tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post2364823023240089298..comments2024-03-05T21:05:36.848-05:00Comments on CommentaramaFilms: Politics of Trek: “This Side of Paradise”AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-23936951975303230962012-04-16T16:09:15.313-04:002012-04-16T16:09:15.313-04:00Ben, Very insightful! Humans are meant to struggl...Ben, Very insightful! Humans are meant to struggle because it's the journey we enjoy. Having something is fine, but obtaining something is much better. We rot when all we do is sit around with nothing to do. Human nature just isn't made for that.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-25379449347424520772012-04-15T22:46:43.480-04:002012-04-15T22:46:43.480-04:00Outstanding review Andrew!
I would even go furthe...Outstanding review Andrew!<br /><br />I would even go further and say man is meant or destined to surpass himself or herself.<br /><br />Even if one is wealthy and has met all physical needs and wants their is still mental and spiritual needs and wants that money cannot take care of.<br />Many wealthy folks are downright miserable and we see many lottery winners who eventually wish they never had won.<br /><br />If one can't find happiness and be grateful for what one has despite their financial situation no amount of money will make them happy or grateful.<br /><br />In a shallow sense, money can give some transient joy but it will never last.<br /><br />One finds joy in the journey and the sense of purpose of their journey, not in the end of their journey.<br /><br />Some might wonder then: what is Heaven then?<br /><br />Well, if heaven is better than we can possibly imagine as Jesus said, then it can't possibly be some place where everyone is just sitting around all the time without any sense of purpose.<br /><br />Just because many folks imagine that is what paradise really is doesn't make it so and if we can imagine that it can't be heaven because again, heaven is better than what we can imagine which makes sense to me.<br /><br />It's not like we suddenly cease being human.<br />I only offer that up for those who believe in it.<br />For those who don't, a free market and liberty will hafta be enough. <br /><br />BTW that's not a knock at agnostics or atheists.<br />God promotes liberty afterall. :^)<br /><br />However, this discussion is interesting and deep enough without going into metaphysics. I just thought I would throw that in for consideration.<br /><br />Why do some of us wanna be free but others do not? <br />Why are those who prefer a nanny state never happy and never realize why (for the most part)?<br /><br />Is it possible for some folks to be happy if all their perceived needs and wants are met?<br />Maybe. But they would no longer be human.USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-85579108102267123632012-04-07T20:16:37.826-04:002012-04-07T20:16:37.826-04:00UCC, There will always be some form of money, no m...UCC, There will always be some form of money, no matter what the utopians want to believe.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-74946582102402695062012-04-07T18:09:28.129-04:002012-04-07T18:09:28.129-04:00There may be no money but there will always be cur...There may be no money but there will always be currency. People do not work for free.GeronLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13145189615256636055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-90928055746821733172012-04-03T14:29:12.651-04:002012-04-03T14:29:12.651-04:00Luckdragon, yeah, it could just be a TV show. :(
...Luckdragon, yeah, it could just be a TV show. :(<br /><br />You're welcome, thanks for the comments! I too hope that people do change over time and become more noble. We've come a long way already and I'm sure there's more coming. So I wouldn't rule it out!AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-65411258840455725032012-04-03T14:25:30.539-04:002012-04-03T14:25:30.539-04:00I guess people will always be people. I am hopeful...I guess people will always be people. I am hopeful that technological achievement may alleviate some of society’s ills. Who can say for sure?<br /><br />On the other hand, this could all be for naught. It may just be a TV show.<br /><br />Thanks for the exchange.Luckdragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10220357672894759792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-61110741411807037952012-04-03T13:09:31.334-04:002012-04-03T13:09:31.334-04:00Luckdragon, I have always understood that the idea...Luckdragon, I have always understood that the idea behind the TNG universe was that the federation has done away with money. I believe they even say that in two episodes. But other races still use money. I just don't see that as possible though so long as scarce items remain.<br /><br />You are correct though, that in a replicator world, people's needs could all be take care of. But there would still be scarcity of certain things and that is where money would come be necessary -- or barter, which is the same thing only with high transaction costs.<br /><br />In terms of people continuing to work, I hate to say this but human experience says otherwise. SOME will continue to work because they need a sense of purpose, i.e. they feel compelled to create. Others turn hedonist and are content to exist and be entertained, as we saw in Ancient Rome and in today's welfare cultures. And others turn malicious because they lack the internal nobility that makes them want to "build" and they are just as happy destroying. So what you would find would be a real mixed bag in a world where people no longer need to work to obtain the things they want.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-42680611825189722222012-04-03T10:56:47.315-04:002012-04-03T10:56:47.315-04:00Your points are well taken. I would point out that...Your points are well taken. I would point out that references to money, federation credits, and gold-pressed latinum as symbols of wealth and means of exchanges are found throughout the ST universe. If I understand Picard's statement in TNG: First Contact accurately, he was making a case that pursuit of money is not a primary concern, at least for Star Fleet officers. I was not suggesting that life in the 24th century did not preclude the need for money as a means of exchange. <br /><br />Putting aside the scientific validity of replicators, I do make the point that technological advancements such as this would enable all to have relatively equal access to material needs such as food, clothing, medicine, etc. In other words, the trappings of poverty would have been eliminated through technological advancement without the need to have authoritarian redistributionist policies.<br /><br />You mentioned people not working. I would counter that humans in general need a sense of purpose. Relieved of the need to work meaningless jobs to provide for basic needs, they could pursue their heart’s desire. I am sure that people in the 24th century would aspire to be chefs, painters, horticulturalist, craftsmen, daredevils, or the action-packed life of being a Starfleet officer. In the TNG episode “Family” we meet Picard’s brother who makes a living by following his passion for wine-making. So even with replicators, people no doubt still prefer a fine vintage wine made with centuries-old techniques. I would hope that fine premium cigars are still made and enjoyed in the 24th century. Not to mention some good beer and single malt scotch.<br /><br />As for manufacturing, I have not seen or heard of replicators being used to “create” starships and starbases. I am sure that a replicator could make a great steak dinner, a glass of Earl Grey or Klingon Rokeg blood pie, but not a Sovereign class starship. Manufacturing is certainly a major part of the economy of the 24th century. We can only imagine the effort, money and resources that go into building, maintaining and manning the Starfleet vessels that protect the Federation.<br /><br />Perhaps, someone with lots of free time could dive into the ST universe to determine the political and financial structure of the Federation with an emphasis on the taxation schemes that member planets are subject to; in order for the Federation to function and provide services to its citizens.Luckdragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10220357672894759792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-51796249487229726282012-04-02T12:12:04.171-04:002012-04-02T12:12:04.171-04:00Luckdragon, You raise some interesting issues, but...Luckdragon, You raise some interesting issues, but I don't think the pursuit of money will ever disappear.<br /><br />First, several points on the issue of replicators. I don't think Kirk's people have replicators. Even in the 1960s we already knew how to make gold, diamonds, etc., it just takes too much energy to be worthwhile (though we do already make industrial diamonds). I always took that statement as proof that Kirk's federation had come up with a better method for making these kinds of things, but I never saw that as them having replicators because you never see or hear them replicate anything. To the contrary, they mention manufacture several times. Also, they do still have money as they constantly mention "credits." So I think the non-money, everybody-just-replicates-stuff world didn't exist until TNG.<br /><br />If we ever do develop a genuine replicator, that will be a seismic shift for humanity because it will destroy manufacturing entirely, which will shift us to a services based economy -- a very small services based economy at that because most services are about delivering manufactured goods. So really all you would have left would be services like lawn care, maids, mechanics, healthcare, lawyers, dining-out experiences, etc. -- things that can't be shipped to you. I suspect the economic disruption would be massive.<br /><br />That said, the concept of the replicator doesn't make scientific sense because of the principle of preservation of matter. They are creating something from nothing and that's a problem. So there still must be something on the other side of that equation and if they solve that, my guess is that is where the economy will focus.<br /><br />In any event, even if we assume replicators do come to exist and are widely available, I still don't think that will wipe out money because money is simply a means of exchange. And there will always be things people want to exchange -- things which can't be replicated, e.g. land, houses, historical treasures, personal services, etc.<br /><br />So all in all, while I agree there would be a huge shift in the economy making it possible for more people to not work, you would still have a need for money to exchange scarce resources.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-27725166917180250152012-04-02T11:34:08.234-04:002012-04-02T11:34:08.234-04:00After reading the article and skimming over the co...After reading the article and skimming over the comments, I want to discuss the possible impact that technological improvements may have on the age-old arguments between capitalism and collectivism. As a fan of the TOS and TNG I have seen a lot of subtle political messages regarding several issues. With regard to economic systems, I must point out that in the TNG world; we see a technological solution to the problem of satisfying a person’s material needs, replicators. <br /><br />In the show, we see replicators turning energy into forms of matter to be used and/or consumed. Whether it be food, teddy bears or Picard’s favorite “Earl Grey Tea – Hot.” We also see this in TOS. In the TOS episode “Catspaw”, Kirk and his crew are tempted with bowls full of diamonds, rubies and emeralds, as a bribe. Yet Kirk dismisses them as common, stating that they can manufacture tons of them on the Enterprise. Korob seems surprised that these precious gems hold no value to Kirk and his crew. As long as energy is available, anyone can obtain from a replicator anything one may desire. So what value is there in something that is no longer, scarce (for lack of a better term?)<br /><br />We can assume that in the 24th century, fusion and matter/anti-matter reactors supply the energy needs not only for starships but for cities, towns and individual homes. The incredible efficiency of these power sources are such, that the costs are negligible for all 24th century consumers. I would also have to assume that replicators are as common to all as microwave ovens are today. Based on these assumptions, and I have not seen anything to dismiss these assumptions in TOS or TNG, it is quite likely that cheap energy and inexpensive access to replicators, enable all in the 24th century to enjoy the best of what life offers in a material sense, regardless of income or social status.<br /><br />In the movie “Star Trek: First Contact” Picard answers when asked whether Star Fleet Officers are paid, that 24th century economics are different and that the pursuit of money is no longer paramount in people’s lives. <br /><br />In other words, if technological advancement means all have access to everything, then the pursuit of money, becomes secondary, if not dismissed altogether. If you consider this, then perhaps the ancient struggle between capitalism and collectivism becomes outdated with little relevance to life in the 24th century.Luckdragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10220357672894759792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-27493990678614697252012-03-27T22:25:26.184-04:002012-03-27T22:25:26.184-04:00Patriot, I haven't actually compared the two, ...Patriot, I haven't actually compared the two, but it would be a good idea for the future. Whedon clearly opposes big government. I've never stopped to consider how he interprets that or how much further he goes. I should do that. :)AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-14622224011338433562012-03-27T21:49:45.672-04:002012-03-27T21:49:45.672-04:00Andrew, have you devoted some thought to comparing...Andrew, have you devoted some thought to comparing Joss Whedons point of view about the space future with Roddenberrys? Firefly and Star Trek would make a fascinating universe to imagine versus the many liberal leaning universes that Hollywood has created over the years.<br /><br />To get these two series out there, albeit for way too short of a run, must have been challenging. Would be interesting to hear how Hollywood viewed Whedon and his libertarian view of the space worlds.Patriothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01533169053860540075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-84488230521111511112012-03-27T21:40:11.193-04:002012-03-27T21:40:11.193-04:00Thanks Patriot! I hope people can enjoy this seri...Thanks Patriot! I hope people can enjoy this series of articles even if they aren't Trekkies because of the breakdown of conservative v. liberal and seeing how it is conveyed through a storyline or dialog. <i>Star Trek</i> in particular is good for this because it is trying to convey a series of lessons related to morality and politics. There are several other shows like this, but the vast majority of shows are in fact without any particular philosophical underpinnings.<br /><br />And hopefully, before this series is over, everyone will have a better sense of the ways politics are inserted into films and television so they can better assess what they are seeing. One of the things that troubled me when BH got it's start -- and why I wanted to create this blog -- was the number of conservatives who really couldn't tell the difference between a conservative and a liberal show and would seem to almost randomly attack or defend shows. If we're going to take the politics back out of Hollywood, then we need to be able to identify it and understand what is really be presented.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-17741552879055572342012-03-27T21:29:31.336-04:002012-03-27T21:29:31.336-04:00That age old desire to "achieve" somethi...That age old desire to "achieve" something, huh Andrew? <br /><br />While not a Trekkie, I enjoy your insightful analysis of these episodes. To be honest, I never really looked that deep into any TV episode. To me it was always "entertainment" and nothing more. I do enjoy the interplay of the ancient battle between "conservative" thought and "liberal" thought. I believe this battle in humans has been going on since we lived in caves. There we probably cave teenagers who didn't want to go out and forage or hunt for food, and others who wanted to amass a hoard for lean times. Fascinating.......as our friend Spock would say.<br /><br />Keep the good work coming!Patriothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01533169053860540075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-52540289152148992322012-03-27T21:07:01.699-04:002012-03-27T21:07:01.699-04:00tryanmax, That's a valid criticism. It's ...tryanmax, That's a valid criticism. It's the old "show don't tell" idea. In the prior episodes, you see conservatism in action and conservative solutions at the heart of solving the problem. In this one, you are simply told "this is the answer." It doesn't make it any less conservative, but it doesn't make as clear/strong a point as the prior ones.<br /><br />I like the idea of giving a warning. Let me see what I can do about that. Things have been a bit busy lately which is why these have been rather sporadic.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-6173466415025775392012-03-27T20:58:24.294-04:002012-03-27T20:58:24.294-04:00Andrew, fair enough. The crux is that the conserva...Andrew, fair enough. The crux is that the conservative message is there, rather than leaving it as <i>TNG</i> by declaring the two philosophies equal and "who are we to decide which is better?" Still, the episode lacks impact compared to the others you've reviewed so far. I think it comes down to this script simply declaring certain things to be true rather than proving them so. <br /><br />Suggestion box: What if you named the next episode to be reviewed at the end of the article? Then those of us who are able can brush up before the post. I got lucky happening to see "Paradise Lost" a couple weeks ago, but it really helps to understand the article having the episode fresh in mind.tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-28445103139699726402012-03-27T20:07:20.240-04:002012-03-27T20:07:20.240-04:00Scott, It seems to be a universal truism (and very...Scott, It seems to be a universal truism (and very fitting in light of this episode) that the less people need to struggle against, the lower the quality of their work. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if the problem with TNG was that Roddenberry spent 20 years coming to think of himself as a genius and holding a grudge against the NBC execs, and so when it came time to make TNG, he tried to make a statement rather than making a good show.<br /><br />Indeed, from what I've read, half the rules he created are nonsense and make storytelling impossible, yet no one seems to have been able to tell him "no."AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-61691487202308769582012-03-27T19:59:22.643-04:002012-03-27T19:59:22.643-04:00Max, True, and I'm only guessing as to which p...Max, True, and I'm only guessing as to which parts of TOS are Roddenberry and which parts are network. It's possible that much of what we're seeing here is pure network influence. All I can really go with is the assumption that what we see in both instances is mostly Roddenberry.<br /><br />Also, I do know that liberalism has changed dramatically over the years. In the 1960s, it was much closer to modern conservatism. Even in the 1980s, only the fringe was anti-American, racially/ethnically tribal, and hateful of business. But today, so much of what was their fringe has become their mainstream. Even if you look at Bill Clinton and his version and compare that to Obama and his version, it's like two very different ideologies. And I've seen this evolution in person as well with liberals I've known my whole life -- and they don't actually think they've changed even though I can prove it to them.<br /><br />That's why I suspect that the real issue is that Roddenberry just changed over the years and has never thought back on what he was before.<br /><br />But like I said, this is just an educated guess about Roddenberry -- I have no specific knowledge about him. And for the purposes of our series here, what ultimately matters isn't really what these folks actually believed but what ended up coming across on screen.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-61703258526351237022012-03-27T19:18:47.309-04:002012-03-27T19:18:47.309-04:00I've said it before but by the time he did TNG...I've said it before but by the time he did <i>TNG</i>, Roddenberry had started to believe his own hype. He spent the 70s doing the convention circuit and college tours and people began to see him as this grand prophet. On <i>TNG</i>, I imagine he finally had the opportunity to do some things he'd wanted to do on the original series.<br /><br />It's telling that the writers' room on the first two years of <i>TNG</i> was a revolving door since several writers had issues with Roddenbery. Even later writers like Ron Moore and Ira Behr had issues with Roddenberry's "Humanity is perfect" rule. No wonder they introduced more alien characters on <i>DS9</i>. If Starfleet officers were perfect, then what better way to introduce conflict than to have non-Starfleet characters?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-72255772812976545892012-03-27T18:56:57.999-04:002012-03-27T18:56:57.999-04:00Andrew I'm not sure I would agree with the you...Andrew I'm not sure I would agree with the young Rod and old. If you look at one of his projects not long after ST there is definitely a utopian idealism there. Shows like Genesis 2/Planet Earth(the PAX). <br />I do agree with the ego part, having people tell you how wonderful you are for a decade or so will have a effect. <br />One other thing about Roddenberry, he came off a bit resentful of NBC. Not unlike how Lucas sounded. <br /><br />Perhaps your analogy Andrew might be quite appropriate. What we don't know if there was a Lucas thing going on there. All of those around him made the show what it was. He took the money and the credit.Commander Maxhttp://www.the-grey-ghost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-19803919535828877022012-03-27T18:07:14.079-04:002012-03-27T18:07:14.079-04:00That's true, it would have made the story stro...That's true, it would have made the story stronger if it had been McCoy. But don't forget, the real payout of the episode is the moment when Sandoval snaps out of the spore-induced state of happiness, looks around, and says, "we've achieved nothing."<br /><br />There's where the writer concentrated the moral. Kirk simply provides the reasoning behind why Sandoval would make that discovery and the power to let him "see" the truth. It's Sandoval who actually discovers the punch by seeing the truth.<br /><br />In effect, it's the equivalent of Karl Marx saying, "wow, looking back on this... we really blew it."AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-67634303899275909142012-03-27T18:00:25.797-04:002012-03-27T18:00:25.797-04:00I cede that I may have misinterpreted the point, b...I cede that I may have misinterpreted the point, but I still take issue with a weak argument. <br /><br />As the sole man who is able to overcome the temptations of a false paradise, Kirk is obvious. In the context of <i>Star Trek</i>, it is a weak but forgivable choice. However, the only other character to affirmatively reject "paradise" is Spock. This is also weak because we fully expect this from the logical one. True, he had the romantic subplot and stood to lose something, but we already know that Spock will embrace the logical choice.<br /><br />The stronger repudiation of "paradise" would have come from Bones. He is, after all, the ship's resident utopianist. He only finds discontent in paradise <i>after</i> the device which counters the spores is activated. If this had come before, it would have been much more powerful. Indeed, his argument is excellent! He <i>is</i> a doctor, nothing else, and no one can make him otherwise. BTW, I love this exchange:<br /><br /><b>ELIAS:</b> Well, Doctor, I've been thinking about what sort of work I could assign you to.<br /><b>MCCOY:</b> What do you mean, what sort of work? I'm a doctor.<br /><b>ELIAS:</b> Not any more, of course. We don't need you. Not as a doctor.<br /><b>MCCOY:</b> Oh, no? Would you like to see how fast I can put you in a hospital?<br /><br />Yes, after consideration, the script needs less retooling than I originally proposed. If it were McCoy who shook off the effects of the spore first and then launched the verbal assault on Spock, it would have strengthened the message of the show and a little fun could have been as McCoy relishes insulting Spock a little "for his own good!"tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-47284584727986078952012-03-27T17:25:45.645-04:002012-03-27T17:25:45.645-04:00tryanmax, This episode isn't meant to debunk c...tryanmax, This episode isn't meant to debunk communism or the idea of a drug-topia, it's a statement that those things are bad for the human spirit. I see that as a much stronger conservative statement than the idea that "communism doesn't work in practice and here's why." I see that as a declaration that communism goes against the human soul.<br /><br />What Kirk and the writers are saying here is that even if communism worked and didn't fall apart, and even if people are told they will be happy as a result... they won't be genuinely satisfied because the essence of the human spirit is self-interested, personal achievement, i.e. ambition.<br /><br />Setting this unique world up as one where communism does work and where drugs have no negative consequences doesn't concede that communism can work or that drugs are good, to the contrary it wipes out the evasive argument by liberals that "well, you're just saying communism can't work, but it can and you just don't see how it does work." This episode concedes, "ok, let's assume it can work" and then it tears into why it's bad even if it could work. That's not a concession, that gets over the defensive-hurdle liberals always use to avoid looking at the flaws of the system.<br /><br />In terms of saying that some people like slacking, that's true, BUT... for one thing, even slackers eventually decide they want more, i.e. they eventually realize that slacking is a dead end. Indeed, there are very few people who have ever been satisfied just existing day after day. And two, even if there are many such people, the problem still remains that it's wrong to force everyone into that mold. In other words, while some people many just want to slack, the rest of us don't and WE are the ones who count because we are the ones who drive humanity. So creating a world that might be a slacker paradise and forcing everyone into it is not paradise, it's dystopia. And the message here is that if you want to be a worthwhile human being, then this is not for you.<br /><br />So while I agree that the episode could have been a stronger repudiation of communism from a fact-based/technical perspective, I don't think that was the point. The point here was to declare that conservative beliefs -- individual freedom -- are essential for the human spirit to thrive.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-90283080109298577712012-03-27T17:06:12.812-04:002012-03-27T17:06:12.812-04:00Max, I think that's very true. I can't co...Max, I think that's very true. I can't count the number of times where a creator/producer/director was "held back" by a studio or a writer by an editor, and the result was fantastic. But once the creative person got enough fame that they could move beyond the oppressor, they started turning out confused and self-indulgent garbage. Look at Lucas... and Roddenberry.<br /><br />I think the writer here (and many throughout the series) was incredibly clever! Not only has the writer woven in contemporary themes, but they've done it in a way which no one can get upset about because it's not heavy-handed. In other words, when you see modern liberal writers go after some conservative idea, it's so heavy-handed and so biased that you just shake your head and get angry or change the channel. But these stories are so wonderfully subtle that you can watch this no matter who you are and take it at face value without ever feeling like you're being attacked. And that lets you grasp their moral without feeling defensive. That's brilliant.<br /><br />Moreover, the dialog is truly special. They have packed entire philosophical theories into one and two lines. Imagine asking someone to explain what's wrong with communism in 3 lines of dialog, with none to exceed 20 words! That's one heck of a challenge and they did it week after week in this show. It's truly amazing when you start looking at it.<br /><br />On Roddenberry, by the way, I suspect that Roddenberry evolved over time, like much of liberalism. Even in the past 20-30 years I've seen liberalism shift dramatically on issue after issue and be just as strident at both ends of the spectrum. I suspect that what we see in TOS is was what Roddenberry believed was good liberalism at the time and it is his views which changed before he wrote TNG.<br /><br />And I'll bet you the young Roddenberry would have looked at the older Roddenberry as a fool and the older one would look at the young one as a fascist-capitalist tool.... and the real Roddenberry probably never realized that his views changed very much.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-48320601911341037672012-03-27T16:56:02.544-04:002012-03-27T16:56:02.544-04:00I remember watching this episode a few weeks ago a...I remember watching this episode a few weeks ago and thinking, "I wonder what Andrew would say?" mainly because I was having trouble finding the conservative angle. The repudiation of drugs and communism is obvious, and the ultimate argument is in favor of conservative values and free will. But the argument is weak. The root of liberalism is the fantasy belief that things which don’t work could if just executed in the right way. By creating a fictional environment where communism and illicit drug use actually work, the writers put the two philosophies on equal footing and actually undermine the conservative message. <br /><br />“Human nature” is given as the reason to reject the paradise of Omicron Ceti Three, but even that doesn’t ring true. Listlessness is as much a part of human nature as is the pursuit of progress. Yes, the colonists set out to cultivate the planet and instead achieved nothing, but it appears to be without consequence: a choice that could have been decided either way. It is false to assert that the nature of man is in any way singular. By making such a declaration, this episode sidesteps any objective determination of the better side of human duality. <br /><br />Kirk is, of course, righteous in freeing the colonists and the crew from unwitting bondage to a euphoria inducing plant. Yet no case is made against returning to Omicron Ceti Three with foreknowledge of the “happy spores.” The better argument in favor of conservatism is that it simply works in all times and in all places, no experts or special circumstances required. <br /><br />The episode might have served the conservative theme better if it explored the broader ramifications of a singular place where communism appears to “work.” If knowledge of Omicron Ceti Three were spread, what happens then? Would it become overrun with those willing to exchange free will for bliss? Might it invite invasion? Would colonists lift a finger to protect their planet? Ultimately, it should become obvious that, even in pockets, communism still doesn’t work.tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.com