semantics etc. that are a key part of Deaf cultures. A lot of Deaf people fear that if deafness ceases to exist then signing will die, and much of what makes Deaf cultures unique will die with it. Sure we can pretend that signing will continue but the likelihood is that the dominant language will quickly take over, as is usually the case with linguistic minorities, and signing will go from being a vibrant, living tradition to an historical curiosity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Greg Bear has a whole series of books about a near-future society that has embraced 'therapy,' and yes the unbalanced hold-overs are either the urban underclass or living as fundamentalists in Idaho.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
QuantaStarFire posted:My question is what the genetically-enhanced society does with people who don't want the gifts being offered: do you force them into it anyways, or do you leave them be and create an underclass that's incapable of making any meaningful contribution to society? Or do you tie the hands of the gifted so they can be frustrated because their gifts go underutilized? They become an underclass. I mean, I don't see how that is necessarily some sort of new development, people who refuse to adopt current societal trends and advancements are no longer able to function in the mainstream today. They choose that for themselves, it isn't some sort of punishment. Preem Palver posted:There is far more to humanity than our fancy doodads. By being freed from having to design circuit boards or determine the optimal load-bearing strength of a pillar, humanity will allow itself to focus on expanding it's cultures and societies in ways that we can't even imagine. I'm far more interested in what people can accomplish in art in all of it's forms, philosophy, societal structures, etc. when people don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or how to create a faster processor. To write that humanity thrives solely in guiding technological progress and that without doing so humanity will stagnate and die is to ignore tens of thousands of years of people creating things just because they like the way the object looks, and nearly three thousand years of people exploring the nature of what it means to be human. Technology is the means to an end, not an end in and of itself. That isn't to say that technological progress is not important, or that technological progress cannot be the driving force of an individual, but to believe that human progress is summed up in how complex our tools are is to ignore much of what makes us human. Lots of other species have shown the capacity to use tools; there aren't other species that can have an aesthetic appreciation of what is around them, create something for the sake of wanting to create it, or question and examine the nature of existence itself. Star Trek is much more about exploring that side of humanity, but it's limited by being a collection of syndicated television shows. There really isn't. There is no leisure society without those doodads, and if you let them run off without you what happens when they stop functioning? Reversion to the stone age since it has been generations since any human has had to fend for themselves? Even if that didn't happen, just because you take away the need for work doesn't mean everyone just becomes a poet or a sculptor, there are many people whose only real interest is their work, take that away and what do they do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Found from Brent Spiner's twitter...  
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Apple Jax posted:Found from Brent Spiner's twitter... I have tried other stimuli, but they have been unsuccessful. I understand your objections, but it is my life and I have a right to risk it if I choose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:There really isn't. There is no leisure society without those doodads, and if you let them run off without you what happens when they stop functioning? Reversion to the stone age since it has been generations since any human has had to fend for themselves? Even if that didn't happen, just because you take away the need for work doesn't mean everyone just becomes a poet or a sculptor, there are many people whose only real interest is their work, take that away and what do they do? I'm not a primitivist; I'm not saying that we don't need technology or that technological progress hinders humanity. Why would technology just simply stop functioning one day? Why would we erase all records and knowledge of simpler technology? People nowadays are still perfectly capable of plowing a field despite factory farming, or crafting artisan goods instead of mass manufacturing. Hell, most of the world still has no choice but to use knowledge and techniques that have been around for centuries. Any event that would completely destroy a post-scarcity society and send humanity back to the stone age would likely wipe out humanity anyways, so it's a moot point. You're using a very specific definition of work that dismisses any occupation that you personally do not look up to. You're also repeating the same arguments that people used during the Industrial Revolution; that increased leisure time would cause humanity to stagnate and die off. People 200 years ago thought that railroads and steel plows would destroy us; it turned out not to be true. Even ignoring you reducing non-technical pursuits down to poetry and sculpting, there is effort involved in poetry or sculpting, and a post-scarcity society wouldn't take away people's ability to pursue more technical interests if that's what they desired. The Federation and Banks' The Culture are both post-scarcity societies where individuals can choose to pursue technical interests that aren't really necessary, a computer or AI could easily do it instead, but they choose to do it because they find it fulfilling. VVVVV I don't disagree with that, and I wasn't talking about modern-day society except as an example. I was referring specifically to his scenario of a post-scarcity society going back to the Stone Age overnight. Something that cataclysmic is likely to wipe out the human race regardless of how good our survival skills are. Preem Palver fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Actually a lot of people aren't really capable of farming without the cheapness/availability of modern inputs like corn-derived feed or fertilizers. I'm sure that less developed parts of the world aren't in such a bad place, but if the financial system legit collapsed there would be starvation everywhere because so much of modern agriculture depends on complex combinations of inputs. Over time this would sort itself out but you're kind of kidding yourself if you think that progress in technology and our reliance on it doesn't come with some major drawbacks especially in cases of disaster. Like, imagine if the Enterprise crew were stuck on Veridian 3 for months before rescue and no access to communications or computers or phasers or whatever. How many of those 1,000 people do you think even know how to farm or hunt game, much less do it with the most rudimentary of tools?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Like, imagine if the Enterprise crew were stuck on Veridian 3 for months before rescue and no access to communications or computers or phasers or whatever. How many of those 1,000 people do you think even know how to farm or hunt game, much less do it with the most rudimentary of tools? Starfleet probably incorporates survival skills into their training, they might not be great at farming and the civilians might be useless at it but I'd be willing to bet a good chunk of the officers would be able to hunt and trap and find/build basic shelter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Like, imagine if the Enterprise crew were stuck on Veridian 3 for months before rescue and no access to communications or computers or phasers or whatever. How many of those 1,000 people do you think even know how to farm or hunt game, much less do it with the most rudimentary of tools? They'd be fine if they had Chakotay on board to teach them!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:Hell in the episode after the Bashir one, Odo questioned why anyone would have a brain-computer interface implant. Why the hell wouldn't you? In the modern era, it's as simple as pointing out that any form of surgery carries inherent risks (and will be getting riskier as we idiotically breed more and more drug-resistant bacteria), and getting brain surgery to plug in some piece of poo poo made by a series of low-bid rear end in a top hat corporations doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I would never, ever want to be an early adopter for brainplugs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Writer Cath posted:They'd be fine if they had Chakotay on board to teach them!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Whalley posted:nobody would ever be fine if Chakotay was their loving hope. I can't put into words just how much I despise seeing Chakotay even walk past in the background. You've got to really feel bad for the actor. He got a main Star Trek role probably thinking it might launch him into the same plane of celebrity as the TNG cast and was told he's going to be a super spiritual Native American noble savage and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
pentyne posted:You've got to really feel bad for the actor. He got a main Star Trek role probably thinking it might launch him into the same plane of celebrity as the TNG cast and was told he's going to be a super spiritual Native American noble savage and nothing else. Along with being the designated shield level meter-reader.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
pentyne posted:You've got to really feel bad for the actor. He got a main Star Trek role probably thinking it might launch him into the same plane of celebrity as the TNG cast and was told he's going to be a super spiritual Native American noble savage and nothing else. Do not feel bad for him. He is a big supporter of Lyndon LaRouche
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
"You're going to play a badass terrorist commando, forced to be 2IC under a scientist, faced with ensuring your own people's ongoing survival under a strict regime on a 70 year journey." "Amazing! So what're you going to have me do?" "Give up on all those goals instantly and fade into the background unless we need to have space native americans go on a spiritual journey. Have fun, Garrett's got the weed." bobkatt013 posted:Do not feel bad for him. He is a big supporter of Lyndon LaRouche Wungus fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
I feel bad for any Star Trek actor because apparently the production was so dysfunctional that you had to get authorization from the writers to do any ad-libbing or even to change a simple line like "I can not do this" to one where the contract "can't" is used instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I feel bad for any Star Trek actor because apparently the production was so dysfunctional that you had to get authorization from the writers to do any ad-libbing or even to change a simple line like "I can not do this" to one where the contract "can't" is used instead. What's also weird is that, at least during TNG, the writers were practically banned from visiting the set.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Ted from Mad Men looks drat good with Trill spots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:What's also weird is that, at least during TNG, the writers were practically banned from visiting the set. Why are you looking at me like I'm an idiot? Why are you even on set? Go write something. I did find out that Joe Menosky wrote like every good Voyager episode.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
1st AD posted:I feel bad for any Star Trek actor because apparently the production was so dysfunctional that you had to get authorization from the writers to do any ad-libbing or even to change a simple line like "I can not do this" to one where the contract "can't" is used instead. That would partly explain the really stage-theatrical quality to a lot of Trek acting. If you can't make the words your own you can at least own the delivery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Didn't Robert Beltran decide on day one that getting his foot in the Star Trek door would mean a comfortable retirement living off of royalties, and just kind of adjust his amount of  accordingly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:I did find out that Joe Menosky wrote like every good Voyager episode. Voyager good or actual good?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:What's also weird is that, at least during TNG, the writers were practically banned from visiting the set. This not weird at all and has been standard procedure for most TV/Film productions until very recently. Writers being on set usually creates more problems than they solve and in screenwriting the common opinion is to sell a script then let it go. All of this has to do with director conflicts, actors asking the writer to change things or the overall unruliness of most writers. Believe me you do not want writers on set.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Voyager good or actual good? He had a writing credit on The Thaw, False Profits, Future's End, Scorpion, The Killing Game, Year of Hell, Drone, Dark Frontier, Latent Image, Equinox, Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy, Blink of an Eye, The Voyager Conspiracy, and some others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:They become an underclass. I mean, I don't see how that is necessarily some sort of new development, people who refuse to adopt current societal trends and advancements are no longer able to function in the mainstream today. They choose that for themselves, it isn't some sort of punishment. quote:There really isn't. There is no leisure society without those doodads, and if you let them run off without you what happens when they stop functioning? Reversion to the stone age since it has been generations since any human has had to fend for themselves? Even if that didn't happen, just because you take away the need for work doesn't mean everyone just becomes a poet or a sculptor, there are many people whose only real interest is their work, take that away and what do they do? I begin to think that the real thing people find impossible to get about Star Trek isn't the bij-inducing writing, warp drive, replicators or anything, it's the idea of having a society where for the most part you don't have to eat poo poo just to get by.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 00:54
|
|
