New Movies's contributions to canon

[justTripn]

Here is the wonderful tidbit I discovered today, from my boss. I work at one of the major economics journals. Apparently economists are thrilled that the the new movies had young Spock learning math, physics, and ECONOMICS! It's just two words: Spock was reciting something about "nonrival and nonexcludable." That's economics jargon. I heard it, but assumed it was also math. Apparently it was INTENDED as economics. One of the movie writers was an economist and got it in there.

Why are economists thrilled? Well, yeah . . . the vague "our economy is different now" thing from First Contact was sort of discouraging, and economists (and others) suspected a sort of bias against capitalism on the part of the writers and an obliviousness to economic principles. Well, no longer!!! I've even read two excruciatingly boring blogs on how appropriate it was to include that particular jargon. Because the fact that knowledge is nonrival and nonexcludable helps explain how an economy can achieve fantastic growth so there is plenty for all, a kind of utopia. It's kind of like when Jordi mentions the "Hiesenberg compensators" on the transporter. It says to physicists, yeah we (future engineers) recognize the problem too (The Heisenberg Uncertaintly Principle) and we've solved it.

So I doubt these new writers will screw up the economics of Star Trek. (Hey, the ship is named Enterprise!

[WarpGirl]

Wow that does the Ferangi and the Orions proud.

[justTripn]

See, economists are used to being misunderstood and mischaracterized by the general public. So it's nice to be appreciated in at least this movie!

[WarpGirl]

Took economics classes in college got good grades and loved it. So I will concur.

[justTripn]

[WarpGirl]

Don't get too excited JT. I took the classes because I was curious but the plan was to major in Art History and minor in English Lit and French. Unfortuately I had to drop out because of health problems.

[Alelou]

Have you considered trying for an online degree? Those can often be more flexible.

[WarpGirl]

Unfortunately I find the format overwhelming. Message boards aren't as organized and most people pay LESS attention online then they do in class. I get very stressed out then I get sick and end up in the hospital for a month, NO thank you kindly. I do intend to go back, but I need one more operation when it's done and I'm recovered... Well, my time will come. Back to the movie...

[CX]

This movie takes place completely in an AU, one that wasn't created by an time incursion due to differences that were already in place and different from established continuity. So the short answer is that the new movie contributes nothing to canon.

[justTripn]

Well I think that the broad trajectory of society (the persistance of Christianity), not to mention the pre-existing geoglogical features of Vulcan (a blue sky), would NOT be affected by the original incursion.

[thecursor]

See, I find the possibility of a less technocratic Trek comforting. Technocracy as a set of beliefs died out around '91 for a good reason: technology is not a cure all, in fact it usually causes more problems then it solves. Roddenberry's Star Trek, specifically TNG, has long up held the notion of a technocractic society where capitalism is replaced by a great good guided by technology. Wrong. This new movie opens up the possibility of a half technocratic/half capitalistic culture and that's just a little bit more realistic.

[Linda]

I LIKE the technology stuff, the imagining what it could be like in the future - realistic or far out, whatever. But I also like the idea of more realistic economics and perhaps speculation on a future economy which is more realistic. I took a few accounting courses in my computer science days even though I immediately forgot most of it. Balance, Yes! Yeah! I'd also like to see some balance in the philosophy and religion area. Surak, Christianity, yes, but...ALSO all the other religious philosophies from earth and beyond. Hey, I loved the DS9 Ferengi view of life as a flow of trade goods. What did they call that? The river of something? It was a neat phrase but I forgot. Love the different world views Star Trek can come up with. Outside of the hopeful nature of Star Trek, the world views and culture contact is what I like best about it. I'll give the AU a chance but my heart is still in the RU of Star Trek. And to Abrams I say "Do your thing, but hey, WE (those who love the RU) are still here and we still put our spendable income into things RU".

[thecursor]

I mean Technocracy, as in a democracy governed by technology. It was a movement from the 50s and 60s that Gene Roddenberry found fascinating but the rest of the world found laughable. Much of Star Trek is based on those ideals (Credits, greater good, no money). Technocracies aren't sustainable, even on paper. So the fact that this film introduces a half technocratic/half capitalist society lets me breathe a sigh of relief.

[Asso]

I think It's a mere sign of how times evolve.
Things change, and so also movies.

[CX]

See, I find the possibility of a less technocratic Trek comforting. Technocracy as a set of beliefs died out around '91 for a good reason: technology is not a cure all, in fact it usually causes more problems then it solves. Roddenberry's Star Trek, specifically TNG, has long up held the notion of a technocractic society where capitalism is replaced by a great good guided by technology. Wrong. This new movie opens up the possibility of a half technocratic/half capitalistic culture and that's just a little bit more realistic.

I didn't really see it for that, especially not DS9. It must've really sucked for you then when BSG went off the air.