Friday Ephemera

James,
I saw. I notice the reviewer equates “progressive politics” with “brains”. Thing is, the “progressive” moralising was one of the worst things about Trek, especially in its later iterations. Those “complicated ethical conundrums” were usually heavy-handed, slightly ludicrous and, more importantly, undramatic. Like the mysterious absence of money – which in 40-odd years was somehow never explained – the Conspicuous Moral Agonising was much harder to swallow than warp drive or the Spatial Anomaly Of The Week. And much of what was presented as “progressive” was just cloying, implausible or, quite often, reprehensible.
For instance, there’s that damn Voyager pilot. In order to patronise a species she knows almost nothing about, Janeway deliberately strands her own crew on the far side of the galaxy, where they will presumably die alone, never seeing Earth and their families again. This is presented as something noble and heroic, rather than fatuous and immoral. Or the TNG episode “I, Borg,” in which Picard has a precious opportunity to destroy the most relentless threat to humanity; yet he spares the mortal enemy of countless civilisations in order to feel virtuous and superior. The narcissism is grandiose, yet once again it’s portrayed as virtuous and “progressive”.
It’s perhaps significant that one of Star Trek’s most popular and acclaimed episodes – DS9’s “In the Pale Moonlight” – punctures the usual glib moralising with a rare dose of harsh ethical realism. The final exchange between Sisko and Garak is excellent and pokes a sizeable hole in the moral pretensions of the franchise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Pale_Moonlight

The hand crank vibrator is pretty good but I can top that… with steam power!
http://io9.com/5242949/steam-fetishists-rejoice-this-vibrator-is-for-you
Do it for Gaia!

TDK,
Exactly. Once the fictional world was opened out beyond the Enterprise, the abandonment of money seemed much less plausible than any of the gadgetry. On a couple of occasions we saw 24th century Earth with restaurants and people going about their business. But there was no attempt to explain how any of this actually worked. What motivated civilians to toil in the kitchens or look after customers? If they didn’t pay, since no-one has money, were they really “customers”? And if everyone is effectively on the dole, albeit comfortably, how does anything get done?

Those capitalistic Ferengi were more misogynistic than Saudi sheiks, the females weren’t allowed to work, own property or wear cloths.

There was one episode of Voyager with a moral story about slavery that partially explained how the society functioned without money, the dangerous, unpleasant work of mining was performed by holographic slaves.
Like all communists societies, they can’t function without slaves.

Here we are…
“That’s why you came to me, isn’t it, Captain? Because you knew I could do those things that you weren’t capable of doing. Well, it worked… And if your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant… and all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal and the self respect of one Starfleet officer. I don’t know about you, but I’d call that… a bargain.”
Final act: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTgGtJ-PisA
The whole thing: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=583F5C3BD4296713&search_query=DS9+in+the+pale+moonlight

Can I be the first person to register a complaint about the disgraceful prioritising implicit in the phrase “Alpha Quadrant”. Surely by now progressive types can recognise the imaginary offence felt by imaginary residents of what is insulting labelled the “Delta Quadrant”. Why Oh Why……
http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/news-items/extras/terminology_survey_results.pdf
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/brown-university/662938-third-world-welcome.html
I suggest a letter writing campaign demanding that the scriptwriters be sent to sensitivity classes.

This 24th century economics doesn’t seem to have been thought through terribly well.
“…by the late 24th century, money in the modern sense is very seldom used in the Federation, and not needed for the life of a typical Federation citizen. Replicators fill the need for almost all material goods…”
Utopia looms. But even if I can use a replicator to make, say, a new wardrobe, who’s going to help me haul it upstairs, or move it across town?
“…and a pervasive altruistic philosophy of self-improvement and helping others provides most labor.”
Ah, methinks there’s the catch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets#Economics

Original Trek had a monetary system based on federation credits. They bought the Tribbles, for example. They bought drinks. It wasn’t until TNG that they tried that nonsense about not having money, which always made me wonder whose lifelong dream it was to unstop the toilets.

““…and a pervasive altruistic philosophy of self-improvement and helping others provides most labor.”
Ah, methinks there’s the catch.”
Presumably they either had extensive childhood conditioning or brain implants to ensure that people behaved altruistically (not that it’s altruism in that case, of course).
You should have watched Babylon 5 instead of all this Trek stuff. B5 didn’t shy away from the darker side of human nature and hard decisions. It also had a money based economy complete with beggars, unions and rent disputes on the station.

So, what’s the feminist take on the new Trek movie going to be, I wonder? Because they weren’t too keen on last week’s big movie:
http://www.heroinecontent.net/archives/2009/05/x-men_origins_wolverine.html
Reading that whiny little rant, I was struck by how much it reminded me of the classic ‘Blackadder’ episode where his Puritan relative comes to stay, and how everything reminds her of sex, or sin.

That’s the genius of Shatner. He’s impervious to parody.

Speaking of the smug superiority of the Federation, Sector 001 = the Sol system.
I’m with James S. Why should anyone do anything for anyone else in the Star Trek world if not for money? Maybe that’s why Sisko’s dad is such a bastard. He’s tired of people coming into his restaurant and eating for free.

Money without money is fun. One local magazine (M, for fjord-piners) has a quick recap of notable Trek computer-games, and brings up the looming MMORPG. To paraphrase;
”
Moneyless
Little is known about the economy in the game, but as the Federation had progressed beyond money by far, we can expect that trade of goods will play a major part.
”
Going beyond money should not imply going back to pre-money barter, and I can’t really see how this would be construed as a good idea. Of course, barter would imply a real-value based economy (akin to the current fringe wishing for a return to the gold standard), but I can’t imagine that the ‘Beyond money’ Federation actually would be using gold-pressed latinum as a value-holder, unless they see ‘money’ as purely fiat-money, and thus separate it from some real- or honest-money.
Trek would be significantly less progressive if that were the case 😉
-S