ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Would you dedicate your political activity to creating a real future like STAR TREK?

padracin

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 325

Report this Apr. 22 2012, 6:45 pm

Somebody please!!! get the 'quote' function working again! 


 


In response to the poster who said the the "green religion" has to be abandoned for us to be a multi-planet species I recommend the Red/Blue/Green Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson.


 


Not for you BamBam......don't think you'd like them.......

Vicsage

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 465

Report this Apr. 22 2012, 8:23 pm

It's not just a TV show.  Its a bunch of movies, comics, and novels also.  And action figures and role playing games and video games.  It's SO MUCH more than a TV show. 

EllisWyatt

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 22

Report this Apr. 23 2012, 2:23 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Apr. 22 2012, 5:05 pm

>"Concerning Henrick[sic] Svensmark's dubious claims:"

>"Dubious" - because caltrek2 says so?  Ah.

>
 

>"Unfortunately for the 'sunspots and cosmic rays, not humans, cause global warming' crowd, British scientists have just blown their claims out of the water. The BBC News website has the story:"

>Ah, the BBC.  That venerable scientific institution.  We could just take the petulant juvenile tone of the above quote from it as an indicator (I'm surprised the phrase "neener-neener-neener" doesn't figure prominently in the article,) but...  A leftwing news source, in an article that predates the Climategate fraud revelations of November 2009 by a full year-and-a-half, quotes the opinions of two leftwing "scientists" willing to further prostitute their credentials to politics who... end up flopping onto: "the IPCC got it right." 

The same IPCC which, a year and a half later, found itself smack at the center of the East Anglia University "Climategate" scandal and attempted coverup - in which climate data were manipulated, falsified, "massaged" and, where they conflicted with the Party Line, blithely omitted - to bolster the illusion of scientific validity for a preconceived 'Crisis," driven, in reverse, by a lucrative international industry organized around the Marxian ideological imperative of imposing controls on human activity on a massive, worldwide scale.  That IPCC.

>"What will it take to convince the skeptics?"


The slightest shred of objective science would be a good place to start, shorn of comically-transparent political motives and creepy denunciatory religious lingo such as "skeptics" and "deniers" and "heretics" and "infidels" and the rest of the epithets on sacrelige and apostasy we're hearing from you frothing faith-based emotionalists.  All of this bitter hostility to any of the multitudes who question the dogmatic and self-designated "consensus," to those who demand proof of a positive proposition, while having presented overwhelming negative evidence despite the latter's not being logically required - is unprecedented and utterly alien to the conduct of valid scientific research.

>Again, as the late author Michael Crichton said in his "Aliens Cause Global Warming" speech at Caltech in January of 2003, 
 
"Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . ."

>

voyagersborg47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 150

Report this Apr. 23 2012, 3:52 am

I'm not taking political sides, but I would definitely be able to live with the Federation. Regardless of the amount of control the government would have (it seems to be a lot), the Federation is obviously capable of eliminating much of our fallacies, from hunger to material want. I guess that's because Gene Roddenbarry designed it to be a utopian society.


"It's a primitive culture." -Counselor Troi

EllisWyatt

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 22

Report this Apr. 23 2012, 7:44 am

VB47, I definitely take political sides, and I would argue the contrary - that Roddenberry's Star Trek future not only evidences a free market - which means a government that's strictly limited in its scope to little beyond being a defender of rights - but presupposes it, despite the utopian (and quite impossible) slip of positing a "moneyless society." 

The inescapable precondition for political rights and freedoms is: economic rights and freedoms, which means, also inescapably, capitalism.  IOW, to say to someone "You have a right to your life and your freedom," then say "But...you have no right to take action to earn and to keep the material goods you require to sustain that life," would be a crude contradiction.  If you are to have political freedom, you must first have economic freedom.  The one exists in direct proportion to the other; the degree to which economic liberty is confiscated, is the degree to which political liberty is confiscated.

If you look at all of the Star Trek series - again, ignoring the minor error of a stated "moneyless society," which could not coexist with liberty - the Federation is a fictional echo of Americanism in nearly every significant respect.  The people of the Federation enjoy the basic human rights enumerated in our Constitution (insofar as they happen to come up in the course of the shows' episodes): the right to freedom of conscience, religion, speech, press, self-defense, due process of law, trial by jury, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and confiscatory fines, etc.

The Prime Directive itself is the most open embrace of the concept of Laissez Faire in all of American television: Like our American Constitution, the Prime Directive is not a restriction on the actions of the people, it's a restriction on the actions of government (Federation officers being agents of the UFP government.)  The dilemmas that arise from the Captain (whichever,) having to weigh the Prime Directive against some pressing need or other that would require violating it, became the moral choices upon which many a great episode hinged.  Roddenberry's genius at storytelling (and that of the many screenwriters who worked with him) in this regard deserves our highest gratitude and respect.

The politial backdrop of Star Trek was only a backdrop - and didn't need to be anything more than a backdrop.  But the signature element of the Star Trek world - and again, if you study philosophy and economics, it's a necessary pre-requirement for that world's very existence by implication - is individual liberty:  The rights of the individual are paramount; the state is limited to the role of policeman or even less, a detached observer or moderator, especially regarding new races and species encountered on other worlds.

What I've been arguing here is for that precondition: That unless we return to and maintain individual liberty - which means political liberty, which presupposes economic liberty - there can be no Star Trek-like spacefaring future for mankind. 

It's certainly possible - and likely - that a totalitarian regime like the P.R.C. will be able to get to space and to establish a presence there (they seem to be very interested in the Earth's Moon just now,) but a totalitarian collectivist regime is the polar opposite of what's presented in Star Trek as the Federation, at least in the context of that part of the Federation that originates on Earth.  Further, history has shown that people can only be subjugated under collectivist regimes for a temporary period before they begin demanding the individual liberty that is their birthright as conscious beings, and rebel. 

History also shows that totalitarian regimes typically accomplish little technologically in comparison to free societies.  The reason for this is that human creativity cannot be coerced - science and industry require liberty in order to flourish.  Politics, in turn, is the third of the five branches of classical philosophy, which philosophy is arranged hierarchically.   Politics - of necessity - rests on Ethics, which in turn rests on Epistemology and Metaphysics.  (I would argue that the Star Trek universe is nicely consistent with Americanism on underlying philosophy as well - it's implicitly Aristotelean - but I don't need to go into that here.)  The Ethics of liberty, again inescapably, is: Individualism. 

An excellent article in this context is Ed Hudgins' 2007 essay "Individualism in Orbit: Morality for the High Frontier."  

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Apr. 23 2012, 10:34 am

EllisWyatt, I enjoyed reading your post and concur largely with your analysis. The issue of earth being a moneyless society is an interesting conundrum when considering the liberties espoused by her resident's and the Federation. For example, in a free society, individuals would be free to exchange commodity goods, and this includes money. So it becomes unlikely money would disappear. Rather competing currencies would exist, as opposed to the monopoly money currently put forth by governments. It is therefore likely that individuals from the 24th Century operate from a commodity definition of money, as opposed to receipt, fractional, or fiat - so widely used today. And from that I would also conclude that such individuals have rid themselves of centralized banking and restrained government further by forbidding any power over the purse.


 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46306

Report this Apr. 23 2012, 11:44 am

Quote: EllisWyatt @ Apr. 23 2012, 7:44 am

>

>VB47, I definitely take political sides, and I would argue the contrary - that Roddenberry's Star Trek future not only evidences a free market - which means a government that's strictly limited in its scope to little beyond being a defender of rights - but presupposes it, despite the utopian (and quite impossible) slip of positing a "moneyless society." 

The inescapable precondition for political rights and freedoms is: economic rights and freedoms, which means, also inescapably, capitalism.  IOW, to say to someone "You have a right to your life and your freedom," then say "But...you have no right to take action to earn and to keep the material goods you require to sustain that life," would be a crude contradiction.  If you are to have political freedom, you must first have economic freedom.  The one exists in direct proportion to the other; the degree to which economic liberty is confiscated, is the degree to which political liberty is confiscated.

If you look at all of the Star Trek series - again, ignoring the minor error of a stated "moneyless society," which could not coexist with liberty - the Federation is a fictional echo of Americanism in nearly every significant respect.  The people of the Federation enjoy the basic human rights enumerated in our Constitution (insofar as they happen to come up in the course of the shows' episodes): the right to freedom of conscience, religion, speech, press, self-defense, due process of law, trial by jury, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and confiscatory fines, etc.

The Prime Directive itself is the most open embrace of the concept of Laissez Faire in all of American television: Like our American Constitution, the Prime Directive is not a restriction on the actions of the people, it's a restriction on the actions of government (Federation officers being agents of the UFP government.)  The dilemmas that arise from the Captain (whichever,) having to weigh the Prime Directive against some pressing need or other that would require violating it, became the moral choices upon which many a great episode hinged.  Roddenberry's genius at storytelling (and that of the many screenwriters who worked with him) in this regard deserves our highest gratitude and respect.

The politial backdrop of Star Trek was only a backdrop - and didn't need to be anything more than a backdrop.  But the signature element of the Star Trek world - and again, if you study philosophy and economics, it's a necessary pre-requirement for that world's very existence by implication - is individual liberty:  The rights of the individual are paramount; the state is limited to the role of policeman or even less, a detached observer or moderator, especially regarding new races and species encountered on other worlds.

What I've been arguing here is for that precondition: That unless we return to and maintain individual liberty - which means political liberty, which presupposes economic liberty - there can be no Star Trek-like spacefaring future for mankind. 

It's certainly possible - and likely - that a totalitarian regime like the P.R.C. will be able to get to space and to establish a presence there (they seem to be very interested in the Earth's Moon just now,) but a totalitarian collectivist regime is the polar opposite of what's presented in Star Trek as the Federation, at least in the context of that part of the Federation that originates on Earth.  Further, history has shown that people can only be subjugated under collectivist regimes for a temporary period before they begin demanding the individual liberty that is their birthright as conscious beings, and rebel. 

History also shows that totalitarian regimes typically accomplish little technologically in comparison to free societies.  The reason for this is that human creativity cannot be coerced - science and industry require liberty in order to flourish.  Politics, in turn, is the third of the five branches of classical philosophy, which philosophy is arranged hierarchically.   Politics - of necessity - rests on Ethics, which in turn rests on Epistemology and Metaphysics.  (I would argue that the Star Trek universe is nicely consistent with Americanism on underlying philosophy as well - it's explicitly Aristotelean - but I don't need to go into that here.)  The Ethics of liberty, again inescapably, is: Individualism. 

An excellent article in this context is Ed Hudgins' 2007 essay "Individualism in Orbit: Morality for the High Frontier."  

>
I wish I could write as well as you...


lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Apr. 23 2012, 11:55 am

EllisWyatt, thank you for the article.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Apr. 24 2012, 5:33 am

Quote: EllisWyatt @ Apr. 23 2012, 2:23 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Apr. 22 2012, 5:05 pm

>

>"Concerning Henrick[sic] Svensmark's dubious claims:"

>"Dubious" - because caltrek2 says so?  Ah.

>
 

>"Unfortunately for the 'sunspots and cosmic rays, not humans, cause global warming' crowd, British scientists have just blown their claims out of the water. The BBC News website has the story:"

>Ah, the BBC.  That venerable scientific institution.  We could just take the petulant juvenile tone of the above quote from it as an indicator (I'm surprised the phrase "neener-neener-neener" doesn't figure prominently in the article,) but...  A leftwing news source, in an article that predates the Climategate fraud revelations of November 2009 by a full year-and-a-half, quotes the opinions of two leftwing "scientists" willing to further prostitute their credentials to politics who... end up flopping onto: "the IPCC got it right." 

The same IPCC which, a year and a half later, found itself smack at the center of the East Anglia University "Climategate" scandal and attempted coverup - in which climate data were manipulated, falsified, "massaged" and, where they conflicted with the Party Line, blithely omitted - to bolster the illusion of scientific validity for a preconceived 'Crisis," driven, in reverse, by a lucrative international industry organized around the Marxian ideological imperative of imposing controls on human activity on a massive, worldwide scale.  That IPCC.

>


http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html


From the link cited above:


The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.


Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing


Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.


A three-part PennStateUniversity cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing. Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit." A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees. The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of  research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action." 


Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.


The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails. Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question. Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false." An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."


 


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Apr. 24 2012, 5:40 am

Ellis Wyatt: The slightest shred of objective science would be a good place to start, shorn of comically-transparent political motives and creepy denunciatory religious lingo such as "skeptics" and "deniers" and "heretics" and "infidels" and the rest of the epithets on sacrelige and apostasy we're hearing from you frothing faith-based emotionalists. 


caltrek: So, in the same sentence that Mr. Wyatt complains about "denunciatory" words such as "skeptics...deniers" etc. he utilizes phrases such as "comically -transparent" and "frothing faith-based emotionalists".  Instead of leading by example, Mr. Wyatt seems more intent on indulging in the very sort of behavior that he denounces. All of this by way of concluding that the scientific evidence put forth should be ignored because the people who put it forth hurt his feelings in the process. 


Grow up.


Edit:  I just thought that I would add these links to further document the threat faced by humanity:


http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=7958&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=2010%20Emissions%20Virtually%20Assures%20Dangerous%20Climate%20Change%20&Cache=False


http://climatechange.ws/facts/


http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/


http://www.explainthatstuff.com/globalwarmingforkids.html


 


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Apr. 24 2012, 5:58 am

Ellis Wyatt: All of this bitter hostility to any of the multitudes who question the dogmatic and self-designated "consensus," to those who demand proof of a positive proposition, while having presented overwhelming negative evidence despite the latter's not being logically required - is unprecedented and utterly alien to the conduct of valid scientific research.


caltrek: "Overwhelming negative evidence"?


Mr. Ellis calls what he has presented to date, with all of its logical fallacies, distortions, and thoroughly debunked ideas "overwhelming evidence"?


Mr. Ellis seems so intent on resorting to whatever thesaurus he is using to look up colorful adjectives to weave into his nonsensical diatribes that he fails to consider the counter evidence presented.  Counter evidence that points out the error of the ways of the so-called experts he brings forth by way of citation. 


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Apr. 24 2012, 6:25 am

Ellis Wyatt: What I've been arguing here is for that precondition: That unless we return to and maintain individual liberty - which means political liberty, which presupposes economic liberty - there can be no Star Trek-like spacefaring future for mankind. 

caltrek: A noble sentitment. One that should remind us of the biblical injunction that "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free".


Unfortunately, some seem to feel that when it comes to the reality of global climate change and its well documented anthropogenic causes, we should listen to denialists and scam artists that will lead us away from the path of truth. While their intentions may be to promote freedom, in reality they reinforce the power of those who would enslave for the sake of a quick buck.

EllisWyatt

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 22

Report this May. 03 2012, 7:38 am

LOL!
8^D


Vide supra.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum