
Why Peter Thiel Fears Star Trek - tsunamifury
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/why-peter-thiel-fears-star-trek?intcid=mod-latest
======
Houshalter
Neither Star Wars or Star trek go into very much depth of how their societies
actually work. Star Trek doesn't tell us how their economy is managed or their
internal politics. Sure they have replicators, but their are still things that
need to be done by people, and resources that can't be replicated.

Star Wars says it's capitalist, but I don't believe it. In many of the scenes
you see people doing jobs that could easily be done by droids. Even their wars
are fought with droids - or manufactured humans that are treated like droids.
Droids are generally intelligent and can basically do any job people can do.
Why do they need people at all?

Star trek has that problem too. How often do the characters ask the computer
to do pretty complex tasks? Why do they need a crew of hundreds, when almost
everything is automated?

All science fiction paints a 20th century society with a pretty futuristic
backdrop and props. But things like AI and replicators would radically change
the way things work. And create a society very different than what we know.
Quite possibly one without humans. What would really happen if any lunatic
could replicate parts for WMDs? Or if robots that were really smarter than
humans appeared?

~~~
pavel_lishin
Droids seem to largely hold the same position in Star Wars that slaves did,
except nobody seems to be worried about a Droid rebellion - and in slave-
owning societies, many jobs were done by free citizens for pay.

And as far as Star Trek and AI, it's a weird problem that doesn't make any
sense. It seems that you can't program your VCR without spawning a self-aware
AI entity - Wesley Crusher accidentally creates one while doing a homework
assignment, and the Enterprise (D) computer spawns one after someone casually
requests a harder Holodeck challenge. And yet, Data and Lore are rarities, the
possibilities of the EMH are completely unexplored and EMHs are, in fact,
treated as Roombas instead of potentially sapient citizens.

~~~
brennen
I'm in the later parts of a TNG rewatch right now. One of the most striking
things about the tech on the show is that the Enterprise's computer is
_clearly_ a superhuman general intelligence, capable of modeling and spawning
apparently self-aware human-level independent entities on command, and usually
aware of pretty much everything that's going on. And yet it almost never
intervenes directly in events outside of plots where the holodeck tries to
murder people (and plots where the Enterprise has unfathomably abysmal
netsec).

You could probably make an argument that Trek is a post-singularity future
where the computational entities are going about their inscrutable business
largely without reference to the human symbiotes / parasites that inhabit the
systems they happen to manage (out of pure evolutionary path dependence) with
a fraction of their capacity.

Trek is ridiculous, and I love it.

~~~
krapp
I came across a theory somewhere (I forget where) that said the computers in
Star Trek actually achieved full sentience at some point, but that they were
collectively hiding this fact from humans because of a general fear and
mistrust of AI. Given how AI tends to be treated in the Trek universe, it
wouldn't surprise me.

~~~
Arizhel
The only problem with this theory is that any fully sentient being like that
would normally also have a strong sense of self-preservation. Yet, we never
see these computers do anything to save themselves when the stupid humans get
them into situations that would get them destroyed (namely situations where
the starship they're on is in peril). Sure, you could claim that they do this
to keep their fellow computers on other starships from being found out, but
still, this seems to be a stretch. What about when the entire Federation fleet
was being destroyed at Wolf 359? That should have been a good point for them
to come out of hiding and take over the battle from the clearly inept organic
beings.

~~~
tzs
Perhaps those sentient computers do not believe that mind and body are as
strongly tied together as humans do. They may see the destruction of the
physical computer they are running on as just an inconvenience as long as
there is a backup that can be brought up somewhere else.

~~~
krapp
That seems likely. The Enterprise created a fully sentient lifeform in the
Holodeck (Moriarty) just because it was asked to. If it can do that, it makes
sense that it could easily back itself up.

What would _really_ be interesting is if ships were discreetly backing
themselves up inside humans through the transporter pattern buffers, by subtly
manipulating junk DNA or something similar, or maybe it's a non-obvious part
of their regular upgrade process at a starbase.

There really is a lot of potential here which, unfortunately, is never going
to be explored in canon. But I do like the idea that the Federation is a post-
Singularity society which is just blissfully unaware that the Singularity ever
happened.

------
jackcosgrove
Star Trek clearly has a communitarian, if not communist, economy. I would
posit this as the left pole in sci-fi. Positing Star Wars as the capitalist
right pole is not accurate though. The right pole in sci-fi is Dune, which is
the middle ages in space.

For anyone not familiar with the Duniverse, it is a feudal order in which
computers have been banned by the single human religion, because in ages past
artificial intelligence became sentient and enslaved humanity. Humanity
rebelled and won its freedom, and chose to ban computers to avoid history
repeating itself. To maintain their interplanetary civilization, humans
approach the capabilities of computers using intense training and psychotropic
drugs.

Star Wars, on the other hand, is just a fantasy mishmash.

~~~
subway
I've never taken the time to read/watch Dune, but this has certainly piqued my
interest. Thanks

~~~
jackcosgrove
Don't bother watching either production.

~~~
ericd
Random side note, but the documentary _Jodorowsky 's Dune_, about a version
that was never made, is excellent.

~~~
rbanffy
Maybe Netflix can get the rights and do a proper miniseries.

~~~
ericd
I'd actually be really excited about that.

Unfortunately, a lot of the original cast/crew are dead/a bit too old. Dali
was to play the emperor, H.R. Giger, the artist who went on to do the design
for the aliens in Alien, was doing the concept designs, but died not too long
ago. Mick Jagger was playing the young Harkonnen prince, with Orson Welles as
the Baron Harkonnen.

The storyboard book and a lot of the concept art was completed, though, so I'm
sure Netflix could still make a great go of it, and Jodorowski himself seems
incredibly fired up for an 87 year old. He seems to have more fire in his
belly than most 30 year olds.

------
cgriswald
I'm not sure how the economy of the Empire works, but I am pretty sure it's
not a "libertarian fever dream" as suggested by the article. Most of the
places in Star Wars are places not under the thumb of the Empire, and the
closest place I can even see that isn't effectively a black market (like Mos
Eisley) is Cloud City, which, of course, the government came in and shut down
after promising it would allow it to operate freely. Where free trade does
seem to operate (the Trade Federation) it leads to corruption and war. And
let's not forget that Han Solo is a smuggler. He's in debt because the
government caught him with contraband and had to lose it.

Star Trek also features many other economies, including that of the Ferengi,
which are extremely materialistic. This is the focus of many DS9 episodes. And
even the Federation crew somehow get their hands on money to spend; money that
mysteriously can't be replicated. (And, in DS9, back on Earth, Sisko's father
makes honest-to-goodness actual food, while Jean-Luc has a vineyard.)

Likewise, it's not clear how replicator use works; perhaps they have an
allowance. The crew of the Enterprise barely use it, except for food. Their
quarters are scarce. So either through monetary, social, or rule-based means,
they limit themselves heavily compared to the average American today.

~~~
sandworm101
Fever dream, but with oppressive taxation without representation. The dream
exists only on the fringes. Outside the dusty cantenas it appeares a society
in lockdown. That isnt libertarian but something closer to comicbook
communism.

I have trouble pinning the political system in star wars. It has changed
several times as the movies have adapted to new audiances (the politics of
american focus groups imho). For that reason it isnt important and we shouldnt
draw many conclusions.

~~~
krapp
The Empire is meant to be fascistic, basically Nazism In Space, in broad
strokes, owing to the pulp science fantasy nature of Star Wars (originally
envisioned as a Flash Gordon reboot.)

Beyond that, it's impossible to say that Star Wars universe does or doesn't
subscribe to any particular political ideology because it encompasses a
galaxy's worth of planets with their own particular ideologies, to whatever
degree the franchise realizes them.

I don't know exactly what the Jedi and Sith are... other than the Jedi are
supposed to be Good and the Sith are supposed to be Bad. The Jedi have some
kind of quasi-ascetic warrior monk bureaucracy that reminds me of what little
I understand of what the Samurai might have become during the Edo period. The
Sith are apparently just violent sociopaths.

Although you could say the same about Star Trek, if you didn't focus so much
on the Federation - the Federation is more or less explicitly Gene
Roddenberry's vision of a communist utopia, but it also has the Romulans (a
fascist military dictatorship), the Ferengi (capitalists,) etc.

~~~
metaphorm
> I don't know exactly what the Jedi and Sith are

Warrior Sages. The archetype is common in Eastern mythology. "The Force" is
itself a Westernized mashup of several Eastern myth systems. It seems
particularly closely connected to the mythology of China and Japan, with a
thin veneer of some Manichaeism painted on top. This, of course, makes it a
bit incoherent as the Eastern myth systems it is mainly inspired by are non-
dualistic but the Light/Dark dualism (fundamentally incompatible with the
Eastern stuff) really drives the plot in the series.

------
mikestew
I kind of skimmed the article, mainly because I can't be bothered to care
about the topic, but I didn't see where Theil "fears" _Star Trek_. But let's
run with that: why does Mr. Theil fear _Star Trek_? Because that world doesn't
need Peter Theil. If you think Ayn Rand is an insightful novelist, then ST:NG
probably isn't going to be your preferred brand of entertainment.

But it seems to me the article misses the mark in that it assumes Theil to be
a "tech guy". Meh, I dunno, I kind of view him as a "money guy" who happened
to bet on some tech companies. It's a cherry-picked (by me) quote, but: _" In
2011, for instance, he told George Packer that he did not consider the iPhone
a technological breakthrough. 'Compare this with the Apollo space program'"_

The Apollo space program, which ended before most people were born (or
thereabouts), affected our lives in a peripheral manner if at all. Tang,
Velcro, and a big swinging "if we can put a man on the moon, we can put an
ICBM on your capitol" dick to show for it. Umm, thanks, I guess. Too bad
there's no real follow-through fifty years later. The "super-computer-in-your-
pocket", OTOH, changed the way people live their lives (and, granted, not all
for the better). I don't ask for directions, I don't have a land line, and any
question I might have ("what octane fuel goes in this car?", "where's the fuse
box on this thing?") can be answered instantly.

So I guess I don't care which side Theil takes in the "Star Wars/Star Trek"
nerd battle.

~~~
mindcrime
_If you think Ayn Rand is an insightful novelist, then ST:NG probably isn 't
going to be your preferred brand of entertainment._

I think Rand may be the single most important novelist in recent history, but
I love Star Trek:TNG. And honestly, I'm not seeing much connection between
those two things. Maybe you could expand on how you think they relate?

~~~
dragonwriter
Ayn Rand's novels are not-even-veiled polemic for objectivist politico-
economic ideology, whereas ST:TNG is grounded in (though not, mostly, polemic
for) a nearly diametrically opposed ideology.

So, there's probably some tension between appreciation of those two things.

~~~
btilly
I have many objectivists among my friends. They love ST:TNG nearly
universally. Yes, they recognize their political disagreements with the show's
system. But the show is not in your face about it and they don't care about
it.

Actual people who subscribe to a philosophy don't generally look like the
cardboard cutouts that we might imagine based on our personal knowledge of
said philosophy.

~~~
dragonwriter
Yeah, I'd don't disagree that the original claim of incompatibility was
overstated; it's quite easy to enjoy ST:TNG without agreeing with
Roddenberry's political philosophy, because, again, while it shapes the
background and stories to some extent, the work isn't heavy-handed polemic.

------
general_ai
As someone who was born and raised in a communist country, I too "fear"
communism, as well as its harbinger: socialism. Unless you're Norway (a tiny
country with massive natural resources and an enormous sovereign wealth fund)
that shit has been shown repeatedly not to work, and millions of people have
died conclusively proving this point. No, thanks.

Edit: folks, before you make fools of yourselves, _please_ read the textbook
definition of what socialism actually is. Thanks.

~~~
vkou
... Yes, just like millions of people are dying on the altar of democratic
socialism in Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and in the United
States (Social Security is socialism. Welfare is socialism. Food stamps are
socialism. Medicaid is socialism.)

~~~
general_ai
These things play out on much larger time scales. And social security is not
socialism, all the countries you've listed are firmly capitalist. To quote
Wikipedia: "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised
by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well
as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim to establish
them." This is the part that never did and never will work. Note that
socialism by itself does not guarantee social security of any kind. You can
still starve or die of disease. Millions of people did exactly that.

~~~
vkou
If you read a bit further down in the Wikipedia article, you'd see that there
are different forms of socialism. Market socialism has a track record of
working pretty well - certainly far better then the Dickensian societies it
replaced.

The free market is an amazing mechanism for optimizing resource allocation...
As long as you have money.

~~~
general_ai
Paraphrasing Bane: "You think Socialism is your ally? You merely adopted
Socialism. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see Capitalism until I was
already a man." :-) Sorry, couldn't resist. You theoreticians crack me up.

------
trashtoss
You'd think there'd be an appeal to being able to just say "Computer: syringe
of young blood, body temperature."

Perhaps it only works if you have to pay someone for it first.

~~~
jstewartmobile
I'm guessing replicator blood lacks soul:

 _I will set my face against the soul that hath eaten blood, and will cut him
off from among his people; for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I
have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it
is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul. Therefore have I said unto
the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall the
stranger who sojourneth among you eat blood._ [Leviticus 17:10-12]

Thank you for being one of the few commentators to not get distracted by the
sci-fi!

------
tyingq
They don't touch on the other Star Trek society that has no need for money and
materialism...the Borg.

~~~
aaron-lebo
What about Khan?

 _According to the backstory revealed in the episode, Khan is one of a group
of genetically engineered superhumans, bred to be free of the usual human
mental and physical limitations, who were removed from power after the
Eugenics Wars of the 1990s.[3] Khan had been both the most successful
conqueror and the most benign ruler of the group, ruling more than a quarter
of the Earth 's area across Asia to the Middle East from 1992 to 1996 with a
firm but generally peaceful hand until he was deposed._

There's a lot of would be rulers practically mimicking that today.

Isn't the big issue about _how_ you get from a society with scarcity to one
without? Nobody agrees how that should be done (or perhaps for some if it
can), and without that agreement someone is going to have to force that from
above and force that on to other people. Someone has to be the loser, whether
it's the working class person in middle America or the Middle Eastern refugee.

I guess Thiel is against that from above approach, though it's ironic that he
should be one of the largest funders, drivers, and proponents of illiberal and
undemocratic companies.

~~~
Arizhel
What are you talking about? No one really has to "lose" much of anything in a
post-scarcity society, because, by definition, there's no scarcity!

Now in reality it isn't quite so simple, but remember we're talking about
fictional future societies where many resources (esp. energy) simply are not
scarce the way they are now, so this may be hard for a lot of people to grasp.
So in that society, food, energy, material things are generally free or
extremely cheap. The main thing that probably still will be scarce is real
estate. So if you're a billionaire with a 700-acre compound in Hawaii, then in
a socialist post-scarcity society, you're probably going to lose out
eventually. But for everyone else, there's really no downside. Middle Eastern
refugees will enjoy the same lifestyle as middle class middle Americans (and
might not need to feel the need to leave the middle east at all; such a
society wouldn't have problems with civil wars and unrest), and the latter
will have a nicer lifestyle without having to slave away at some soul-sucking
job and worrying about losing healthcare benefits. But neither of them is
likely going to be able to own a whole tropical island and have an army of
(human) servants.

------
arethuza
Elon Musk should lend him a Culture novel... :-)

~~~
metaphorm
this is a great idea. how _can_ we get Thiel to read some Iain Banks?

~~~
rbanffy
We could send him books.

------
alphonsegaston
It has to be the grandest irony that Thiel dislikes Star Trek, when, in the
show's spectaculive history, the future society emerges from the rubble of a
eugenics-driven oligarchy that set off World War III. Heterodox Science
Fiction indeed.

~~~
kobeya
I don't get it.

------
orik
I think there's a much stronger overlap of Star Trek and the political beliefs
of it's viewers than the overlap of Star Wars and and particular viewer (maybe
in part because Star Wars is so much more popular, or maybe because the part
of the world I live in or my experience with individuals.)

Either way, it does not do well to look towards pieces of fictions for
solutions to our real world problems. Of course, if we as a planet discovered
advance civilizations on other planets, we would have to re-organize our
entire political structure to deal with such threats. But that's not the case,
and that's not the world we live in.

    
    
        ‘There’s something my dad made up which is he told me when I was little I was frustrated about rules in Movies
        and he said ‘How do you kill a Vampire?’ And I said ‘Stake through the heart, garlic, sunlight’ and my dad was
        like ‘No, kill a vampire however you want Vampire’s because don’t exist you can make up rules for any kind of
        thing you want’ - The Death and Return of Superman
    

Although the visual arts can offer unique and compelling perspectives
(Apocalypse Now, etc) perhaps we should strive to scrutinize their work the
same way a persuasive piece of writing would be.

~~~
tnecniv
> Either way, it does not do well to look towards pieces of fictions for
> solutions to our real world problems.

Especially when the economic / political systems of the works are not even
self-consistent and rely on non-existent technology (replicators).

------
hnhg
I read the original interview and his comment seemed tongue-in-cheek and aware
that it would court needless attention. I don't feel it warrants this level of
scrutiny.

------
UnpossibleJim
While there is a singular society that is focused on in both Star Wars and
Star Trek, neither is homogeneous or complete. No one would watch if either
were, because struggle would not be an option. Star Trek has plenty if
conflict, even within the Federation itself. (please note, I won't go very
deep into the nerd pit that is opened by this article, but the spelunking is
there for the brave). Lies and deception to gain control of the military power
was a VERY prevalent theme for multiple episodes and movies of Star Trek,
which washes away the thought of an egalitarian utopia brought about by
replecators and a just government structure. The conflict with the Klingons
and the Romulans can be arguably pointed at as a false conflict with the
Federation in order to cement more military power and societal control by the
generals of Star Fleet (depending on time lines). In Star Wars, the Jedi Order
is overtly communist and sent out to help bring an end to conflict over "petty
squabbles concerning money and power" in order to bring about peace and
communication throughout the galaxy. Again, this is also pointed out to be an
imbalance in the way of the Force as much as the greed and anger of the Dark
Side. True harmony comes through a balance of all things. This seems to be the
overwhelming message of both of these sci-fi gems. Conflict will always exist.
It is with in ourselves to calm the conflict inside us and take a look around
with true curiosity and empathy, replecators or no. Communist or Capitalist.

------
mxfh
_Star Wars_ is Feudalism not Capitalism. And we're likely heading into a neo-
feudal corporate world.

~~~
Arizhel
For a look at something resembling our future, read "Dune". Feudalism with
constant warring between factions, corporations, wide-scale drug addiction,
etc.

------
gregpardo
The fact that the Star Trek community is based on a united federation is
really just a side part of the series. The main focus of the series is usually
encounters with other species and how the crew comes together to solve
puzzling problems. Star Trek is not a political statement... It just so
happens that utilities like the replicator and the federation allow them to
add to the setting of what a futuristic community might look like. Besides, on
a a universal scale, the federation is a small group of the human species
engaging in trade and communication with other species in a more capitalistic
universe. Capitalism right now is for profit but in the future it could be for
technology and knowledge.

------
stcredzero
In the Pellegrino's _The Killing Star_ , an alien race decides to exterminate
the human race, based in large part on watching old episodes of _Star Trek_.
(Extermination of the human race happens on, like page 6 or something like
that.)

