Head to https://squarespace.com/rowanjcoleman to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code: rowanjcoleman
The Star Trek Mythos is famous for its optimistic vision of the future. Whereas other works of science fiction show us marching towards a haunting dystopia or retaining many of our present problems for centuries to come, Star Trek stands out as a work of science fiction which definitively states: The future will be better and brighter than the present we live in and the human race will move beyond prejudice, poverty and war. However when we pose the question: Is humanity good? Or to be more specific, do people naturally default to their good side rather than their bad side, it’s interesting to note that Star Trek – despite its optimism – actually says the answer is, no.
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rowanjcoleman
Discord: https://discord.gg/BYxQNuD
Special thanks to all Patrons and Members!
00:00 Squarespace Ad
00:49 Intro
01:30 Part 1 We’re Not Going to Kill Today
13:25 Starfleet is Kinda Racist
20:11 Part 2 What a Piece of Work is Man
24:17 Klingons
27:01 Ferengi
28:01 Cardassians and Bajorans
31:56 Conclusion
32:46 Outro
#startrek #philosophyofstartrek #rowanjcoleman
source
HELP THE CHANNEL GROW: https://www.patreon.com/rowanjcoleman
Also that Trekspertise video: https://youtu.be/17knGMdX4cU?si=SAmzlbsWo2ly91FG
P.S. I've seen some fascinating responses in the comments and I'm encouraged to see so much nuanced discussion in response to this video. However, I feel I should clarify something: At no point did I discount individual responsibility as a factor in improving the world. I simply said that the sentiment "be better" doesn't go far enough. Recognising when an act is morally wrong is only the start of a solution, not the entirety of one.
Does anyone actually take life lessons off ST or any other fiction?
What is the point of ditching badly written religion for badly written scifi?
One other point to make: I think the notion of humanity fundamentally improving and evolving in Star Trek stems from two key historical events in its mythos. The first is the cataclysm of the Third World War, which leaves hundreds of millions dead and Zephrem Cochrane holed up in an old missile base in Montana. The second (mentioned in First Contact) is the arrival of the Vulcans themselves and what the discovery of extraterrestrial life does to the basic psychology of all humankind of the era. The former of these I think derives from some of H.G. Wells’ later writings (making Star Trek his worthy successor and foremost popularizer) and the second I believe is a phenomenon many psychologists have speculated upon. So yes, the notion is that our “human nature” can change, but that change is often predicated on some literally earth shattering events. All in all, though, a really great video essay. Keep ‘em coming!
Abundance of energy is the driver for earth paradise.
People are then freed from the worry and toil of daily work.
Food, clothing, warmth and housing are then available to any who require it.
People are then able to be who they want, do what they want.
Better themselves.
How this is achieved within star trek lore is not explained . How could it?
There's no small amount of risk to doing what you suggest, without being overly patronising, politically, or socially. The writing has to be top notch. It can be done, but…
Another book about the innate goodness of humanity you might like is The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker
Great video. How can we, as humans, create a more peaceful prosperous society for all. I have a couple of thoughts that might help towards that path.
First, I believe that Star Trek is a capitalist society. Without the incentive of becoming rich people won't innovate. They won't strive for better. We see this in the original series and in TNG and in Voyager. People like Harry Mudd, the miners on Janus, Cyrano Jones, the Vulcan merchant who sold Tuvok his meditation lamp, the Picard family vineyards, and Tendi and Boiler family holdings all point to a healthy capitalist economy. When Picard says the economics are different he doesn't say no one in the Federation gets paid for goods and services. In fact he changes the subject when Lily asks him about getting paid. Because it is considered vulgar by the rich to discuss such matters. It's bad form. And with his family vineyards you better well believe he's rich. He says they eliminated want. The need for things. So Star Trek's economy has eliminated rampant consumerism. They've eliminated this idea of keeping up with the Joneses. They've in large part eliminated envy and greed, two of the major sins if memory serves. On an individual scale and on a societal level. No longer does country R lust after what country U have.
Second of all, we need to convince ourselves and others that we can no longer afford war and other destructive pursuits. War and the preparation for war is too costly in material and more importantly in loss of life. How much potential was lost in World War 2. How can we look at the war in the Pacific and not be appalled by the shear waste of human potential on all sides. How can we justify the enormous cost of maintaining a military when our own people are suffering. It's time for Edith Keeler's peace movement to spread throughout the world. It's time we convince all governments everywhere that war is too costly. We need to look at our brutality square in the face and be horrified. And decide as a species, once and for all that we can no longer afford it. And that governments must combat the seeds of war, which are hate and lust and disparity.
One of my favorite episodes is By Any Other Name where aliens from Andromeda quickly take over the Enterprise and kill the landing party's yeoman to punish and pacify Kirk. Kirk has a chance to stop them by blowing up the ship but doesn't (or maybe couldn't anyway, since the Kelvans discovered the plot) then the crew is turned into geometrical figures. However, many comments in the clips say they are upset that Rojan "got away with" killing the yeoman. People today say they want some justice or revenge on Rojan and can't see the practicality or realpolitik of negotiating an end to the war (which is what it was).
I think many feel that in The Godfather: Part Two, Vito Corleone was justified in his revenge-killing of the mafioso in Sicily that killed his father, brother and mother and wanted to kill him because one day he would be a man seeking revenge However the movie also says what a waste it was for the island's youth to spend their lives on the cycle of violent killings and revenge killings. Of course lack of justice is what makes them take matters into their own hand to begin with.
Re how the government works to order society and that ST never makes clear, it's interesting how this ambiguity may be part of ST's appeal. Human government in the future may well be the equivalent of a military dictatorship via Star Fleet, or it may be a techno anarchy similar to The Culture
DS9 is absolutely the best Trek.
Section 31 is a stand in for extrajudicial operations by the government that allows the show. Foretelling of the NSA, but equally applicable to CIA et all, it is a blemish that sheds light on the differences between what we have now and what Star Trek hopes for the future. While it is a glaring unanswered admission, it hurts so bad because there is no moral shut down from a picard guru sensei. It sucks because it really explored a real problem that exists now without a clear moral high ground as an easily explained future. I am drunk.
Sadly for Star Trek one solution to the Fermi paradox is that ANY species capable of complex thought enough to invent methods to leave their planet cannot have one voice, one inherent character and be unified in one way of living. This means disagreement, and that will mean conflict. In turn if you can create complex devices those devices won't always be for good and every civilization ultimately reaches the point of self-destruction. So individuals being 'good' is entirely possible but a whole society. No.
Thanks. If you fancy doing a follow-up concerning that old trope of the economics of Star Trek, the Rousseau-Adam Smith connection (drawing on the quote just before 21 minute mark) would give it. Unlike your thoughtful video (which is great for trying to get people to look at the anthropological/socioeconomic/whatever issues & debates that frame and potentially inform ST discussion), most online discussion of the economics of ST is stultified by not even knowing the economics of Smith, the history and nature of money etc. The conceptual parallels between Rousseau and some of Smith's ideas are long known.
I don't claim that there is some ultimate single solution given by the "ism" that was cynically eliminated by key people 150 years ago – the "ism" defined by the third factor of production that is interesting because the left endorsed it on grounds of equity whilst the economic right (like Smith) said such taxes were the only ones they could endorse on efficiency grounds. Just to re-iterate to try to avoid other people's straw-manning, I'm not saying that is the one answer: I'm saying that it illustrates why it is not possible to have a conversation about a key issue underpinning ST if one doesn't have some knowledge of the wider framework of debate. You've done a great job here re ST philosophy.
Largely, the argument is whether "racial" descriptors are the norm or the bias as perceived by the observer, and if it is the instinctive biology or conditioned, socialized -largely idealized – behaviour of the "race".
You talk alot about the lens of sci-fi being used to explore themes and issues that exist in modern society, and lament that Star Trek doesn't offer the answers required to solve said issues.
To be honest… I'm not sure it can. Post scarcity society is ironically the most alien concept in the show, it's such a significant departure from the real world.
Lets say a writer took the characters from TNG episode The Neutral Zone, the one with the 3 humans from the 20th century in cryogenic storage, and ran with that; what would it look like to see the federation from their shoes, what lessons would need to be imparted upon them to integrate them into society?
Do you make them take yoga classes to find their calm? Bhuddist teachings to make remove the need for worldly possessions? Put them in a room with a replicator and give them an unlimited energy budget? Educate them? Brainwash them? What possible philosophical ideal could be imparted on the modern man that makes him turn from his intrisic and life learned natures, a lifetime under capatalist ideals, and instead embrace a utopian society? I think if we knew the answer to that, we'd be socially progressing in the real world today. But it seems we're backsliding.
Let me put it another way. What lessons could possibly teach a hardcore conservative american republican to entirely abandon their beliefs?
I don't want this to sound like an overt complaint, counter argument against the vid. It's right on a whole.
I think it's less on the core philosophy, that we all can be better, calmer, more aware of the conditions that raised us, to not fall to our worse traits.
It's the writers perception of, the writer's understanding of and the trap of that which came before. If you can't set away from that which came before, granularity and context is sacrificed on the writer's table for the point, the argument. The point must be made at the cost of overt, in your face stereotypes. To see concepts reduced to in your face tropes. For such moments against the tropes to be so noted and so scattered, so rare. So specific.
If you meet one Vulcan, one Klingon, one Ferengi you've met one of them. The question is who they choose to be and how they choose to use, to resist, to act counter to the context that you came from.
Some of Trek's writing is extremely juvenile. It's so superficial, it's stuck in the perspective of the teacher, student, the lesson to be taught. If for a moment it could look to tell, take a story of complexity, of shades of grey, of being in the moment and finding the lesson in that moment, it could be so much more. To be challenged, to ask the question in the moment.
Go drinking with a Klingon, Enterprise reference for clarity, argue with a Vulcan, barter with a Ferengi and learn. Hopefully the lesson is the more different we appear, the more alike we truly are.
The danger of giving to much flesh to the how star trek os supposed to have archieved it is people treating it as Gospel when it can only ever be inspirational,writers cant really tell us the solution,but inspire us to look for a way to get there.
I dont mind the lack of details, seeing how we struggle with tribalism im happy to not give detractors ammo to shoot good ideas down
I really wished The Orville had explored this concept more. They seem to be so stuck on making a Star Trek clone, that they swallowed all the Star Trek philosophy with no changes.
And what is this "perfect system" of the Federation?
How do you expect the writers – people living in our imperfect world – to devise the system for the perfect future world?
If it was that simple, it would have already been devised, and we would be already working towards it.
It's easy to say change the system, it's hard to do it when you don't know into what else, and how.
When you say to an individual: "you must be better, here's why and in what way" – it's simple, clear, it makes sense.
Perhaps not very helpful for all real world viewers, but it works as a general message.
But you say to them: "you must build a better society", they ask "how", and the answer is invariably "we don't know, figure it out" – not very helpful.
I also don't like how this is taking responsibility away from the people.
It's not your fault when you do something bad, the "system" made you do it!
"I didn't want to dump the toxic materials from my factory into the river, the system made me do it!"
"I didn't want to kill those jews and gypsies and slavs, the system forced me to do it!"
Yes, a system can encourage and enforce a certain behaviour, through propaganda, and laws, and just the way it's set up, but it still up to us whether to obey it or not.
I've had bad periods in my life when I was extremely poor: not once did I consider turning to crime.
The responsibility is shared between the system and the individual – the difference is that it's much easier to focus on the individual than the system, both when it comes to writing, and when it comes to real life.
Different races have different traits. Chinamen are good at maths, blacks love their gibs, etc.
NCC stands for Naval Construction Contract, Dan needs to do more research. 😜
This is what I'm into.
Also I'm pretty sure that, on a basic level, the federation is in between what Marx called "lower stage communism" and what he called "higher stage communism"
I see the Humans of the Star Trek universe falling into the same post modernization superiority complex. That every era of humanity throughout history falls into this trap to a degree in civilization.
The idea that we are beyond our ancestors and fail to realize that we don’t necessarily internalize or learn all of the same lessons from the past. Taking for granted what even our parents went through to learn those lessons.
Considering how we are seeing so many people fall into the same scapegoating of societal problems. That lead to WW2. It seems my generation has already forgotten the lessons that our great grandparents tried to teach us. I see in Star Trek. That the lessons that humanity learned, getting to the stars. Are lost by the time the federation becomes a superpower. Sitting on the accomplishments of the past until war time. Especially the Dominion war
Great presentation, nicely chosen clips with a steady pacing. Some may see the allegories of the alien races as blunt, but it makes exploring social issues very efficient. Although the distillation of characteristics is also one of my main issues with Dune. DS9 is the best Trek but I have always loved TOS for how the core trio explored the stories. You featured 2 of my favourite scenes with O'Brien and Nog's speeches. I am curious thought would be able to make this same presentation by analysing moments from New Trek.
It isn't that humans are savage or evil. Starfleet and the Federation know that humanity (and other sentient sophonts ) contain the capacity for destruction and love and everything in between. The prime directive means to address the role of technology in expressing the "savage" half of our nature. (our drive to continue the life process, stabilize, reproduce, and expand). Technology, including warp drive, increases sophonts' capability to cause destruction and suffering upon other sentient life forms. Therefore, Federation contact and assistance is "systemically" suppressed until it can't be helped- until the reprecussions of not getting involved in species development are too great to ignore. The Federation can guide these worlds in respect to Roussea's philosophies, instead of allowing a space-faring civilization to grow out of Hobbes' Leviathan and eventually threaten the peace and even the existence of the Federation in the future.
One of the central problems with collectivist oriented thought and specifically, the notion that we need to "change the system," is that the one's suggesting this solution miss a fundamental fact. All systems are created and operated by people. So if we, "change the system to make people better," then what is happening in praxis is a small minority of people with their views force others to do what they want to "make people better."
This is why Confucianists and Confucius himself argued against systemic change and rather promoted the ides of people working hard to be virtuous individuals. He also argued that promoting people to power based on their virtuous behaviour and NOT their ideas or words, would produce a better government.
At the end of the day, it always comes down to individuals, Frank Herbert and Dune were right.
I like the fact that despite the utopian society that humanity has built, Star Trek acknowledges that is not a natural state and humans are still savage by nature. But even though this is true, it also show's humanity can overcome it worse impulses to do great things, and that it must constantly labor and be on guard to keep the great thing they have built, because what they have is not a given. That angle in Star Trek saga has always intrigued me, it also creates an open for many storylines to be told about how far one would be willing to go protect it and how far is to much. DS9 did a great job of exploring this.
Interesting, but I was always under the impression it was clear what were the main things that pushed the federation into this new enlightenment phase. "The elimination of hunger and the need for material possessions" (They often list these things first as the examples of how humanity progressed).
This was a fantastic video, congrats!
This is disguised advertisement for Deep Space Nine. I approve…
I really really hope that one day there will be an episode on the federation being the occupiers for once, say something like how a planet member only joined because of a corrupt government or being a planet that was Cardasian being given to the Federation
I don't think Star Trek says "No" to the question "Is humanity good." I think Star Trek says "We're getting better." I think they're more like how Rousseau envisions humanity. That we are born good but can be corrupted by our environment. It's not so much an immutable "nature" as it is a matter of social evolvement. I don't think it is saying anything about "human nature" as it does merely admit to the mistakes of our past. After all our own history shows that there is no such thing as a "human nature." There are so many human cultures of the past, and of the present, that reject competition and violence.
Well done essay, but like others here I strongly disagree with much of it, especially your basic premise referenced early and in closing. You said you were coming close to being political but actually did as you half reject, half ignore basic conservative philosophy. The challenge for people to "be better" is shrugged off as silly or impossible, flatly stating we need a power structure that incentivizes or forces us to. ST effectively shows (in spite of the term being used several times) we don't evolve, there are no significant physical changes; just the cultural change in people accepting morals and ethics as necessary and individual responsibility. I could make a counter argument to the overwhelmingly popular assessment that ST is a progressive utopia and instead confidently present it as a conservative one. TOS especially showed a meritocracy of volunteers where all of the current social divisions have no bearing yet each is represented because they earned their positions. You may be a bit young for one of the biggest social commentaries from Trek but it was a big deal in the 60's, showing an ethical and compassionate military made up of scientists that exercises force, but only when necessary and diplomacy had failed. Either way, another shown aspect is that the ingredients for that future already exist, it requires a cultural change but different from what is commonly championed in most Trek circles. It requires a move away from the hedonism dominating youth culture today and embracing traditional values that have been thrown off in our rush to the "enlightenment" that's given us twerking and a mass appreciation for terrorism. Be honest, there are many reasons new Trek is what it is, but one of them is today's youth do not embrace the basic principles of TOS and TNG. Look around, no organization is going to force that change, and any agency given enough power to make that happen is not a positive solution.
Great video! Want more of these analyses!
A couple of thoughts occurred to me.
1, You mention the Klingons and Ferengi & Klingons as being fairly defined by their primary traits. Greed, lust for battle. I wonder if they were created this way to hold a mirror to the human characters. To examine those aspects of humanity. I'm not saying I think they're entirely successful in that regard, but it could serve to explain the lack of nuance in them that we see in, as you mention the Bajorans or Cardassians.
I also think it's worth noting that the Klingons and Ferengi were created by Roddenberry where as the Bajorans and Cardassians were, at least, expanded upon in a show Gene had little to do with.
2, I really like what you say about humanity "just evolving" vs building systems that help us evolve. It got me really thinking.
When you look, broadly at the politics of the industrialized world in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. There is a clear progression of, well, progressiveness. At least in the populace. Polls taken in the US about gay marriage in the 1990's vs today. You'll see signifigent increases in approval. When we look at how populations vote. Typically it is the progressive parties/leaders that do the best. The example I love is that a Republican president has only one the popular vote ONCE since. 1989. And that one win (GW Bush's Second term) was an outlier having happened post 9/11.
But when you look at the state of politics in most Western countries you wouldn't know we're a more open and accepting society because the right-wing (NOT CONSERVATIVES!) fight dirty. They lean authoritarian and tend to use a lot of regressive tactics.
And I wonder how much social media empowers them.
I find myself wondering how different our world would be without FB and Twitter. And I think it's something to think on.
In Denobulan fiction they are the most reasonably balanced species and Humans are an example of excess and error. Oh no there a generalized typical behaviours attributed. The problems with dirty secret control is trust accountability and blowback. <3 the earth belongs to us all. I wish more people integrated the book progress and poverty into their philosophy or at least were aware of it. Humans have capacity for good and evil. The individual and the system are not so separate. We don't know what balance will really work or when it's applicable. There were other cultural paths besides the common recurring one yes newer star trek does it more.
This is another well produced and interesting video essay. I would posit that Star Trek, and attempts to reconcile its view of human nature, will always fall short because it always starts with the flawed humanistic view of anthropology. Judeo/Christian philosophy posits that man is created in the image of God (which gives him the capacity of doing good, among other things) but that image was marred because of the fall (which predisposes man toward sin). The doctrine of common grace is what prevents man from becoming the worst he can be and, in many ways, allows him to flourish. But man will never escape his fallen nature without redemption and a new nature being created.
The phrase "sanctity of life" was used in this essay. I always find it interesting when this term is used but upon closer inspection is meaningless in a universe without a transcendent being whose nature is good and provides creation with moral clarity and standards. Otherwise, it is merely a slogan and only has meaning to those who subscribe to it. That is, it is arbitrary, and the most brutal Klingon is no more or no less virtuous than the most pacifist Vulcan.
Great episode. Well done. Thank you!
there's some points I disagree with you there. first of all, a person does have in its nature to kill. for survival, greed, lust. what ever emotion or desire you can attribute to being human. all you have to do is watch the 6 o'clock news. it happens everyday. I teach kids. I'm an Art Teacher. certified K-12. And I've seen alot of behavior in my 14 years of teaching. some of it violent. Kids can be some of the meanest people around. they have no problem telling you what they think , even to adults. I've seen my share of fights over some of the most petty of ****. even for looking at someone if a way they didn't like. The collective we can treat each other for the highest disregard. and To say we value life is not true and sometimes hypocritical. And there's plenty to go around on that discussion.
A couple key words in all this, which is what makes Trek great is the value of Human Life and personal responsibility. And the desire to grow as a person. Until we value life from womb to death bed, until we value the life of our neighbor, or the person we don't even know, then yeah we're not going to grow much as a society. it really is Nature vs nurture. We as parents are responsible for making the next generation(no pun intended) better. and We pretty much suck at it.
You're wrong on one point. The dehumanizing of Data was made into law and androids were recognized as people. (Until the lazy writing of Picard showed up).
I always felt that the problem with the sequel STAR TREK series is that they felt that they had to show more and more of Earth and STARFLEET and even the FEDERATION. The series should stick to dealing with the people on board the ships and stations not trying to explain a fictitious future society where they came from.
The white man's burden.
By far my biggest issue with Star Trek, has been the conceits it makes regarding how humanity, on Earth, achieves its "paradise." I hate the idea we had to hit rock bottom, and have the space patriarch (Vulcans) come and Shepard us to our greater selves. It is of course a natural writing method to wash over the details that are legitimately difficult to answer. But, after so many years and so many stories, the dissonance becomes too great. It is why I am so disappointed with the new Trek. For, not taking the opportunity to address this more directly. Very good video, thank. you for taking on the topic. I will have to check out the trekspertise video, as well.
First, good take. Second, what a society values as good is shaped by too many factors to put in a YouTube comment or even a single video. They're tangled up in social conventions, religion, primal urges to survive, seek pleasure, satisfy pride, etc etc etc etc and many more etceteras. That is not to say there is not an objective right and wrong (I believe there is or else it is utter nonsense to say something is right or wrong and think it is more than opinion). But to where will you look for that objective source of morality? If you argue it is woven into species survival, that's rather convenient for the species and lets them exclude the "good" of other things without justification. This is why an arguable end point is God, because there's nothing conceivably greater to point to the source.
"They have no concept of the sanctity of life". Great sentence. Similar for Star Wars. I could never understand living beings fighting/going to war against androids…I find the idea horrifying.
Anyone think Eddinton had a point considering the Cardissian did ally with the dominion even though they turned against at the end.starfleet seems to be anti aliens in the Classic star trek.
So, Humans and humanity is at its core good. Viewing an entire race with contempt and expecting reparations for the "sins of the fathers or the race" to assume anyone who doesn't think like the group, is automatically "bad." to demand representation by some while excluding others simple based on race, sex and religion. favoring one race over others because of skin and so on is all bad. Condemning one religion while blindly supporting others. Silencing anyone with a different opinion, or condemning then for a different belief then the group, forcing shame on generations of children, Yep, I alway knew Liberals agendas and beliefs are NOT in line with Star Trek. lol Nailed it! and I agree, Humans are, for the most part a force for good men and women regardless of race . Now, here comes the trigured pitchforks lol