Trek and morality

[Atekimogus]

Except that I don't buy it. Humans are still pretty much the same creatures we have been for the last ten thousand years. I'm not buying that in a century or two we manage to completely shed EVERY vestige of humanity in that time.

I must say that I absolutely agree with Tyyr here. The technology changes but humans do not evolve into a higher live form in the span of two odd hundred years.

They might look down upon there ancestors with scorn because they feel they are so advanced and all - like they indeed do most of the time during TNG - but I think Quark was it who put it best. "Take away all the daily pleasures they enjoy like daily meal, daily shower etc and you got an animal worse than a klingon"

So the credit should go to the scientiest who enabled the average UFP citizien a life without the worries which plague us still today. It sure is easy to ponder philosophical questions and morality most of the day if you have no need to work most of your waking ours just to support yourself and maybe a family.

[Graham Kennedy]

It seems to me that Humans HAVE changed significantly over the last few centuries.

Take democracy. 400 years ago in the UK, as in most countries, democracy was largely unknown, and undesired. If you proposed democracy to the average peasant he'd have flat rejected the idea that lowly people like him should have a say in government. The common belief was that god himself appointed kings to rule because they were simply better than other people.

I'm not suggesting that democracy is now accepted as a universal truth or anything, but large portions of the world have certainly changed their attitude towards it, and in doing so they overthrew a view of the world that had held for a bloody long time - pretty much forever in most places. That such changes in attitude can happen is undeniable fact.

[Aaron]

That sounds more like a cultural and societal change then a change in humans themselves. Which I think is what Tyyr was getting at, that for all our tech and all our morals, we're basically the same African hunter gathers of a hundred thousand years ago.

[Tyyr]

Precisely. While society might change some and some ideas might flourish at heart we are still motivated by the same selfish desires of the last few hundred thousand years. It's basic human nature and that hasn't changed. You're not looking at a simple societal outlook change to get to Trek, you're talking about a fundamental change in human nature to get to Trek. That's not happening in a couple centuries.

[Atekimogus]

It seems to me that Humans HAVE changed significantly over the last few centuries.

Take democracy. 400 years ago in the UK, as in most countries, democracy was largely unknown, and undesired. If you proposed democracy to the average peasant he'd have flat rejected the idea that lowly people like him should have a say in government. The common belief was that god himself appointed kings to rule because they were simply better than other people.

I'm not suggesting that democracy is now accepted as a universal truth or anything, but large portions of the world have certainly changed their attitude towards it, and in doing so they overthrew a view of the world that had held for a bloody long time - pretty much forever in most places. That such changes in attitude can happen is undeniable fact.

Well, one could argue that this change was also due to technology. Due to advances in farming less peasants are needed to nurture the populace, therefore you have more people able to do other things, for example sending them to school and start thinking for themselves and figuring out that they probably want to have a say about certain things. (I know a very simplified example, but still....)

Humans have in your example not changed a bit. Actually a good and simple example would be the hierachy of needs from Maslow which I quite like a bit. If all your basic needs are covered you can start to care about other things like self fullfilment, morality, democracy etc. .

[Graham Kennedy]

That sounds more like a cultural and societal change then a change in humans themselves. Which I think is what Tyyr was getting at, that for all our tech and all our morals, we're basically the same African hunter gathers of a hundred thousand years ago.

It's both. Culture and society are the aggregate of the people in them, and people today do NOT think like they did hundreds of years ago.

[Tyyr]

I don't think we're thinking differently. Why do people like democracy? The cost/benefit analysis for democracy works out well as compared to Monarchies, Dictatorships, etc. That kind of "What do I get out of it" thinking is the same we've been running on since we decided walking upright kicked ass.

[Vic]

I am kind of curious, when did it become a change of nature, rather than a societal change? I don't remember ever hearing anything about human nature being better in any episode, not
even 'High Horse Picard' claims this.

[Graham Kennedy]

I don't think we're thinking differently. Why do people like democracy? The cost/benefit analysis for democracy works out well as compared to Monarchies, Dictatorships, etc. That kind of "What do I get out of it" thinking is the same we've been running on since we decided walking upright kicked ass.

But that's the difference. Centuries ago people didn't make that cost benefit analysis. Kings ruled because god said so, and the likes of you and me are not fit to have a say in such things. That is a fundamentally different way of thinking.

[Atekimogus]

Well...and even before that greek and roman philosophers had the technology (read slaves) that they could even start inventing such concepts. Than society changed and the largest part of the populace couldn't afford wasting their time learning and studying and burden themselves with matters of state hence a king was a logical step.

You see those social and cultural changes as some big step forward for humanity wheras I think it is more a symptom of a changed enviromnent. Maybe it is cynical but imho humans and human nature hasn't changed a bit and under the right circumstances all the high ideals we hold dear are the first going out of the window.

If a mediaval peasants believes it is right that he is a slave by another name and god wills that there is a king than that is not because he is less advanced than we are, it is because we life luxurous lifes with education etc, in short in an enviromnent were such concepts have a place.

Now beeing able to have such an enviroment is a great achievement for a race and I do not want to belittle this all I am saying is that the TNG people shouldn't be so high and mighty because underneath it all they are still the same humans as ever and if they would have grown up in an different enviroment they would also pray to a god-pharao, use money and watch television.

[Vic]

It just occured to me that the problem is not with the vision; a morally advanced society. But a fault with the writers not being able to portray such a society, being wholly creatures of today. Like I said before, this not de-humanizing them, but is very much humanizing the characters of a morally advanced society.

As far as human nature is concerned, it will allways be there as is. The key is to transend human nature, hence homo-sapiens, not homo-sentiens. People have the capability to override nature, hence the decision "today I will not kill" or "today I will treat everybody I see with respect" when human nature might dictate otherwise.

I see "it's in my nature" as an amazingly lame excuse, look everywhere else for responsibility except myself, is the additude. Then I feel like I'm as society at large doesn't seem to want to be responsible for itself.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

Well, three big thing happened in a ten-year span.

World War III.

FTL propulsion discovered/invented.

First contact with alien life forms.

Any one of those would mark a paradigm shift in humanity. All three in such a short amount of time? That's a game changer for us, right then and there.

[Aaron]

Seems to me, we're in a "nature VS nurture" debate. Yes, today the concept of free thought and democracy is ingrained in those of us in the West but how much of that is a product of a society with large amounts of leisure time, financial security and hundreds of years of a steady liberal buildup?