Lack of masculine and masculine sounding and acting good guys on DISCO

[Yukaphile]

I see that as being millennia away, not centuries.

[Karha of Honor]

I see that as being millennia away, not centuries.

Nobody sees that far. Deal with it.

In regard to Star Wars. If you don't like a character or set of characters, fine, fair, not every piece of writingvworks for everyone.

But what the heck does it have to do with them being diverse? The accusation so many want to make. How would have the standard Caucasian male majority have changed anything?

The bs was ideologically driven, casting for race is part of the larger shit sandwich.

and again ' things being done for reasons of some invidious conspiratorial sounding 'ideology'. Proof? You a ,find reader? Maybe they though, 'hey, let's have a female lead hero considering the previous two had were male'. Or, even more likely, business reasons? Appealing to more demographics?

In terms of Star Trek, the reasoning of 'ideology' as you put it is more likely given the franchisees history. An idealogy is a set of beliefs. Roddenberry, like every human being on this planet, had beliefs and they informed what he wanted Star Trek to be. You can call it 'ideology' to give it some insidious sounding bent but they drive almost every creative decision.

You cannot appeal to all demographics with a good character?

Business reasons, they were printing money by just not sucking.

His ideology came across as okay while Disney CBS's is incredibly bad.

[clearspira]

I see that as being millennia away, not centuries.

Nobody sees that far. Deal with it.

You can make bloody accurate guesses made on trends though. And the current trend is that we as a society are growing more and more fragmented than we were twenty years ago. Back in the 1990s after the fall of the Wall and before 9/11, I would have bought the Star Trek future being on track perhaps. But now? I think that optimism is dead.

[Riedquat]

Because they forced it. Technology will grow enough to the point, it happens naturally.

What's technology got to do with it? Technology isn't the solution to social issues, and quite honestly I'd be far more worried about the impact of high levels of technology worming their way into us than the opposite; the ever-decreasing human contact in day to day lives won't help social matters. And like I said the idea of one big culture, no nations or anything is an idea I find appalling - home sapiens might live on but humanity is pretty much dead at that point. And it's too against human nature to happen anyway, for reasons already given. The ultimate desirable point is that we've got all our completely independent nations but they all get along well.

If the technology point was merely about it moving towards a post-scarcity society, so less reason for conflict, well, it's failed miserably at that up to now. People will never accept that they've got enough, that's something we need to learn to deal with, not think it's possible to provide ourselves with all that we could want. Keep trying to do that and you'll find the universe is too small for even one person eventually.

[Deledrius]

I see that as being millennia away, not centuries.

Nobody sees that far. Deal with it.

You can make bloody accurate guesses made on trends though. And the current trend is that we as a society are growing more and more fragmented than we were twenty years ago. Back in the 1990s after the fall of the Wall and before 9/11, I would have bought the Star Trek future being on track perhaps. But now? I think that optimism is dead.

You just have to look further ahead. After WWIII things will come back around with more unity again.

[Riedquat]

I dunno, the Internet is proof there's some damn stupid people out there. But eventually tech will grow to the point we can correct the flaws in our genetic makeup, phase away capitalism, and evolve into a true post-scarcity civilization, where we aren't struggling over resources. It's the Star Trek ethos, sure, but I think it's only a matter of time - assuming we don't kill ourselves first, or die out naturally, or suffer a societal setback. I think as that happens, our artificial divisions like race, nationality, and so on will melt away. Gender will be the last to go, sadly, and might not at all, but that's okay if it's reached something better than it is today.

Sounds like a boring future to me. Safest, maybe, but vanilla as f. And frankly I see little evidence that we are moving closer together.

Amen to that. In any case I'd ask why we aren't already practically a post-scarcity society, considering what we can do compared to just a few generations ago. Be able to support more, we just grow more.

What is it with regarding the destruction of individuality (on various scales) as something desirable, wanting to eliminate a good part of what makes life worth living - that variety? Selling our soul for safety - it appalls me. Give me the people who look different, act differently, think differently to me! They keep doing things I really, really don't like (there are all sorts of aspects about life now that I'm very scornful of), but I'd far, far rather have that than have everything just the way I like it because everyone was just like myself.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

You guys know that Yuka was dishing out generic communist manifesto right?

[Yukaphile]

That's my view. I think time will help us correct all the problems in our society today. I'm not naive enough to think they'll all go away, but I do think we'll reach the point where most of them have gone, and that for every new problem that is solved, another 20 don't arise.

[Antiboyscout]

I see that as being millennia away, not centuries.

Nobody sees that far. Deal with it.

You can make bloody accurate guesses made on trends though. And the current trend is that we as a society are growing more and more fragmented than we were twenty years ago. Back in the 1990s after the fall of the Wall and before 9/11, I would have bought the Star Trek future being on track perhaps. But now? I think that optimism is dead.

The falling of the was the beginning of the end. The unifying enemy was gone, and the world just coasted for years until the US finally woke up and realized that they were shouldering a burden for no benefit.

The world is not meant to be united. It took great effort by the US to make it happen. Bretton Woods is the reason humanity has advanced so much so quickly, and it is also the reason a bunch of new powers have risen up to challenge the US.

[Riedquat]

That's my view. I think time will help us correct all the problems in our society today. I'm not naive enough to think they'll all go away, but I do think we'll reach the point where most of them have gone, and that for every new problem that is solved, another 20 don't arise.

You're expecting to solve social problems with technology - how? It's not a magic wand that changes minds (and messing directly with peoples' minds would be as unethical as what you want to prevent in any case). The issues you describe are almost entirely down to attitudes, not the lack of anything that anyone needs providing with.