• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Star Trek Holodeck Enigma.

"Marxist Utopia" ... oxymoron?

To you or me, maybe, but to Gene Roddenberry obviously not.

The whole setup for ST is a world which quickly abandoned all greed, self-interest or commercialism soon after the first warp flight and meeting the first aliens. They even make several references in ST movies, TOS, NG, and Enterprise to no longer having money or basically any interest in accumulating personal wealth. Everyone just started working together for the common good, each contributing to the best of his/her abilities, and getting according to his/her needs.

If that's not Marxism, I don't know what it is.

Furthermore, let's remember that the Ferengi were introduced as an intended main antagonist for season 2 of ST:NG. They were supposed to be the ridiculous and evil guys because they're all about unchecked capitalism, and that's obviously ridiculous and bad. Well, to GR it was, anyway. The viewers didn't quite see things the same way, so the network demanded something else, and so were the Romulans brought back.

So, anyway, to get back on topic, basically that's why people still went to work instead of just staying all day in the Holodeck or just sitting on the couch and sipping synthale. 'Cause they were better people than that, see? :p
 
Last edited:
I think this is wishful thinking. Or pious thinking -- wishing people were not as shallow as they actually are. IMO, a large portion of humanity, possibly most, would be quite happy with a made-up mate. Especially if they could modify this mate when they got bored.

I dunno... they make it pretty clear in that one Holodeck episode (where a race of like, biological computer people who speak in binary take over the ship by trapping Picard and Riker in the holodeck with a fascinating near-real woman; not to mention the Moriarty episodes) that most of the people produced by the Holodeck are just not real enough. They go through their motions and read their script, but they don't have any real intelligence beyond a small fraction of the computing power of the ship's computer.

So yes, some Holodeck time is probably easier than hiring a prostitute, but most people wouldn't find a Holodeck Husband very satisfactory.
 
To you or me, maybe, but to Gene Roddenberry obviously not.

The whole setup for ST is a world which quickly abandoned all greed, self-interest or commercialism soon after the first warp flight and meeting the first aliens.

Well, they were also recovering from the nuclear ravages of WWIII.
 
Maybe it's like porn. Everything gets old after a while.

Steve S

Television. I pretty much watch the news and sports. The news can get old if they don't report on things I find interesting. Sometimes I just want to know the local weather. It's a good thing that sports have off-seasons. Otherwise I would get tired of them too. There are few "entertainment" programs that I find entertaining. I can usually think of something better to do than watch television. I don't think a holodeck would be much different.
 
I dunno... they make it pretty clear in that one Holodeck episode (where a race of like, biological computer people who speak in binary take over the ship by trapping Picard and Riker in the holodeck with a fascinating near-real woman; not to mention the Moriarty episodes) that most of the people produced by the Holodeck are just not real enough. They go through their motions and read their script, but they don't have any real intelligence beyond a small fraction of the computing power of the ship's computer.

So yes, some Holodeck time is probably easier than hiring a prostitute, but most people wouldn't find a Holodeck Husband very satisfactory.
I was responding to the post saying "most Science Fiction series have an episode... in a computer simulation", not about holodeck specifically. Sure, if holodeck characters are ELIZA-type programs who grow repetitive quickly, it won't be very satisfactory even to a shallow person. But the point of such plots, including "Star Trek: Generations", is that made-up mate/adventure/experience is unsatisfactory even when indistinguishable from reality, just because "you're always aware [mate/adventure/experience] is not real".

Which I think is false, for a large part of humanity. Probably a majority.
 
This hearkens back to the original Star Trek pilot as well, IMO. Captain Pike decides to live on that alien world (in their "zoo", IIRC) exactly because he won't be constrained by his physical form. His damaged body is restored in some illusory fashion, that is indistinguishable from actually being healed, and he figures, "Better than the rolling box with the light on top".
 
"I suppose SF story in which protagonists are happy through artificial means, know it, and do not care, is not politically correct. Although I encountered quite a few people who say they would LIKE to live in "Brave New World". Their very existence belies the "It doesn't work, long term, since you're always aware that [source of happiness] is not real" claim.

To the bolded part, not necessarily. The claim that they would like to live in "Brave New World" is unverifiable without a "Brave New World" environment.

People often claim they want something they could never get. I could say that I want a rhinoceros for a pet. That doesn't prove that having a rhinoceros for a pet isn't a bad idea.

People often claim they want something they could get, but once they get it, don't really want it anymore. I could say that I would like to eat only ice cream for the rest of my life. That doesn't prove that I wouldn't get bored with ice cream if I actually tried to implement such a diet.

Without being able to place those people in a "Brave New World" to see how they would actually react rather than how they say they would react, their claim can't belie the theory that knowing the source of happiness isn't real prevents long-term satisfaction.

ETA: Although I do have to agree that it is just a theory, for the same reasons I mention above. We don't know that people wouldn't be fine with a simulation that is indistinguishable from reality because we have yet to create one. It is almost cliche, the rejection of false reality by the protagonist and only antagonists are willing to accept it(ie, the traitor in The Matrix).
 
Last edited:
I guess we're getting into the nitty-gritty of whether, say, the Vortex (or any other computer simulation) really was "indistinguishable from reality". To Kirk, it clearly wasn't - the fact that if he fell in the gorge, he would still be alive (and uninjured?), was enough of a difference to him.

Imagine that when you get home after a long day's work, you find that a house has been created right next door to yours. Inside you find a perfect simulation of your spouse or your roommates or your parents. All your stuff is simulated. Except the walls are all painted light blue instead of white. You know it's the simulated house. Sure, many people probably wouldn't care too much, but I don't think it's too farfetched to assume that rational materialists like Kirk or Riker wouldn't be satisfied.
 
It is almost cliche, the rejection of false reality by the protagonist and only antagonists are willing to accept it(ie, the traitor in The Matrix).
Yes, it is a cliche. Real people are supposed to prefer real thing!

"The Prefect" by Alastair Reynolds portrays a presumably very happy society which lives permanently in Matrix-like simulation. They know they are in a simulation, they interact with real world when they have to, but keep it to a minimum. They also have most of their bodies amputated, to minimize life-support requirements.

They also end up dead when Big Bad Thing happens. But it is not a karmic retibution, as three other societies, one of them undeniably attractive, also get genocided.

This is closest I know to a positive portrayal of complete voluntary retreat from reality. Bolded because Reynolds has several other fairly happy Matrix-like societies, but they are either part-time, or their members did not have much of a choice in the matter.
 
I dunno... they make it pretty clear in that one Holodeck episode (where a race of like, biological computer people who speak in binary take over the ship by trapping Picard and Riker in the holodeck with a fascinating near-real woman; not to mention the Moriarty episodes) that most of the people produced by the Holodeck are just not real enough. They go through their motions and read their script, but they don't have any real intelligence beyond a small fraction of the computing power of the ship's computer.

So yes, some Holodeck time is probably easier than hiring a prostitute, but most people wouldn't find a Holodeck Husband very satisfactory.

I dunno, I've known people who had over 40 characters in WoW for example, and it didn't bother them all that much to talk to the same NPCs and hear them say the exact same things again, 40 times. Actually, even more, if you count the endgame grind. You could hear the same things and do the same things well over 40 times in a row even with a single character.

Just to make it clear, the NPCs in WoW don't even have the ELIZA class intelligence. They have none at all. They stand in one place, you click on them, they spew the same text. You can't for example try saying the same thing in a different way and see how they react this time, or anything.

Doesn't seem a show stopper to a lot of people.

Sure, some could say, "But Hans, ye berk, they're playing primarily with other people not with NPCs." Well, actually that would be mostly false for some of those, but nevertheless... there's no reason why the same couldn't be done in a holodeck. In fact, it is. Most episodes which feature a holodeck at all, show us more than one person going in at the same time.

Also, well, even a completely brain dead NPC is tolerable _once_ for most people. While the lack of intelligence or of more options may or may not bother you when you replay a computer game, most people don't seem too fussed about it the first time playing through a game. You go get your quest, listen to the NPC spew the scripted text, go talk to another NPC and listen to more scripted text, etc. We can live with that as basically a semi-interactive form of being told a story. You quickly learn to accept that basically you just got to essentially the equivalent of the next page in one of those pick your own adventure books, and it's already written, you just get to read it and make the next choice to get to the next page.

Then once you're done with it, you get the next game, and the whole thing happens once more.

If you think of the holodeck as basically just a standardized game engine, and given millions of people and hundreds of years of creating games and mods and props for that engine, I think it would be perfectly feasible to just play one game after another on it for as long as you live. When you've replayed game 1 often enough that the NPCs get predictable, you just load up game 2, then game 3, then game 4, and so on.

So basically, well, probably you couldn't find the perfect virtual husband in there to last you for a lifetime, but you could have millions of quests and NPCs to keep you entertained in other ways.

And given that last I heard a statistic, IIRC about 2/3 of the online players seem to be women, I'd say they must be easy enough to entertain with something else than a virtual husband.
 
If we're discussing WoW, then we're discussing a game system designed to separate a player from their money. It is addictive by design.

The Holodeck, on the other hand, was designed as a psychological tool for long, tedious space voyages. I'm not denying that some people would become addicted to the Holodeck - Ensign Barclay, who suffers from some sort of social anxiety disorder, is clearly shown to have this sort of addiction. I am disputing that it would become such a problem for most people.
 
While WoW is indeed a commercial thing, there are several user mods that were free all along, and were addictive as heck for a lot of people. Probably the easiest recognizable example is Counter-Strike. Even if you haven't played it personally, you probably knew someone who obsessed about it all the time.

Ultimately it boils down to: some people are just talented, and can come up with both good ideas and a good implementation. Sure, a commercial company can just pay to get some of those talented people, but others do it for free anyway.

And ultimately there is no such thing as physiological addiction to games. What really happens is that they're fun. Even the "OMG dopamine!!!" gang really just found a normal brain signal that's not even associated with rewards, but with motivation to continue. It just means a good game is basically keeping your interest. The same chemicals would be present while you enjoy reading a good book, or watching a good movie, or just having sex.

If someone makes a game that is fun, it will be "adictive." If not, not.

And clearly everyone can program their own adventure in a Holodeck, and they do so all the time.

I'd say that given enough time and people, you'd end up with quite a few that are as high quality as any commercial game. And will cause about as many "addicts".

Mind you, I'm not saying everyone would get addicted to the point of skipping work or sleep. But it doesn't have to cause a "bah, this NPC is saying the same things" or "bah, this isn't real" reaction either. That is really all I'm saying.
 
While WoW is indeed a commercial thing, there are several user mods that were free all along, and were addictive as heck for a lot of people. Probably the easiest recognizable example is Counter-Strike. Even if you haven't played it personally, you probably knew someone who obsessed about it all the time.

Someone. I did not see hoards of people slavishly playing. Neither do I see hordes of people slavishly playing WoW.

Ultimately it boils down to: some people are just talented, and can come up with both good ideas and a good implementation. Sure, a commercial company can just pay to get some of those talented people, but others do it for free anyway.

Um... I don't disagree? But I also don't get your point. I suppose you are saying that WoW ISN'T specifically designed to keep people interested month-after-month so they keep paying their fees? Note that I don't have any problem with this model - after all, I subscribe to Netflix and greatly enjoy their "addictive" service.

And ultimately there is no such thing as physiological addiction to games. What really happens is that they're fun.

That's a pretty unsubstantiated statement, but let's put aside "addiction" and talk about addictive behavior.

It just means a good game is basically keeping your interest. The same chemicals would be present while you enjoy reading a good book, or watching a good movie, or just having sex.

I don't know where you got the opinion that I disliked WoW, or gaming in general. I agree that there's no real difference between WoW or a good movie or "just having sex". Note that some people demonstrate addictive behaviors with all these things.

Mind you, I'm not saying everyone would get addicted to the point of skipping work or sleep. But it doesn't have to cause a "bah, this NPC is saying the same things" or "bah, this isn't real" reaction either. That is really all I'm saying.

So what you're saying is that you agree with me and disagree with the original post, which posited that nearly everyone would use the Holodeck in preference to normal human life.
 
Basically. I wasn't answering that question at all, is more like it.

But, yes, some people would use it more, some people less. Ain't that always the case?
 
Basically. I wasn't answering that question at all, is more like it.

Soo.... now I'm confused.

I stated, in essence, "The holodeck is too unrealistic for most people to find compelling as a replacement for real life."

Then you stated, in essence, "Some people get addicted to WoW!" which was not at all a rebuttal to my statement. I agree that some people DID get addicted to the Holodeck. There's a whole episode about it.
 
It always made me laugh when a crew member just walked up to the Holodeck and just walked in. There would be a long queue of off duty crew staring at their watches if they weren't outright rioting for who goes next.

Thanks much!

Considering how much people love playing real-time computer games now, I have often thought the same thing.

Also, I have often thought that a holodeck would be a great place to learn how to box, sword fight, fly a plane, and many, many other things.
 
I wrote the OP under the assumption that the experiences within the holodeck were indistinguishable from reality.
Given the option, I think most people would want to choose their own reality rather than stick with the one they happen to have. Especially if you could invite people from the real world into that other reality with you.
I imagine that everyone's house would be a holodeck, and your house would be your own private world. I think that would be enough to end most people's motivation to do anything productive. Or anything more than is required to afford to eat and power their holodeck. And the few people doing things in the real world would most likely be inventing ways to improve the holodeck, because that would be the only market left.
 
Soo.... now I'm confused.

I stated, in essence, "The holodeck is too unrealistic for most people to find compelling as a replacement for real life."

Then you stated, in essence, "Some people get addicted to WoW!" which was not at all a rebuttal to my statement. I agree that some people DID get addicted to the Holodeck. There's a whole episode about it.

It wasn't really a rebuttal to addicted or non-addicted at all, that's what I'm saying. I was addressing the "not realistic enough" aspect, that's all. Most people aren't bothered at all by "not realistic enough", at least on the first run through a game or movie. (A Holodeck would basically be usable as either.)

Sure, they still won't all get addicted. But not because of it not being realistic enough.

That's what I was addressing. Hope it's clearer this time.
 
Thanks much!

Considering how much people love playing real-time computer games now, I have often thought the same thing.

Also, I have often thought that a holodeck would be a great place to learn how to box, sword fight, fly a plane, and many, many other things.

If I had to guess I suspect learning how to box, sword fighting, and flying a plane would not be as popular programs as the many other things :rolleyes:
 

Back
Top Bottom