tuco wrote:Not sure why communists did not like it too because Star Trek is pretty communist.

Animavore wrote:50 years and it's only hitting its stride now.

When people are provided with a guaranteed living, whether they work or not, they don’t generally devote themselves to self-improvement, the betterment of mankind, the writing of deathless poetry, or the peaceful exploration of the galaxy. Instead, they tend to stop working, striving, or putting forth any effort at all, not even the effort of changing out of their pajamas in the morning.

At best, what the advocates of statism get from Star Trek is the fantasy that some kind of “replicator” technology could actually make the welfare state work—or, more substantially, the illusion that economic communism can somehow be combined with individualism.

When people are provided with a guaranteed living, whether they work or not, they don’t generally devote themselves to self-improvement, the betterment of mankind, the writing of deathless poetry, or the peaceful exploration of the galaxy. Instead, they tend to stop working, striving, or putting forth any effort at all, not even the effort of changing out of their pajamas in the morning.

People say money doesn't buy happiness. Except, according to a new study from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, it sort of does — up to about $75,000 a year. The lower a person's annual income falls below that benchmark, the unhappier he or she feels. But no matter how much more than $75,000 people make, they don't report any greater degree of happiness.

As far as I can tell, there are only about a dozen people left here to discuss things with.

As we pause to observe these twin anniversaries, the occasion gives rise to the question: What would the father of “Star Trek” have thought of the world today?

“I think he would be very concerned and upset about the current state of affairs,” Star Trek historian Mark A. Altman tells The Post’s Comic Riffs.

Roddenberry, who was born in 1921, envisioned a future of greater unity, says Altman, noting that the writer-showrunner was wary of whatever forces or institutions could spark divisiveness.

“Roddenberry’s own politics evolved over time,” says Altman, who is co-author of the new Star Trek two-volume oral history, “The Fifty-Year Mission.” “I’m always amused when Ted Cruz says that ‘Star Trek’ is his favorite television show. Because I don’t think there is any world where Star Trek is anything but a progressive, liberal vision of the future — in which big government is a good thing, and we can all get along. It’s a utopian ethos that is a result of one world government, and not exceptionalism of any particular country.”

“I think he would be heartbroken over political gridlock where people couldn’t find common ground,” Altman says.

“The militancy and sturdiness of political correctness would disturb him as well,” the historian continues. “But I think he would still not lose faith that we have to go through these challenging times before we can come out the other side. He would look at this as the dark times. ‘The Next Generation’ talked about the post-nuclear horror of the 21st century, and a start coming out of this long night. This, too, shall pass, and we hopefully learn from our mistakes.”

Roddenberry and his colleagues were World War II veterans, whose country was now fighting the Cold War against a Communist aggressor they regarded with horror. They considered the Western democracies the only force holding back worldwide totalitarian dictatorship. The best expression of their spirit was John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, with its proud promise to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

igorfrankensteen wrote:Oh, piffle. Star Trek wasn't "communist." Not remotely. It frankly wasn't all that well thought out, when it came to socio-financial-political stuff. I saw it as it was being originally broadcast, and recognized then, all the usual things we see in both future-based, and history-based dramas. That is, that the stories told are always reflections and or fantasies of the times they are written during.

I recall in particular, one episode wherein the Klingons and Federation folks were each using one of the primary societies of a certain remote planet, to fight a proxy war with each other. The story was essentially a complete support as possible for the Vietnam War to be continued as long as it could be. Hardly a communist-positive notion.

The Star Trek background ideas, with no more wars at home, and no poverty and so on, were less something that Roddenberry was actively trying to promote, than it was for the sake of making it easy to write outward-facing stories all the time. It had more to do (I think) with the relative wealth of the United States at that time, than to any crafted socio-economic agenda. Same reason why high wages for all workers, and lots of support for welfare and unions was relatively accepted in the same time period.