Politics based on Star Trek?

Your view, IMO, is more philosophical than real world. I maintain my view that it would be nearly impossible (notice I didn't say completely impossible) for all, or at the very least a largest enough majority to make it work, of the people on Earth to unite for the common good of humankind. Not everyone would get an equal (using the term loosely) share in the benefits, and some would want more, even those who did receive their fair (again loosely) share.

 

@Chris Noyb , I am talking about world wide socialism. In regards to food, health care, and a profound ability to sacrifice ones self for another. Education equal and attainable to all whom desire it. As the character of human nature we will destroy each other to be number one. If the time ever came every alien and earthen nation would attempt domination to avoid slavery.

 

But, I think the way that Star Trek posits it happening is that there was a large global world war with millions or billions of dead, but the technological level is still very high afterwards. And when resources aren't scarse, utopian socialism can happen. If they let the scientists, military and engineers rebuild the civilization and leadership, so instead of arguing over greed and money, they try to figure out how to solve the problems instead. With cheap fusion energy and anti-matter - matter reactions, their day to day issues wouldn't be the same as what we have now.
The Colossus of Rhodey: Star Trek as socialist utopia

 

Ah okay, I concede that it may be improbable that an existential threat will unite humankind, at least in the near future. Artificial intelligence may be the most likely cause of this as well, should it occur. A 2014 survey of 29 of the top 100 most-cited AI researchers gives a median estimate of a 50% chance of developing high-level machine intelligence by 2050, a 90% chance by 2070, and an 8% chance of it causing an existential catastrophe. That's pretty high considering that estimated probabilities of other catastrophic risks such as world war and infectious pandemic are generally less than 5%.

Distribution of wealth is a question independent from that of political unity. Rationing or equally distributing goods and services is irrelevant in the Star Trek universe, where clean energy is available in abundance from nuclear fusion and matter-antimatter reactors, the means of production have been completely automated using "replicators" by the time TNG takes place, and "replicated" goods are freely and easily distributed such that supply vastly outstrips demand for virtually every commodity. But none of this would be necessary to unite the human population. The European Union already acts much in the way that Star Trek's Federation does, as a group of autonomous states united under a single economy and supranational government.

That's right. Additionally, the Vulcans made first contact in advance of the Federation's founding, which presumably contributed to human unity as well.

I agree with the arguments made in the article you linked. It backs up several of the points I made just now before reading it and also some others I previously expressed in this thread.

 

I was actually responding to wye, I should've been clear. I agree with you ^. Even in a situation where everybody on Earth had to start basically from scratch, there would be those who felt the need, and would claim the right, to be superior. Combine that with a strong leader telling those people what they want to hear, and you have unification problems.

 

As social animals our ethics are in part wired in our genes and influenced by our society. There is a level though where society can't really penetrate. Sociopaths for example. They can be highly successful because they see others are tools to be used and no amount of education will stop that as they lack certain innate levels of empathy, basically its genetic. In small numbers they can succeed, when they become too many, they have issues. Its part of game theory and evolution. And thats just sociopaths. Much of our core is very genetic. I see this more now that I have children, even though I knew it academically. My son has much of my good and bad traits, the kind of traits you that are not taught or learned by observation. He has the same issues I had in school, and the same genetic advantages as well.

Really for a true, lasting cooperative to work, it would require eugenics, and selection for traits that favored working in the group rather than for oneself. I'm not sure if thats actually for the best. Some of the greatest achievements can be tied people working out ego and greed more than altruism.

 

Something like bees?

 

I'm not sure what kind of society mind control technology will be created in the next few centuries. But I could see a new nation adopting the Star Trek type of economy and leadership structure and saying, either you can join us or go live on your own on the fringes. If you join the Star Fleet system, you basically volunteer and accept the utopian socialism lifestyle model. You won't be able to get wildly rich, but it's a pretty good life of exploration, scientific research, and technology.

 

The meta-analysis you've linked found that 56% of the variance in the attitudes and behaviors (either antisocial, externalizing, or violent) reported in 53 studies can be attributed to genetic factors and 42% to non-genetic factors. It's an etiological study that assesses predictors for variation in attitudes and behaviors. It doesn't make any conclusions about clinical efficacy or effectiveness of interventions to treat conditions related to those attitudes and behaviors.

Contrary to the claim you've made about ostensible behavioral rigidity engendered by a sociopath's genotype, the author states that genetic predictors are associated not with a single behavioral response regardless of the stimuli but rather with a range of responses dependent on environmental conditions. This is consistent with the evolutionary reasoning that a naturally selected gene would allow for situational adaptation in response to diverse selective pressures.

I'm not clear on the goal whose conditions you're arguing here. What do you mean by a "true" cooperative? My arguments concern a goal of political unity where all nations at least consider themselves allies and at most are incorporated under a supranational government. These things have been regionally achieved by NATO and the EU, and I certainly don't think that eugenics would be necessary to achieve it worldwide.

Finally, your closing argument seems to assume that great achievements made with selfish motives could not be made otherwise with altruistic motives. I think this would be a very difficult hypothesis to test.

 

Back when I was on TFP 1.0 I'd have said yes. In fact I may have in another thread it sounds familiar. Since then I've come to realize I was mistaken though. Social insects like bees and ants are not naturally socialist, they are really a form of genetic slavery. The whole society works only for the reproduction of the queen and the pay off is that 1/2 the workers genes are in the queen. It would be like if your mother kept having kids and all you did was help her raise them and then kept her having kids. There is no concept of self so there can be no self interest. If humanity were to adopt sort of life (I read a short book on it once, Heldrom's Hive or something like that), humanity would be no longer human in any meaningful way.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 13, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 13, 2017 ---

And homosexuality is only 50% linked, sociopath is greater linked to genetics than homosexuality. Are you saying homosexuality is a choice that can be educated out of people?

 

No, I'm saying that the degree to which genetic factors predict the variance in a trait across a population is not a measure of how an individual's expression of that trait might change in response to non-genetic influences, whether biological, environmental, or social. That goes for antisocial behaviors as well as for sexual orientation.

As I am unaware of any research that has quantified comprehensive genetic influence on variance in sexual orientation, could you please link your source that identifies a 50% genetic influence for a given population?