Hacker News Reader

> Ever notice that there's basically no culture, music, or art?

No culture? What are you talking about? You've got Sir Patrick Stewart performing the likes of Gilbert and Sullivan, Shakespeare, et cetera. Culture!!! ;)

More seriously: proper cultural artifacts from the future are really hard to convincingly fabricate in the context of a cultural artifact of the present. Most of the time people just toy with the world's current trends, like the gritty downtown Los Angeles nightlife of Blade Runner or the self-parody of the 1980s in The Fifth Element. Star Trek's "culture" is a shallow reflection of 1990s Hollywood trends. Witness the fetish for tribal artifacts from distant alien peoples, cherry-picked for display by the ostensibly erudite, stripped from anything resembling the visceral reality of their original context, and pseudo-analyzed in order to support some trite lesson upholding only purely modern values.

But it's okay, since we're all understanding, empathetic, tolerant, and perfectly inoffensive people, and our introspective self-examination will never reveal otherwise. :P

Good point.

It'd be easier to pull off today due to the fragmentation and fractalization of modern culture. By mining smallish, fringe, and new aesthetic movements you could portray a convincing future aesthetic to a mostly naive audience.

Toss this on the Enterprise and it'd be convincingly 24th century:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brvFJZT_YjM

> A friend of mine sort of popped that bubble long ago when he pointed out that Star Trek is exclusively told from the point of view of military starships with world-destroying weapons.

That's not actually factually true; while military [0] crew perspective is the norm for the franchise, there are episodes of every series (at least, every series other than TOS; I'm not sure there is a good TOS example) that are told primarily from outside of that perspective.

> Think that might be a biased perspective?

Every perspective is biased. A "perspective" is just a name for a set of biases.

> Would the "Singapore in space" federation really be a good place to live?

I can see arguments on either side of whether the Federation would be a good place to live (though mostly weak arguments on either side, since we have thin and conflicting information on what life in the Federation, particularly outside of Starfleet, is actually like.)

OTOH, I can't see a good basis for the "Singapore in space" description.

> Ever notice that there's basically no culture, music, or art?

Though culture, music, and art are rarely the focus of the stories told in the franchise, there's considerable evidence that they are present; there's quite a lot interaction between the focal characters and culture, musical, or artistic events and works in the course of the various series.

You might make a case that what is shown in that regard is heavily focused on nostalgia rather than new culture/music/art, and that this is particularly true when it comes to Earth-centered human culture, but one might debate the extent to which that is intended to be what the Federation is really like on average vs. the extent to which it is what the series focusses on as an artistic device to engage the audience and provide familiar references.

[0] Noting that "military" may be somewhat disputed as Starfleet personnel in several episodes outright deny that that Starfleet is military, despite the military ranks, courts-martial, etc.

>Star Trek is exclusively told from the point of view of military starships with world-destroying weapons.

that's basically US of 20th-21st century point of view.

>Would the "Singapore in space" federation really be a good place to live?

the real question is whether an alternative is really possible. Once you get "commons" you have to put machinery in place to avoid the "tragedy".

We always have commons. The machinery we use is called "property".

I read, greatly enjoyed, and would recommend The Last Ringbearer. Only one weak part; when you get to the section of heavy, multi-layered intelligence intrigue, let yourself skip ahead if you find yourself wanting to.

> . A friend of mine sort of popped that bubble long ago when he pointed out that Star Trek is exclusively told from the point of view of military starships with world-destroying weapons.

Wait, have you actually watched Star Trek? The problem with that very thing you mention is a theme throughout the various series. Picard, et al, are constantly trying to prove the Enterprise is a science vessel and not a military one, not just to the Romulans but Starfleet itself.

"there's basically no culture"

If you want Federation with culture what you need is the Culture - in all of its hedonistic glory (at the price of humans effectively being the pets of god-like AIs - which in the case of the Culture is something I personally would be happy with).

[GCU Arbitrary please take note!]

Star Trek is basically garbage. Babylon 5 did a better job of showing the politics and strains of different cultures trying to focus on a single objective--even if it was a little optimistic at times.

Honestly, the future is probably going to look more like Red Dwarf or Lexx.

There's plenty of culture, music, and art in Star Trek- from Sulu's bonsai to Spock's lute playing to a lot missions based around seeing what some remote archaeologist is up to.

As for the article, it seems kind of self-explanatory: Tolkien's created nostalgia-based mythology is similar to ISIS' created nostalgia-based mythology. Main difference is that Tolkien actually lived in pre-WWI Britain, no one in ISIS lived during the Caliphate.

> Tolkien's created nostalgia-based mythology is similar to ISIS' created nostalgia-based mythology. Main difference is that Tolkien actually lived in pre-WWI Britain, no one in ISIS lived during the Caliphate.

Another main difference is no significant group is selling Tolkien's fantasy as reality and the basis for running real societies (outside of other fictional works, notably S. M. Stirling's "Novels of the Change".)