You know I never really thought of it from that perspective before. That is kind of insane. I guess not super surprising. With every Trek and something new people get really upset about something that is different than what they’re used to. Why wouldn’t that apply to certain parts of the whole core concept? Does seem like it requires some loopy cognitive dissonance to get to that.
I could see an argument that FTL merely requires some different or undiscovered physics, or for something vaguely plausible but not likely to actually work out like the alcubierre drive (funnily enough not too dissimilar from warp drive even) to prove actually doable, but an economic system that seems incompatible with human nature requires the species as a whole to be different, which they arent really stated to be in trek. Of course the system star trek has honestly probably isnt that incompatible anyway, with a high enough population (and a star empire should have an absolutely huge one) and lots of automation, even if a tiny fraction are willing to do high risk exploration or military esque work just out of some sense of duty, that tiny fraction is still a ton of people.
but an economic system that seems incompatible with human nature requires the species as a whole to be different, which they arent really stated to be in trek
This is the crux of your argument but it doesn’t hold up at all.
The first problem is that you’re relying on the fact that humanity doesn’t evolve or change which is just patently untrue. The level of difference we have today from 100 years ago is stark. That would only grow. Moreover, humanity in the Trek universe is rocked by several severe catastrophes which you aren’t taking into account. Moments like that cause communities to knit together more strongly. Not to mention that they would annihilate any economic systems that really exist in the first place. Systems that we only invented rather recently, I might add, and are not fundamental to the development or furthering of the species, especially with outside help.
The second thing is way more simple. You’re saying that it requires the species as a whole to be different but you’re disregarding the fact that the Federation is NOT a Human-Only organization.
But this is also just cycling back to the first point. You’re willing to say “Yeah FTL is based off of something we don’t understand” but you’re ignoring the fact that the future could be equally based off of something you do not understand. It’s a weighted comparison.
Im not actually arguing that their system is incompatible with humans, Im arguing that someone who did think it was wouldn’t necessarily see a contradiction in viewing such a system as unrealistic even though the setting has ftl.
You know I never really thought of it from that perspective before. That is kind of insane. I guess not super surprising. With every Trek and something new people get really upset about something that is different than what they’re used to. Why wouldn’t that apply to certain parts of the whole core concept? Does seem like it requires some loopy cognitive dissonance to get to that.
I could see an argument that FTL merely requires some different or undiscovered physics, or for something vaguely plausible but not likely to actually work out like the alcubierre drive (funnily enough not too dissimilar from warp drive even) to prove actually doable, but an economic system that seems incompatible with human nature requires the species as a whole to be different, which they arent really stated to be in trek. Of course the system star trek has honestly probably isnt that incompatible anyway, with a high enough population (and a star empire should have an absolutely huge one) and lots of automation, even if a tiny fraction are willing to do high risk exploration or military esque work just out of some sense of duty, that tiny fraction is still a ton of people.
This is the crux of your argument but it doesn’t hold up at all.
The first problem is that you’re relying on the fact that humanity doesn’t evolve or change which is just patently untrue. The level of difference we have today from 100 years ago is stark. That would only grow. Moreover, humanity in the Trek universe is rocked by several severe catastrophes which you aren’t taking into account. Moments like that cause communities to knit together more strongly. Not to mention that they would annihilate any economic systems that really exist in the first place. Systems that we only invented rather recently, I might add, and are not fundamental to the development or furthering of the species, especially with outside help.
The second thing is way more simple. You’re saying that it requires the species as a whole to be different but you’re disregarding the fact that the Federation is NOT a Human-Only organization.
But this is also just cycling back to the first point. You’re willing to say “Yeah FTL is based off of something we don’t understand” but you’re ignoring the fact that the future could be equally based off of something you do not understand. It’s a weighted comparison.
Im not actually arguing that their system is incompatible with humans, Im arguing that someone who did think it was wouldn’t necessarily see a contradiction in viewing such a system as unrealistic even though the setting has ftl.
My mistake on misunderstanding there, my apologies. Sleep eludes me lately.
I understand that feeling