4 ms·

Mh, personally I see far more fantasy production, distopic future fictions than science fictions ones... And I agree that they represent actual society trends s

by xte 8y ago

Mh, personally I see far more fantasy production, distopic future fictions than science fictions ones... And I agree that they represent actual society trends since artist in general foresee the future far more than any other... And if we dig deeper even science fiction like Star Trek represent their "originating" society, for instance while ST clearly represent an "international" future they represent it as USA-style-centric vision, that's is the starfleet. The same they represent a not-really-free society because yes there is no need to work and anybody seems to be happy, but anything goes around "starfleet" or around a military apparatus, not a democracy.

dtx1 8y ago
> The same they represent a not-really-free society because yes there is no need to work and anybody seems to be happy, but anything goes around "starfleet" or around a military apparatus, not a democracy. Well the societies are free by our modern, humanist standards. Just one of many examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdXTohdKcm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdXTohdKcm4 The whole "everything goes around starfleet/military" is basically just bad writing, but very much against what the future of star trek wants to project.
- xte 8y ago
  The fact that "starfleet" is actually a military force, while anywhere we hear that it's task is exploration not war IMO demonstrate that. Essentially entire "United federation" society seems to turn around starfleet. Only veeeery few times I here thing about democracy like elections or political charges (that in general came out when in trouble and need military protection or doing something wrong and need to be stopped)... Do you really see freedom in a hierarchy? Yes, characters seems to be free, but basic of ST society is all but a military dictatorship not a democracy, so they are the USA that formally have elections and are a democracy but in practice they have a corporatocracy that use money, media power to steer the society and single citizen have a very little weight... Consider only the real purpose of many aspect of electoral system across the western world. The most "democratic" was the Swiss one, followed by modern German one, only because of nazi fear I think, classic Italian one was in a similar shape before actual series of reform, French the same before recent ('90s era) transformations. Why for instance have "primary elections"? Why not say simple "anyone who collect around 0.1% of voter's signature can be a candidate and all of them will go to the final election? Why not having a sovereign parliament without any "majority prize" etc and a nominated government that have to face the parliament without any veto power? Few country have or have had it and they was or they are well and powerful.

by xte 8y ago

dtx1 8y ago

> The same they represent a not-really-free society because yes there is no need to work and anybody seems to be happy, but anything goes around "starfleet" or around a military apparatus, not a democracy. Well the societies are free by our modern, humanist standards. Just one of many examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdXTohdKcm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdXTohdKcm4 The whole "everything goes around starfleet/military" is basically just bad writing, but very much against what the future of star trek wants to project.

xte 8y ago
The fact that "starfleet" is actually a military force, while anywhere we hear that it's task is exploration not war IMO demonstrate that. Essentially entire "United federation" society seems to turn around starfleet. Only veeeery few times I here thing about democracy like elections or political charges (that in general came out when in trouble and need military protection or doing something wrong and need to be stopped)... Do you really see freedom in a hierarchy? Yes, characters seems to be free, but basic of ST society is all but a military dictatorship not a democracy, so they are the USA that formally have elections and are a democracy but in practice they have a corporatocracy that use money, media power to steer the society and single citizen have a very little weight... Consider only the real purpose of many aspect of electoral system across the western world. The most "democratic" was the Swiss one, followed by modern German one, only because of nazi fear I think, classic Italian one was in a similar shape before actual series of reform, French the same before recent ('90s era) transformations. Why for instance have "primary elections"? Why not say simple "anyone who collect around 0.1% of voter's signature can be a candidate and all of them will go to the final election? Why not having a sovereign parliament without any "majority prize" etc and a nominated government that have to face the parliament without any veto power? Few country have or have had it and they was or they are well and powerful.