Could the same society startrek has work in current times?

[redskulldangerzone64]

https://youtu.be/fN27bbabrN8

[Malgaran]

It would not work right now, but it is definitely a future worth aiming towards. People are not evolved enough yet to live in a society like Star trek for countless obvious reasons.

Personally though, I don't think humanity will ever survive unless it actually goes down the road to a more empathic society, I think that's the only hope humanity have. If humanity don't go down that road we are just gonna go back to the stone age again or simply eradicate ourselves entirely, either through our own stupidity or say we keep holding ourselves back that we couldn't do anything if the universe decided to kill us. Like giant meteor, sun dying or any other way we might get destroyed.

[monorprise]

How do people "evolve" toward spending their finite time and resources on things that don't benefit them individuality?

As for empathic society, are not the emotions you think people should share the most primitive of motivations designed for a animal world that largely ceased to exist 10+ thousand years ago?

That is basically the same question how do you evolve to follow non-relevant outdated motivates and needs that don't really benefit you anymore? That is like taking orders from your cat. Sure your primitive brain might be programed to enjoy it but you won't get much done in the modern world.

Our modern technology requires logical brains that able to choose to behave in such ways which might use advantageously and invent it.
Your feeling evolved over millions of years to guide you thou an catalyses hunter-gather lifeless in addressing said simple needs.

[Malgaran]

@monorprise Not sure what you mean, it does benefit them individually, benefits everyone.

It's not really what I mean, To make it all simple, if humanity was more empathic, we would not hurt each other in all the ways we do. Pretty much all wars, all murders etc, everything boils down to someone lacking empathy. Often sociopaths, narcissist etc are key instigators of so much suffering. Basically, if we were logical, all sociopaths, narcissist etc should not even be allowed to live, they have no real meaning beside making other people suffer. It's like an actual defect of the human psyche. Which yes, we are not ready for a logical society either, humanity value ego over logic. Everytime someone logic is challenged, do most people actually learn?, nope, straight to denial, preservation of ego.

As someone who have always been very logical, pure logic is also dangerous. Like logically again, humanity is evil by default, if we were to be logical, like really. We should spare the universe of the blight that is humanity. We are not good, but if we actually evolved towards a more empathic side then we might be. Pure logic we wouldn't be good either. Even though yes, is no doubt, overall logic can be better than emotions.

[monorprise]

@Malgaran I can't say i agree, how is it logical for humans not do do what they wish with a universe that will otherwise burn itself-out achieving non thing?

Nor do I think wars are simply because men wish to harm other men, in fact i think most all wars are fraught among men over their conflicting desires for resources and control thereof.

To risk everything simply to harm anther is insanity that you could hardly attribute to the population regularly required to fight said wars.

[Malgaran]

@monorprise If every Human did what they "wish", do they follow logic or emotions? Everything we do though is pretty pointless in the grand scheme of things, life in general is pretty pointless.

Yes, but could you harm someone if you were truly empathic. Like a good example, if Putin really had Empathy, Ukraine thing would never happen, if Hitler was, never any world war 2. Regardless of reasoning, empathy would prevent people from pointlessly harming each other. World would basically be a lot more peaceful. I'm not saying either that someone empathic can't harm someone, but whenever they do, or if they do, it often boils down again to not having been shown empathy.

Not as a reason to harm, but prevent harm. Like an example. If someone wanted more resources and control, an empathic mind, going to war would be stupid cause you would kill a lot of people for no good reason, cause a lot of pointless suffering. You would instead try and build alliances, diplomatic routes, innovate. Do something that would benefit your own society to increase standing, resources and thus control. Empathy changes how you approach everything.

[monorprise]

@Malgaran Your life is hardly pointless in that your existence effects others and the world around you in significant ways.
The fact that you cannot measure the movement of the world from your own actions does not mean you actions were pointless. Only that your set standard of time frame and relevance are too short and grand.
In reality the world you should focus upon is the one within your line of sight and the time frame everyone should be looking at is the time of their children. You are here to insure that they have the chance to be here and hopefully that their place is at least as desirable if not more so than your own.

That does not require you do great things to matter but it does require you do something even if it just to be a support as your parents were they could not stand so well without it.

Regarding the idea of empathy you presuppose people agree on what is good for others and themselfs which is untrue in both cases.
Putin probably invaded the Ukraine because he felt in the long run the Ukraine would be better off united with the other Slavic countries than the west. It is very unlikely that Russians like the amount of destruction and death that has taken place in the Ukraine. From their perspective thou they no doubt see it as nearness for a long term good.
In that regard their empathy tells them they must keep fighting.

[Dargil]

Nope. Too many corrupt opportunists. We need precious metal-backed currency more than ever. SPECTRE in the form of the WEF and the Davos crowd want your liberty.

[Cassie88]

I've actually seen 'Star Trek' (TOS & TNG), and I don't like the way their society works at all. Everyone seems so anodyne, so bland and boring (ex. they don't have alcohol anymore, they listen to classical music and read Shakespeare, and they're virtually sexless).

[GoodManDave]

Perhaps a few hundred years, if greed kind of becomes less of a thing... people attacking other for their jobs, etc. Learning to live a sparse kind of life.

I wonder what else would be a factor... cleaner energy resources? Population? Automation?

Other franchises have posed the idea that less people on Earth would mean less fighting for resources, and therefore a Utopia (One world in Sliders instituted a "lottery" that would also kill people)... There's millions of people on the Moon in Riker's time (as well as countless other worlds), so are people spread thin? or since there are so may habitable planets, we can house and take care of millions overall?

I think if replication technology worked well, that would be a big thing. Energy conversion would be huge. But until we figure out a good reliable source of renewable clean and safe (r) energy, and more space for real equipment/storage food storage, etc... then I think greed will be a more common thing, even if dollars/yen/loonys/whatever don't exist.

Hard to say what the economics were... obviously some people sort of made "money," or "credits," as Riker had credits with Quark at DS9 at some point (which he gave up for favors/information). So maybe money becomes interchangable with other things. At Siskos, were customers secretly learning how to prepare the food? Paying for the meals by having lessons in culinary arts, so they get rewarded, and they work for their supper kind of thing? They prepare food for future customers? or maybe they trade in other ways. (dishwashing/cleaning/wrestling the Sisko's gator up on the ropes every night...) Was it some other sort of barter? People who pay in credits didn't have to work, perhaps. Or they'd pay in energy somehow. It was said that Sisko's dad preferred "real" food (Perhaps Maurice and Yvette Picard; and therefore Robert and Marie's family, I think) not replication, which means growing crops somewhere, but that was seen as fairly unusual. Energy had to come from somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Even if you had replicator tecnoligy and free energy to use it, which star trek clearly does not. People are not self-motivated to act without some kind of benefit. They would mostly all spend their time in holidecks until that collapsed and were forced to actually trade for finite resources and time again.

[Jackblue]

No, not until we have protein resequencers and stuff.

[Anonymous]

I like how the only way socialism works is by introducing barter; which is capitalistic.

[Guy13]

No that’s fantasy. Propaganda from rich.