Results for “star trek” 65 found
*The Shield Penetrators” — some further Star Trek viewing
Not many people know this obscure episode, because it was shot during the third season as an “extra,” to be used in a fourth season that never materialized. But here is the basic plot line. Kirk and the Enterprise visit a planet that, by mistake, received errant TV transmissions of “The Beverly Hillbillies” centuries ago. The inhabitants of that planet, being highly impressionable, have since organized their society along those principles and with Appalachian clothing, albeit with less couth manners. These creatures are mostly backward, but they have two special powers. First, neither Vulcan neck pinches nor phasers “set on stun” affect them, and second they have the ability to just walk through the otherwise protective shields of the Starship Enterprise.
In the episode, these “Penetrators,” upset at the backward state of affairs on their own planet, and encouraged by a nearby Klingon commander, attempt to take over the bridge of the Enterprise, using pipe bombs, chemical irritants, and Molotov cocktails, throwing one of the latter at Chekhov. Their motives are varied, but their manner is undeniably hostile and they arrive in a great swarm. Kirk issues orders to respond vigorously, and the intruders are stopped. This is, after all, the bridge of the Enterprise.
It is protected by a single, sliding door.
One member of Starfleet Command, an enemy of Kirk’s since they were classmates together at the Academy, attempts to have Kirk tried on charges of authorizing excess force against the Penetrators. But neither the Starfleet admirals nor the television audience side against Kirk. It was, after all, the bridge of the Enterprise that was being stormed. The Command also issues a statement recognizing the red-shirted Enterprise security guards for their (usual) valor in such extreme and perilous circumstances.
The Klingon commander escapes unscathed, though a well-aimed phaser shot cripples the communications ability of the Klingon ship.
Addendum: You won’t find this episode in the Star Trek DVD box, or on streaming, but recently they have put parts of it on TV. And here are my previous Star Trek posts.
Classic Star Trek and rape (with spoilers)
With so few significant new movie releases to follow, I have taken to some strange pasttimes, including the viewing of old classic Star Trek episodes. I was struck by two obscure episodes in particular. One is Who Mourns for Adonais?, and the other is Metamorphosis, both from early in the second (and best) season.
In Adonais, a crazed being, who is in fact the ancient Greek God Apollo, seizes control of the ship and of a landing party, consisting of Kirk and a few others, including a beautiful Lieutenant Carolyn Palamas. In due time Apollo “takes” her, with her degree of actual compliance being highly uncertain (the whole ship and landing party are under constant threat of death). Kirk and the others encourage her to court him further, and then to reject him, to weaken his spirits, which leads to his eventual loss of control. It is Carolyn’s cleverness that saves them, she has been through emotional hell, and then they spurn and forget her while returning to the ship.
I am very familiar with “Golden age” science fiction and how badly it treated women, not to mention classic Star Trek’s own reputation. Nonetheless watching this episode it struck me, as a 2020 viewer, that the main message is how unaware high-achieving men are of the sexual travails of coerced women, most of all the coerced women they so often rely upon. Really.
In Metamorphosis, Kirk is carrying a lovely female ambassador on a trip, and they are waylaid by a strange being on a strange planet. I’ll spare you the whole story, but the ambassador ends up meeting a male castaway she dislikes, an alien takes over the body and partly the mind of the ambassador, and the combined alien/ambassador decides to marry the castaway so they can live happily ever after on the strange planet (really). The ambassador never would have chosen any of that on her own, and it seems to me this counts as a lifetime of rape for her, not to mention imprisonment, exile, and having to share one’s life and thoughts with a deeply alien being.
Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are just fine with this! Admittedly, given the powers of the alien, they didn’t have much choice, but they are downright jolly — from Wikipedia: “When McCoy asks who will complete Nancy Hedford’s [ambassadorial] mission, Kirk shrugs and says, “I’m sure the Federation can find another woman, somewhere, who’ll stop that war.””
Brutal! The collateral damage on the distaff side deserves not a single mention or act of mourning, though otherwise Kirk will risk the whole ship to save the life of Bones or Spock or Scottie.
Again, I went away from the whole episode feeling this was a progressive rather than repugnant take on the whole narrative.
Perhaps it is I who am crazy, but I am beginning to think that “The Revisionist Sexual History of Classic Star Trek” remains to be written.
And maybe you prefer TNG, or some other later Star Trek version, but I tell you the 1967-69 version is far less “censored” and for that reason much more interesting to rewatch.
“Mirror, Mirror” (Star Trek classic, spoilers in this post)
I haven’t seen most Star Trek episodes since I was a young teen, so I tried rewatching this one, you know, with the alternate universe and the evil Spock. It was good!
I took away from it the main lesson that our moral behavior — or lack thereof — is one of the most contingent and fragile features of our universe. The possibly happy ending for the bad universe drives this point home, as does the opening speech from the indigenous folk (the Halkans) who won’t sell their dilithium crystals, reminding Kirk that the Federation too might turn bad. Add to that the utter implausibility of their “highly moral” behavior in the bad universe, as the absurdity and unlikelihood of their invited destruction reminds us that virtually everyone is pliable in response to strong enough incentives.
If you think through the plot, to the extent the “good” people are more powerful and effective than the “bad” people, that is because the “good” people are better at deceit. Though the good people can teach deceit to the bad people, as the good Kirk does at the end to the evil Spock, who perhaps will reform. Another embedded lesson is that both the “good” and the “bad” men will sexually harass (both the good and bad) women, with the major differences being those of style not substance. And the “good” men seem to prefer the “bad” women.
If the “bad” universe were safer, would the powerful people find it better or worse to live in? What if you had a Ring of Gyges to help you along?
Overall you can read the whole episode as “the spirits” (God?) sending a Shakespearean-like dream to Kirk, so that he can better understand the perspective of the Halkans, which otherwise he finds baffling. Might the Halkans have sent the dream themselves?
Recommended, it was better and more idea-rich than expected. I will try another episode soon.
Why did the Stars Wars and Star Trek worlds turn out so differently?
That question came up briefly in my chat with Cass Sunstein, though we didn’t get much of a chance to address it. In the Star Trek world there is virtual reality, personal replicators, powerful weapons, and, it seems, a very high standard of living for most of humanity. The early portrayals of the planet Vulcan seem rather Spartan, but at least they might pass a basic needs test of sorts, plus there is always catch-up growth to hope for. The bad conditions seem largely reserved for those enslaved by the bad guys, originally the Klingons and Romulans, with those stories growing more complicated as the series proceeds.
In Star Wars, the early episodes show some very prosperous societies. Still, droids are abused, there is widespread slavery, lots of people seem to live at subsistence, and eventually much of the galaxy falls under the Jedi Reign of Terror.
Why the difference? Should we consult Acemoglu and Robinson? Or is it about economic geography? I can find think of a few factors differentiating the world of Star Wars from that of Star Trek:
1. The armed forces in Star Trek seem broadly representative of society. Compare Uhura, Chekhov, and Sulu to the Imperial Storm troopers.
2. Captains Kirk and Picard may be overly narcissistic, but they do not descend into true power madness, unlike various Sith leaders and corrupted Jedi Knights.
3. In Star Trek, any starship can lay waste to a planet, whereas in Star Wars there is a single, centralized Death Star and no way to oppose it, short of having the rebels try to blow it up. That seems to imply stronger checks and balances in the world of Star Trek. No single corrupt captain can easily take over the Federation, and so there are always opposing forces.
4. Star Trek embraces analytical egalitarianism, namely that all humans consider themselves part of the same broader species. There is no special group comparable to the Jedi or the Sith, with special powers or with special whatevers in their blood. There are various species of aliens, but they are identified as such, they are not in general going to win human elections, and furthermore humans are portrayed as a kind of galactic hegemon, a’ la the United States circa the postwar era.
5. The single individual is much more powerful in the world of Star Wars, due to Jedi and Sith powers, which seems to lower stability. In the Star Trek world, some of the biggest trouble comes from super-human Khan and his clan, but fortunately they are put down.
6. Star Trek replicators are sufficiently powerful it seems slavery is highly inefficient in that world. In Star Wars the underlying depreciation rate, as you would find it measured in a Solow model, seems to be higher. More forced labor is drafted into use to repair all of that wasting capital.
What else?
Addendum: Here is Cass on Star Wars vs. Star Trek.
Matt Yglesias appreciates *Star Trek*
You will find his essay here, and I have many points of agreement with him, but I think he undervalues the first series. Characters and script were excellent in about sixty percent of the original episodes. It is also noteworthy that the original characters have entered popular culture for an enduring period of time and we are still making movies about them forty-five years later. It’s not absurd to think of someone saying “Beam me up, Scotty” fifty years from now. I don’t see Data or any other later character receiving the same treatment, nor do I think that any of the later installments would have, on their own, generated an entire franchise of installments, spin-offs, sequels, and the like, where Matt can tweet something like “Animated series is non-canon, people. Get with the program.” If you’d like a treat, watch some of the D.C. Fontana-scripted Star Trek episodes, noting that “Tomorrow is Yesterday” is one of the funniest and most profound takes on “the great stagnation” to be found in popular culture or anywhere else for that matter. And it was written before the great stagnation even started, and by Roddenberry’s office assistant at that. Magic was in the air. As for “Spock’s Brain,” well, that is another matter.
Star Trek, II
The key line is about non-rivalry and non-excludability. I didn't like that Harold played Sulu or that Bones sounded just like Sawyer. Young Kirk and Spock were superb. Sadly, there was no information about the progress of monetary institutions. Bryan Caplan complained that the implied rate of economic growth was so low. I've long wondered why there is not more technology transfer to Vulcan. The soundtrack was poor. Everything Alex says is true. The best part was Uhuru but I won't say more on that.
Star Trek
The new movie is a good revitalization of the franchise. It's most enjoyable moments build on, foreshadow and deepen our appreciation of its familiar characters. The casting and actors are all superb on this score. The action is passable, although the fight scenes are poor and I wish they had put more effort into the plot.
Best piece of Star Trek trivia: Vulcan education includes rigorous training in mathematics, physics and economics. (Listen carefully during the education scene!)
Addendum: Aha! I am told unofficially that we can thank economist turned screenwriter Glen Whitman for adding the economics lesson to Vulcan!
Thursday assorted links
1. Interview with Michael Elowitz on synthetic biology. Asimov Press again.
2. The brothers who collected Star Trek memorabilia (NYT). A weird story, believe it or not.
3. The importance of foreign workers for national security.
4. What makes home building so expensive? (cost issues, not NIMBY issues)
Monday assorted links
Is American Culture Becoming More Pro-Business?
In Capitalism: Hollywood’s Miscast Villain, a piece I wrote in 2010 for the Wall Street Journal, I described the slew of movies and television shows featuring mass-murdering corporate villains including “The Fugitive,” “Syriana,” “Mission Impossible II,” “Erin Brockovich,” “The China Syndrome” and “Avatar,” and Hollywood’s not so subtle attacks on capitalism with characters like Jabba the Hut in the Star Wars universe and the Ferengi in Star Trek. I explained some reasons for Hollywood’s antipathy to capitalism:
Directors and screenwriters see the capitalist as a constraint, a force that prevents them from fulfilling their vision. In turn, the capitalist sees the artist as self-indulgent. Capitalists work hard to produce what consumers want. Artists who work too hard to produce what consumers want are often accused of selling out. Thus even the languages of capitalism and art conflict: a firm that has “sold out” has succeeded, but an artist that has “sold out” has failed.
…Hollywood share[s] Marx’s concept of alienation, the idea that under capitalism workers are separated from the product of their work and made to feel like cogs in a machine rather than independent creators. The lowly screenwriter is a perfect illustration of what Marx had in mind—a screenwriter can pour heart and soul into a screenplay only to see it rewritten, optioned, revised, reworked, rewritten again and hacked, hacked and hacked by a succession of directors, producers and worst of all studio executives. A screenwriter can have a nominally successful career in Hollywood without ever seeing one of his works brought to the screen. Thus, the antipathy of filmmakers to capitalism is less ideological than it is experiential. Screenwriters and directors find themselves in a daily battle between art and commerce, and they come to see their battle against “the suits” as emblematic of a larger war between creative labor and capital.
However, I also noted that some good stories could be told if Hollywood would only put aside their biases and open their eyes to the world:
…how many [movies] feature people who find their true selves in productive work? Not many, which is a shame, since the business world is where most of us live our lives. Like many works of literature, Hollywood chooses for its villains people who strive for social dominance through the pursuit of wealth, prestige, and power. But the ordinary business of capitalism is much more egalitarian: It’s about finding meaning and enjoyment in work and production.
Well, perhaps things are changing. Three recent movies do a good job highlighting a different perspective on capitalism: Flaming Hot, Air and Tetris.
Flaming Hot (Disney) tells the story of a janitor and his improbable rise to the top of the corporate world via leveraging his insights into his Mexican-American heritage and culture. The details of the story are probably false but no one ever said a good story had to be true. A standout aspect of the film is Richard Montanez’s palpable excitement witnessing the Frito Lay factory’s operations — his awe of the technology, the massive machines churning out potato chips, and his joy at being part of a vibrant, productive enterprise, quirks and all. Montanez does find meaning and enjoyment in work and production. Flaming Hot also skillfully emphasizes the often-underestimated significance of marketing, which is frequently brushed off as superfluous or even evil. Incidentally, does “Flaming Hot” contain a subtle nod to the great Walter “E.” Williams?
Air (Amazon Prime) is about a shoe contract. Boring? Not at all. The shoe was the Air Jordan and Air is about Nike’s efforts to court Jordan and his family with a record-breaking and precedent shattering revenue percentage deal. Nike was not united on going all in on Jordan and at the time it was a much smaller firm than it is today so a lot was at stake. Jordan wanted to go with Adidas. His mother convinced him to hear Nike out. Jordan’s mother comes across as very astute, as she almost certainly was, although it seems more probable that it was Jordan’s agent, David Falk who engineered the percentage contract. Regardless, this is a good movie about entrepreneurship. Directed by Ben Affleck, who also portrays Phil Knight, “Air” showcases Affleck’s directorial prowess, previously demonstrated in “Argo,” a personal favorite for personal reasons.
Tetris (Apple) is also a story about legal contracts. In the dying days of the Soviet Union, multiple teams race to license the Tetris video game from Elektronorgtechnica the Soviet state owned enterprise that presumptively held the rights as the employer of the inventor, Alexey Pajitnov. Gorbachev and Robert Maxwell both make unlikely appearances in this remarkable story. One aspect which was surprising even to me, all the players take the rule of law very seriously. A useful reminder of the importance of property rights and a sound judiciary to the capitalist process.
While these films may not secure a spot among cinema’s timeless classics, each is engaging, skillfully made, and entertaining. Moreover, each movie offer insightful commentary on different facets of the capitalist system. Bravo to Hollywood!
Addendum: See also my review of Guru one of the most important free market movies ever made.
At the Helm, Kirk or Spock? The Pros and Cons of Charismatic Leadership
That is a new paper (AEA gate) by the very smart Benjamin Hermalin, here is the abstract:
Charismatic leaders are often desired. At the same time, experience, especially with demagogues, as well as social science studies, raise doubts about such leaders. This paper offers explanations for charismatic leadership’s “mixed report card.” It offers insights into why and when charismatic leadership can be effective; which, when, and why certain groups will prefer more to less charismatic leaders; and how being more charismatic can make leaders worse in other dimensions, particularly causing them to work less hard on their followers’ behalf.
And here is one important part of the model:
…a charismatic leader can get away with concealing bad news without triggering overly pessimistic beliefs.
I like the paper, but isn’t Spock super-charismatic, and all these women want to sleep with him? And isn’t there a long article about all the terrible decisions and advice stemming from Spock in various Star Trek episodes?
AI and language learning
Rob asks:
I would love to see you write on how AI changes the value of language learning, at the margin.
Two thoughts:
The value of learning languages in order to “get” a culture more deeply probably doesn’t change much.
On the other hand, international students probably have much less incentive to learn English — they are mostly interacting with other non-native speakers anyway, there is little cultural knowledge to be gleaned from it.
What else?
(I’m thinking of this because I just moved to Paris with my French wife . . . and thinking about the value of improving my French)
Let’s say that soon we have universal translators as good as on Star Trek, except the words are spoken first in the foreign language and then repeated/translated by the AI (i.e., the AI can’t just make “Romulans speak perfect TV English”). There is then one obvious reason not to learn foreign languages, especially for short interactions and travel interactions. For short interactions, the doubling time for the verbal exchange isn’t a big deal. So instead of learning the foreign language, the AI does the work for you.
But under which conditions does this not hold?
Alternatively, let us say you wanted to be “matched” to the most appropriate person in the entire world on some topic. It could be a marriage match, a friendship match, or simply a “I need to spend many hours discussing Tibetan traditional music with this person” match. The doubling time for the exchange now is a big deal. “Yes we are married, but it is not so bad that everything is repeated by the AI — it limits the amount of time we have to talk to each other and it also slows down our arguments” –no, that just doesn’t cut it, perhaps only for Tyrone.
These ideal matches still will provide a robust reason to learn foreign languages, at least provided you know the language you wish to match into, or perhaps you simply wish to match into something. If the people you wish to match to speak decent English, however, that is again a reason not to learn.
You also might value the “perspectival” benefits of a foreign language more in a world with AI. Perhaps the humanities and multi-perspectival approaches will rise in value, given the ability of the AI to execute very well on technical tasks. Under those assumptions, AI increases the returns to learning the appropriate foreign languages.
Plus AI itself will make languages easier to learn — imagine having a companion to practice with, at any level of desired difficulty, all the time.
Since the short, travel-based interactions were never the main reason to learn foreign languages anyway, perhaps the demand to learn other languages will prove more robust than many are expecting?
Wednesday assorted links
2. Short of replication, the errors in papers can be increasingly difficult to find. What should we infer from that?
3. Good James Wood review of the new Fintan O’Toole book on Ireland (New Yorker).
4. Would the Chinese opt for a blockade against Taiwan?
5. When does Matt Levine publish Money Stuff? (Cowen’s Third Law)
6. A guy live-tweeting his human challenge trial for a dysentery vaccine.
What I’ve been reading
1. John Elliott Cairnes, The Slave Power, from 1862. Cairnes remains greatly underrated as an economist. But The Slave Power is most remarkable for seeing that slavery was a system that pervaded (and corrupted) all aspects of the economy and society of the South. An excellent early integration of economic reasoning and sociology. And to think he wrote this from Galway, not Mississippi.
2. Barbara Bloemink, Florine Stettheimer: A Biography. A revelatory book that proves Stettheimer’s reputation deserves to be upgraded to the top tier of American artists of her time. The color plates are wonderful. I hadn’t known of her inspiration coming from Ballet Russe works. For those who care, definitely recommended, deserves to make the best of the year list.
3. Stanislaw Lem, The Invincible. One of the better Lems, reminds me of a Star Trek episode, with shades of gray goo hypotheses and an East Bloc ending.
I liked Meghan O’Rourke, The Invisible Kingdom: Reimagining Chronic Illness.
John Davis, Waterloo Sunrise: London from the Sixties to Thatcher is mostly a social history.
There is also Penelope J. Corfield, The Georgians: The Deeds and Misdeeds of 18th-Century Britain.
Jonathan Haskel and Stian Westlake, Restarting the Future: How to Fix the Intangible Economy elicited this blurb from me: “How does the concept of intangible capital help explain some features of what has gone wrong in our world? How is the concept of intangible capital key to fixing what has gone wrong and improving our world? This is the go-to book for those and other critical questions for boosting economic growth.”