UFP vs USA

[sunnyside]

\band together and see how we can colectively benefit out of it.

Which, with the Vulcans, would be to play things their way.

True. However, this still won't help erase eons of pre-programmed instinct. Humans aren't going to just turn into a bunch of communist pacifists just because a bunch of aliens showed up on their doorsteps.

They still weren't pacifists, and I don't think communist is right either.

Neither does that mean that those desires aren't there.
There are always people who will seek to use their positions for their own personal benefit. Look at virtualy every government now and you will find corruption. This mindset virtualy precludes the UFP as we know it, or even a centralised Earth government, from coming about.[/qoute]

Why would it stop a world goverment coming about any more than it fails to stop continent sized governments from cropping up?

It certainly happens (Issurection), but it isn't the end of the system.

Which would never happen(elimination of money) in the first place. That's one of my points.

I'm not even sure if there is a division of resources. Everyone seems to get pretty much the same stuff. Hell, they all even wear the same types of clothes.

No it sounds like when you want to go to Riza and somesuch you need to be doing something useful. And obviously if you joined up with starfleet it 's a big deal.

Actualy, I wouldn't be doing any work at all. I believe there were statements in TNG that people only work in that era out of some sense of duty or betterment of self, not for any rewards of any kind. Granted, there'd probably be a few who would work out of a sense of duty, but the vast majority of humanity would be taking it easy. Would you work if you didn't have to? No, probably not.
Again, this is one of the most glaring violations of human nature.

Some would probably work just from the peer pressure. That said it doesn't really seem that things are equal. It's possible you could not work and get food and shelter. But I don't think you'd be getting to play around in holodecks and other such luxuries.

[Mikey]

Greed was BORN from situations in which a surplus does not exist. If no proto-human ever had to fight, scrap and scrounge for enough food to keep himself alive, we would never have developed greed. We call a dog "greedy" when he voraciously eats everything in his dish, even when he's obviously not going hungry; but that is in fact an important survival mechanism passed down by his ancestors.

With any so-called "negative" motivation - such as greed, anger, whatever - there is obviously always a gut feeling, but it is usually tempered by our "humanity," as Dusk mentioned. However, the amoutn of that temperance varies - and always will vary - from individual to individual.

[Duskofdead]

Greed was BORN from situations in which a surplus does not exist. If no proto-human ever had to fight, scrap and scrounge for enough food to keep himself alive, we would never have developed greed. We call a dog "greedy" when he voraciously eats everything in his dish, even when he's obviously not going hungry; but that is in fact an important survival mechanism passed down by his ancestors.

With any so-called "negative" motivation - such as greed, anger, whatever - there is obviously always a gut feeling, but it is usually tempered by our "humanity," as Dusk mentioned. However, the amoutn of that temperance varies - and always will vary - from individual to individual.

My point is, insisting that our society must always be designed around the negative aspect-- "people are greedy and we can't control it", is short sighted and very locked into static thinking. Yes, it would be a big change, yes, it would be a monumental leap in enlightenment, but a society one day being built upon the opposite premise-- "we all have capacity to feel greed, but we can put that aside for the greater good" is not at all unrealistic. We have just been so socialized and so ingrained with the concept that nothing is realistic except to always assume nothing will rise above the lowest common denominator that our sights are set proportionately low, even to the point where some people pooh-pooh that anything else is even POSSIBLE.

Oh and... overeating because evolution taught you your next meal might be a month off is one thing we do see in animals. I would not call it greed... hedging your bets maybe?

Greed is having enough refridgerated food to eat for two years and letting someone starve on your front porch. Greed is having the opportunity to do something about it and choosing not to. A guy who does something like that is not merely following his natural inclinations (unless he's a sociopath or something), he is making a choice that "me having what I have , and much more than I need, is more important to me than the survival of my species overall, or another member of my species." That's what corporations today espouse. That's what the elite and rulers of nations today espouse. That's what a lot of normal, everyday people today espouse. But that's not biologically written fate nor the way we must always live and design our societies.

[Mikey]

My point has never been that catering to the good instead of the bad is impossible. Rather, what is hopelessly idealistic is that you can expect the same degree of cooperation and commitment to the goals of "good" from every single individual.

[Duskofdead]

My point has never been that catering to the good instead of the bad is impossible. Rather, what is hopelessly idealistic is that you can expect the same degree of cooperation and commitment to the goals of "good" from every single individual.

It's hopelessly idealistic because you and most people say it is and conceive of it as being too difficult to make happen, or to envision happening. The fact is, no one is really bothering to try, either, though. We live in an era of "leave me alone." For all you know, your great-grandchildren will feel differently.

I think if you could go back in time, and talk to a tribal society, and tell them "from now on we're going to work longer hours to collect 2x as much food as we eat, sew 2x as much clothing as we wear, make 2x as many tools as we can carry, and tan 2x as much leather as we need for this year, because we're moving to a profit-based system and those who are the most productive will reap the most material rewards in this new system and...

people would equally think you were proposing something unrealistic, and impossible. Plus they'd probably just kill you.

[sunnyside]

Actually don't you technically live in the UK these days Rochey? Don't you have the option to not work? The health care is socialized and I think there is a solid welfare net. Certianly I bet there is a great system of shelters. And I think there is a sweet unemployment deal if you can get them to fire you.

So why are you teaching?

I'm thinking your answer may parallel that of a lot of people in the Federation. Even if you're able to survive, you want more than living in a soup kitchen, and so you'll work for it. You also don't want to be a loser.

[Mikey]

My point has never been that catering to the good instead of the bad is impossible. Rather, what is hopelessly idealistic is that you can expect the same degree of cooperation and commitment to the goals of "good" from every single individual.

It's hopelessly idealistic because you and most people say it is and conceive of it as being too difficult to make happen, or to envision happening. The fact is, no one is really bothering to try, either, though. We live in an era of "leave me alone." For all you know, your great-grandchildren will feel differently.

I think if you could go back in time, and talk to a tribal society, and tell them "from now on we're going to work longer hours to collect 2x as much food as we eat, sew 2x as much clothing as we wear, make 2x as many tools as we can carry, and tan 2x as much leather as we need for this year, because we're moving to a profit-based system and those who are the most productive will reap the most material rewards in this new system and...

people would equally think you were proposing something unrealistic, and impossible. Plus they'd probably just kill you.

The old standby self-fulfilling prophecy is an abstract tool of hypothetical arguments levelled against real-world issues. As far as the tribal society which I'd supposedly visit - yeah, they might think I'm nuts, and they might kill me... but they developed that very system all by themselves, didn't they?

[Duskofdead]

The old standby self-fulfilling prophecy is an abstract tool of hypothetical arguments levelled against real-world issues. As far as the tribal society which I'd supposedly visit - yeah, they might think I'm nuts, and they might kill me... but they developed that very system all by themselves, didn't they?

Mikey... at one time it was considered biological, hard wired human nature for women to be subservient to men, and for men to prey on women or take advantage of this subservience. It was once considered a natural, biological truth that some races were superior to others, some were made for servitude, some where made for crime, some were made for building and ruling civilization. It was once argued that it was natural law for Christians to go out into the world and bring civilization to (or, more accurately, "down on") pagan and heretical peoples.

Every single time people justify, advocate, or normalize the continued persistence of some human social construct or social behavior, however bad or however long a history said behavior has, with "that's human nature", it's almost invariably an excuse for said behavior, by design or by effect. And thankfully we've seen a lot of these ideas passed over and change during the relatively short time humans have been a civilized, intelligent race. "That's human nature, it's not going to change" has been the rally cry of antiprogress throughout all of human history and yeah, I get a little worked up about it I suppose.

[Mikey]

Get worked up over it all you want, and I applaud you for it. The fact remains, however, that not everyone will think the same way as you want them to, or in the same degree - and THAT's what's required for the type of humanity that we see in the UFP. And when I say "human nature," I'm not using it as an excuse to not improve something or to ignore something - I use it as in your example; the ancient Harappans, or the original residents of Jericho, or any of the other earliest city-builders DID in fact overproduce for the purpose of trading for non-agricultural products - which led to amassing items of value, which led to the idea of wealth and want. Then came the artisan classes, etc. That happened naturally, in disparate and distant cultures, with no contact with each other. THAT'S an example of "human nature."

[Duskofdead]

Get worked up over it all you want, and I applaud you for it. The fact remains, however, that not everyone will think the same way as you want them to, or in the same degree - and THAT's what's required for the type of humanity that we see in the UFP. And when I say "human nature," I'm not using it as an excuse to not improve something or to ignore something - I use it as in your example; the ancient Harappans, or the original residents of Jericho, or any of the other earliest city-builders DID in fact overproduce for the purpose of trading for non-agricultural products - which led to amassing items of value, which led to the idea of wealth and want. Then came the artisan classes, etc. That happened naturally, in disparate and distant cultures, with no contact with each other. THAT'S an example of "human nature."

I agree with that totally. I think the Federation is a little Brady Bunch, but I also think the show did occasionally "swing back to reality"... Admiral Leyton, for instance. Vash for another. Bashir's parents breaking the law to make sure their child had an edge over others. Kira and Ro Laren and O'Brien's racism against Cardassians. In a society such as the Federation there would undoubtedly be misfits and people who rejected the dominant philosophy, and I think we HAVE seen that in the show, though I would agree perhaps it was not the focus of the show often enough to give a "realistic" proportional perspective of ideas. I still stand by, however, that a society which almost enshrines greed, such as our present-day one, is just as viable (or non-viable, depending upon your perspective and where you fall in said society) as a society which eschews it, and embraces the opposite. In neither society would "everyone" perfectly fulfill the highest exemplars of the ideals espoused, but to say one is totally understandable and one is laughably unrealistic is an argument of convenience based upon which society we happen to presently reside in.

Since I'm sure Rochey will read this and have a Godzilla response tomorrow, I wanted to also add the clarification that I think that self-concern or even selfishness is sometimes natural in cases where it pertains to finite resources necessary for survival. If two people are starving and there's one piece of bread, yeah, there's going to be a problem, even in the animal kingdom. However I would say that's a totally different animal from greed; I consider greed proactive. Greed is I'm going to go out and get mine in a society where there's enough for everyone, but I want to be sure I have 10x what I need even if that means 9 other people don't have enough to meet their needs. If we saw greed in the animal kingdom then we should see animals going out and eating and regurgitating food just to be sure another animal or species couldn't get it. That is not only a BAD model upon which to build a society, but also, despite the fact that it's carried us this far, it is unsustainable in the long-term. And I think global warming and other factors are making us finally come to grips with that now. And look at the people most trying to discredit the "consequences" of the "greed is good" model to global economics and civilization: it's not a coincidence that they're the same people and interests who benefit the most from an unequal, greed-driven society guising itself as a "merit based" or "Free trade" or "equal opportunity" society.

[Mikey]

Your take on greed may be accurate, but I still believe that there is some Jungian racial memory from which it stems, based on the old survival instinct.

As far as the "misfits" which you mentioned - they are are extraordinarly small percentage, and have only been seen after the fact. An even smaller percentage would have to be allowable for the UFP to actually form.

[Duskofdead]

Your take on greed may be accurate, but I still believe that there is some Jungian racial memory from which it stems, based on the old survival instinct.

As far as the "misfits" which you mentioned - they are are extraordinarly small percentage, and have only been seen after the fact. An even smaller percentage would have to be allowable for the UFP to actually form.

Well I'll give another example but I think it was subtle and probably unintentional. It's really no secret I think that I'm pretty liberal/progressive. And supposedly the Federation is a very liberal/progressive society, almost to a fault. But sometimes characters would say things and I'd just be like "ho wait, huh? That sounds Republican." (Sorry, no offense anyone.) An instance would be when Voyager encountered this society where there were two species, a sort of "dominant" one and then one that was the underclass, filled most of the prisons, etc. And Neelix was expressing indignation over the state of affairs, and Tom Paris (not even really listening that closely) remarks glibly with "well maybe they commit more crimes", and doesn't seem really interested in the issue. Granted Tom Paris isn't a model Federation citizen but that sort of disregard or quickhandedness in explaining a way something that should have sent up red flags to someone who embraced Federation values caught my attention.

The hypocrisy of Federation values is often pointed out by third parties, too. I've mentioned on numerous occasions that when I re-watched DS9 from season 1 straight through, what caught my attention was how in the first three seasons, Quark really "gives it" to humans about how they are rather smug, arrogant, look down on other races and other cultures that aren't like them, etc. And from his perspective all of that was true. Granted later in the show he was more of a comic relief character and his comic level of exaggerated misogynism and racism became part of his laugh value, but he actually raised serious points about human history and human preoccupation with its own "goodness" and cultural superiority. The Maquis brought it up on many occasions as well... although not the most dramatic example, one thing that always stood out in my mind was one time when Neelix was spouting a bunch of "let's go help our neighbors in need" type rhetoric when talking about how he volunteered for an away mission, and B'Elanna, in sort of a lightly mocking or sarcastic way, said "How very STARFLEET of you."

[Teaos]

The hypocrisy of Federation values is often pointed out by third parties, too. I've mentioned on numerous occasions that when I re-watched DS9 from season 1 straight through, what caught my attention was how in the first three seasons, Quark really "gives it" to humans about how they are rather smug, arrogant, look down on other races and other cultures that aren't like them, etc. And from his perspective all of that was true. Granted later in the show he was more of a comic relief character and his comic level of exaggerated misogynism and racism became part of his laugh value, but he actually raised serious points about human history and human preoccupation with its own "goodness" and cultural superiority. The Maquis brought it up on many occasions as well... although not the most dramatic example, one thing that always stood out in my mind was one time when Neelix was spouting a bunch of "let's go help our neighbors in need" type rhetoric when talking about how he volunteered for an away mission, and B'Elanna, in sort of a lightly mocking or sarcastic way, said "How very STARFLEET of you."

The big problem in by opinion is not Humans hypocrisy so much as the fact we are only one race of many in the Federation. Do human beliefs dictate the Federations or just theirs?

[Duskofdead]

The big problem in by opinion is not Humans hypocrisy so much as the fact we are only one race of many in the Federation. Do human beliefs dictate the Federations or just theirs?

I agree it was an underexplored part of Trek. But I've always been of the opinion that I preferred to have a small number of well developed races rather than a gigantic number of "just a unique makeup job" ones like in SW.

[Teaos]

I dont mind a few aliens of the week. I adds credability. But they did need to explore other species more.