Abandoning Earth : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
||||
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13 |
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
1) One might imagine their perspective to assume survival of the species (and the long history tied to it) to be more important than doing that justly. How to reflect on/react to that is an interesting problem
2) If we can't make social progress before then, space might not be very effective at preserving humanity.
3) I don't know if Roddenberry assumed the change would be "magical" so much as that it would happen. One possible view (that I don't *entirely* agree with) is that societal advancement is inevitable and that we'll get there, disempowering those who would enslave us eventually. Does Roddenberry portray it as an easy transition? Does he portray it at all? I don't consider him much of a political philosopher, and can't think of many instances where he's talked much about political theory, but if his work is portrayed as a looming future reality, we probably should ask the people who do so "How?", rather than fault him as a writer who might not be so interested in that. It may be that the casting of Uhura was a small step of activism, but activism is only a baby step towards becoming a statesman.
Incidentally, allow me to recommend Ken MacLeod's Fall Revolution series. The first book is close to cyberpunk, and his later book "Cassini Division" is closer to hard sci-fi, but both of them have a deep political edge to them that I think presents a future that acknowledges human nature and politics.
(no subject)
2) Effectiveness of space preserving humanity without more social progress: This seems to be one idea explored by the current Battlestar Galactica series. I figure that human nature is unlikely to change no matter how much the technology does, and sending populations into space sends the sociopolitical problems along too. How these things hurt the chances for survival, however, is hard to predict.
3) At least in the Brannon Braga era the canonical Star Trek view seems to be that contact with the Vulcans made humanity somehow come together as one and solve everything. Actually I think Roddenberry himself was more interested in using futuristic settings to comment on current social issues, rather than truly attempting to posit a potential or desirable future. So maybe I should be slamming Braga more than Roddenberry.
Come to think of it, Roddenberry's Andromeda series may have taken a more realistic view of what might happen with Earth in a post-space-colonization future.
(no subject)
I dunno. I thought that was more "The Magog are coming to eat you!" ;-)
Andromeda
Re: Andromeda
Re: Andromeda
Re: Andromeda
Re: Andromeda
(no subject)
In Next Generation and Deep Space 9, references were made to things getting pretty terrible on Earth during the 21st century, causing humanity to say, "We're not going to survive unless we radically reform our society." So they abolished war, money, and genetic engineering, and once they got their act together, the Vulcans said, "Hey, you might grow up to be a pretty cool planet," came to visit and gave Earth space travel. But there was a harsh transition period for a couple of centuries.
Of course, I have no idea what Enterprise did with the history.