Politics based on Star Trek?

I'm cool with whatever, as long as it's Star Trek. If they start going with other sci-fi, like Logan's Run, then I'm screwed, because anyone who's familiar with that world knows I'm already 15 years past my expiration date!

 

The political climate of Star Trek's United Federation of Planets is largely informed by:

• political globalism
• post-scarcity economics
• social democracy
• secularism

Attempts to achieve these things would include advocating for:

• diplomacy and intergovernmental organizations (eg, the UN)
  
• universal basic income and other welfare benefits (eg, single-payer healthcare)
  
• proportional representation (eg, the single transferable vote electoral system)
  
• separation of church and state

I would be very happy to be part of such a society. In an essentially post-scarcity economy, I would be free to pursue anything that interests me, even if entirely on a volunteer basis, and without the stigmas associated with the social status that any given job--or the lack thereof--confers in most of the world's societies.

 

I see a world ( Star Trek theme and back ground music please ) where universal acceptance of all humans is the corner stone and prime directive. Even Data was a sanctioned being. All of us participate in the benefit of the whole and sacrifice is selfless. Like parenting is. Business of all kinds are actively engaged in the purpose of supporting a said prime directive. A world where commerce was last yet still necessary. Where the promotion of each individuals skills and desire of their heart could be placed on a clear unobstructed path. That person would be allowed to strive and succeed until they decided they crossed the finish line. A world so exciting that ever present challenges fed us like a good meal. I see a world for the people, by the people and a prime directive ensuring that the people will in all things be safe, secure, cared for and accepted. Our bastardized constitution in the US is a clear reflection of the mistakes we have made from the original intent.

 

What's the term for taking basically barren land and making it life sustainable, namely fertile for crops? I know I've seen ST episodes or a ST movie where they did this to an entire planet.

 

Terraforming.

I'm not so sure that a smaller population would be necessary. Humankind currently has more than enough capital (and produces more than enough food) to provide for the entire human population. Poverty and hunger exists due to inadequate distribution of capital, food, which is why wealth redistribution would bring us a lot closer to eliminating scarcity (and open borders would too). So far, agricultural production has increased at a higher rate than the human population has grown--due of course to technological advancement--a trend which we can expect to continue, barring any major crisis/es caused by war, disease, or unmitigated climate change. Sophisticated plant breeding would be invaluable in the latter case.

Exploring other planets and the earth's vast frontiers underwater certainly leads to valuable discoveries and opportunities that facilitate advancement, and space exploration is perhaps the most obvious cause that a Star Trek fan would be likely to support. I think that the greatest advancement in the elimination of scarcity will be artificial intelligence. When we eventually are able to create machines that can create other machines more complex than themselves (all while remaining under our control), human capital will become virtually infinite. However, societal reforms would be necessary to prevent AI wealth from accumulating in the hands of the few as the working class lose their jobs to robots. Universal basic income would be easily funded by taxing the enormous revenue of fully automated production and would financially provide for all the workers who automation displaces. Then we could finally stop measuring the health of an economy in terms of unemployment figures and use standard of living instead. Eventually, wealth would become mundane and unimpressive, and people would use their liberated work weeks to cultivate their rarest talents and unique intellects or to enroll in humanitarian efforts like Starfleet.

 

That's where you come in (nodding yes emoticon).

 

I still think Venus would be the better choice to teraform. The problem is finding enough hydrogen on either Venus or Mars, along with creating a magnetic field. You would probably need to collect enough asteroids to build a Moon to orbit Venus, along with putting a sunshield in front of the Sun for a few decades to cut down on the heat hitting the planet. If we knew that there was a huge asteroid that was going to hit the Earth and destroy it in 50 years, I'm not even sure it could be done. Maybe if we could create a space elevator or two...

As for the Star Trek economy, I think it would be great if we could get to that point. As someone who has watched TNG and Voyager (more than once), I can see the problems, yet it is structured and justified enough to where it makes sense. There isn't the corruptions and favoritism that usually causes problems in communist economies. Yet, it does appear to be a type of techno-military communism. Where the choice of what you can buy is limited and can only come from one place on the ship. They don't get into the economy on the planets in the Federation much, but I would say that if I were in charge of North Korea, I would be showing them how their economy should work by using Star Trek and explaining to other countries how if it is good enough for the Federation, it should work for one country. Instead of the starship, you work for the country though. And there is the leadership and chain of command with Kim Jong Un as the captain, and different people have different jobs like security, medic, navigator (transportation), and command. But not fighting bigger ships and making sure the food and supplies that are needed get delivered to the people is also really important.

 

I have given this considerable thought. This thread has many different States to follow like veins or arteries in our body.
# 1. WHY does mankind want to leave the protection of God's given earth and attempt to create an environment where EVERY single microscopic item has to be artificially generated?
Are we trying to prove that we are as great as our Creator?
A place where a single mistake from a single child could determine the out come of life?
Let's all turn our energies to the needs of our peoples in our counties and the effect should drive upward. In Star Trek we put the best of all in front of our selves. Let's not be Spock but let us be Kirk.

 

Mankind is eventually going to the destroy the environment that makes Earth habitable. We are going to reach the point where breathing the air without it being thoroughly filtered and sanitized will kill us. Our homes will require apparatus capable of such filtering, as will our cars, public transportation, office buildings, etc. If you think about it, we're already headed towards that. Like many commodities, the wealthy will have the better filtration body suits, the poor will have none or ones that are barely adequate, and will have to wait for them.

Combine the above with overpopulation, and you have the need for finding a second home for humankind.

---------------------------------

I don't see Earth functioning under one ruling body such that depicted in Star Trek. For that to happen, we would have to experience some major worldwide catastrophic event that forced us to start over with everybody on Earth being equally powerless and equally desperate. Even then there would be groups planning how to become more powerful than the other groups (call it human nature). Unification for a common and equal good would be impossible.

 

Well, we are well on our way. We have an idiot as POTUS

 

I always think whats funny about Star Trek is that they need to abandon Roddenberry in order to have any real story. Money, greed, vengeance, status seeking, just plain old power. With them the universe is alien, the people unrealistic. TNG's first year seemed to try to stay true to Roddenberry and it was awful.

I think, on paper, it would be a wonderful society to be a part of, but in reality, human nature would never allow it.

 

Star Treks theme of universal acceptance and " the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few" is impossible. We are living on the brink of a technology that has the power to catapult our society ever closer to " I have a dream" and like animals our own people tear it down. A woman to this day has no right to her own body. It's still a matter of politics. I hate politics. I know two men that have been a couple for close to 30 years. And still can't be considered together. Hospital care? Financial interests? No that man is not your mate. Politics, I hate politics. Politics in the U.S. has always been and still is today formed by religion. And everyone knows it. And it's not that I don't believe in God. I do. What it is, is that one groups ideas that are by law forced on the whole of society is in all reality punitive by nature. A Chistian is the opposite of Jewish, which is opposite of Muslem which is opposite of Buddhist, so on and on. Therefore we will by our nature continue to imprison and slaughter innocent people because they covet a dissimilar ideology.

 

The "human nature" argument, commonly used against socialism and communism, is essentially paper-thin (though do note that the United Federation of Planets isn't necessary socialist or communist). Human attitudes and behavior vary over generations, between populations, and even, obviously, on the level of the individual. At what point can you say one behavior is natural and another is not?

Yes, screenwriters on early Trek had scripts rejected for violations of Roddenberry's and the first TNG showrunner Maurice Hurley's utopian visions for the Federation. In particular, the two maintained that the Enterprise's crew could not have conflicts among themselves, so each episode's drama had to originate outside of the Federation, or at least outside of Starfleet, for the most part. This reflects something that @Chris Noyb has argued, that humankind, if equally helpless as individuals, could unite in the face of a nonhuman common enemy, such as global natural disaster, disease, or indeed, an extraterrestrial threat. Carl Sagan coined the term "Machindo" to name this phenomenon in his only novel, Contact.

 

It's human nature to join, and to follow. Extremely desperate people, under the circumstances mentioned in my previous post, would be willing to believe almost anything, and could be lead to take actions that benefit them directly.

Desperation + the need for strong leadership + the desire for instant (relatively speaking) gratification = An opening for people to be manipulated in a bad way. Post WWI Germany and Hitler come to mind.

 

What makes something human nature? A quality that is consistent across all people? A tendency to follow isn't so universally consistent, as there are those with a tendency to lead and those with a tendency to reject leadership.

I agree with your central claim as an observation of something that happens but not as something that inevitably happens. Certain cultures have developed to resist fascism, and I see nothing that would irrevocably prevent every culture from developing that trait in the future.