picard-o (quokk.au)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/sigh_fi
 
picard-o
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 153 points 1 year ago (40 children)

There are no billionaires in star trek, Elon.

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Elon names stuff after things in The Culture, but he's Joiler Veppers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Grok really upsets me, that's my favorite book and although I know Mike wouldn't hate Elon I really really hope he would. That said if you limit sources and insist on making it see through your lens you're by definition not allowing it to grok anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Grok is from Robert A. Heinlein. I believe the first reference is Stranger in a Strange Land. He would probably be okay with billionaires, too. He was also a promoter of competence and critical thinking, so he might have held Elon specifically in disdain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Yes it's my favorite book.

    Mike was a billionaire, the nest had a literal pot of money that anyone could just take and do whatever.

    But no he would love Elon. To grok is to understand fully, to understand is to know, to know is to love. Essentially everyone has a redeemable quality and Mike would love that part especially but also all the lesser parts and even the hard to love parts because all those other parts are part of what makes the part he truly loves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Ah. The "he" I was referring to was Robert. It's been over 30 years since I read that book, and forgot the protagonist's name?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh Heinlein was a stanch liberation so yeah he probably would be.

    Eh don't feel bad his name is actually Valentine Michael Smith but all his friends just call him Mike and most of the book he is referred to as Mike or Michael.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, that's the one. If I remember the overall tone, it would be in character for him to see the collection of wealth as a response to some childhood harm that it would be better for Elon to overcome, so he could be free of its binding influence. Not that his being a billionaire was bad, but him having a compulsion to hoard wealth is harmful for his well-being.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    Is that last part in the book? That’s some Ra shit 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    The money bowl? It's once he makes a church and the newspaper fella ( never remember his name) comes to visit. So like 3/4 ish of the book I suppose.

    Ed: in case you meant the definition of grok.

    Grok means "to understand", of course, but Dr. Mahmoud, who might be termed the leading Terran expert on Martians, explains that it also means, "to drink" and "a hundred other English words, words which we think of as antithetical concepts. 'Grok' means all of these. It means 'fear', it means 'love', it means 'hate' — proper hate, for by the Martian 'map' you cannot hate anything unless you grok it, understand it so thoroughly that you merge with it and it merges with you — then you can hate it. By hating yourself. But this implies that you love it, too, and cherish it and would not have it otherwise. Then you can hate — and (I think) Martian hate is an emotion so black that the nearest human equivalent could only be called mild distaste.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    I did mean the “to grok is to understand fully, to understand it to know, to know is to love”. That sounds like the Rule of One, the Ra book. Esoteric bs and all. But it made me curious if that’s where the book of Ra got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Check the chain I quoted the book directly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Yup yup. But I guess you don’t know the Rule of One material, the Ra books. It’s a very popular new age esoteric material, allegedly channeled from an entity in Venus called Ra. Its philosophy seems to be at least inspired by this Grok book. The Ra material is from the 60s.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Stranger in a strange land was 1961 so maybe, though understanding and free love were pretty common principals at the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    But the idea that you can only truly know what you love, and you can only love what you fully accept, is pretty specific 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I think that's been a thing for as long time or is an interesting weekend research assignment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Idk man, I don’t think it is. When I first read the Ra material I said something to the same effect to basically everybody I knew and it seemed like a really novel idea to all of them 🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    To be fair most people aren't familiar with philosophy, like 5 episodes of the good place gives people more philosophical education then the general population has normally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    100%, yeah. But still, this love understanding stuff is very popular among esoteric circles. So there must be a more direct connection than just “hippies talked about love” 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There's been billionaires since the Orion were introduced and it's not like there aren't wealthy businesses owners in the federation. It's just post scarcity in large part so the difference between the wealthiest person and the poorest isn't so stark.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    When you take into account Natasha Yar's childhood where she grew up in poverty having to hide from rape gangs then is it even really post-scarcity?

    Or is it just post-scarcity for Starfleet and certain parts of the Federation?

    Turkana IV (Natasha Yar's planet) started off as a federation colony after all. And became a dystopia even while still a member of it. So if the Federation is considered a post-scarcity society then why didn't Turkana IV benefit from that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Inside the federation it's very very close to post scarcity but it's not quite perfect. Outside the federation like we see in the delta quadrant it's 100% not and a overall story line for like 4 seasons was them getting chased around with everyone trying to steal replicator technology.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

    A Starfleet Captain commands the wealth of nations. I don't think it's fair to say Billionaires Don't Exist so much as to say the liberal ideal Meritocracy is made manifest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Being entrusted with large amounts of resources is very different from owning large amounts of resources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I didn't watch Picard. How did Geordie end up with the Enterprise?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    He's the caretaker of the federation fleet museum. Basically a cushy retirement job for a guy who has a family and didn't want to get shot at any more. He's probably the only cast member that acts like an adult in Picard. 😆

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    So they could have undocked an historical fleet and only took their favorite ship? Seems like a tactical oversight.....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Giordi has spent like 20 years putting it back together from pieces after it was destroyed, and it was still the most powerful ship in that museum by a long shot. The Galaxy class was still in active service in Picard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Commands, as in "has the responsibility for".

    Not "owns and can do whatever the fuck they want with it and be a dumbass asshole to everyone"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Various Star Fleet officers have periodically violated Federation rules and guidelines to achieve some ideological goal or moral imperative that cuts across the fleet's stated mission. Like with anything there's limits - Starfleet has its own police, crews can mutiny, eventually you run out of dilithium to gas up your warp drive so you can't go rogue forever. But for a deep space galaxy class vessel, they're regularly stuck making their own decisions under a military autocracy.

    The Starfleet Admiralty Problem is a chronic plotline in the series, with admirals routinely engaged in all sorts of corrupt practices and villainous endeavors. Every captain from Kirk to Freeman has to deal with their share of higher ranking officers fucking around and being dumb assholes. Hell, Kirk himself is demoted from Admiral to Captain for going rogue in The Voyage Home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Yes this is called individual freedom. And people are apt to serve their own interests occasionally. The overall point is that there are consequences to those actions. And every one of those rogue admirals discovered what those consequences were. None of them got off scot-free to ride off into the distance with their ill-gotten gains.

  • source
  • parent