Is Star Trek or Babylon 5 more realistic?

[hobbsyoyo]

In the context of a discussion of advanced alien races, that is practically the definition of speculating.

 

[Archbob]

No more than thinking they've achieved some kind of utopia.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Yeah, but that's because they want a bigger peice, not because they need it. Conflict is more likely to arise from ideological conflicts than from competition about material stuff.

I'm really surprised though that no one has made the argument (that I've seen) that ideological motivations would be sources of conflict.

OK, I just mentioned it as a sidenote.
One potential conflict may be the issue of human rights.
"Human rights", according to some Klingon in Star Trek VI "even the word is racist". A simple, relatable (and in fiction almost certainly ham-fisted) example would be an alien society that oppresses or outright enslaves some portion of their populace just out of principle
It can apply to phenotype ("skin" is too dark or scaly or whatever), sex or the place they're born/hatched (Australians need a firm hand). I'm not sure that future humans would be fine with this. I'm just assuming for the sake of argument that we'll become more progressive and egalitarian in the future. Maybe we'll become more bigoted and the aliens will be disgusted with that.

Another conflict may be the issue of expansion and terraforming. Maybe we (or the others) will have a revulsion to the colonization of other worlds and the creation/replacement/adaption of biospheres because it prevents independent evolution of intelligent life in the future. That's the abortion debate on a much larger scale.

 

[Commodore]

Stupid, bored humans aren't really a sound basis for speculation is all I am saying.

Perhaps. But our own civilization is all we really have to go on at the moment when theorizing how other alien civilizations might think and act.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

OK, I just mentioned it as a sidenote.
One potential conflict may be the issue of human rights.
"Human rights", according to some Klingon in Star Trek VI "even the word is racist". A simple, relatable (and in fiction almost certainly ham-fisted) example would be an alien society that oppresses or outright enslaves some portion of their populace just out of principle
It can apply to phenotype ("skin" is too dark or scaly or whatever), sex or the place they're born/hatched (Australians need a firm hand). I'm not sure that future humans would be fine with this. I'm just assuming for the sake of argument that we'll become more progressive and egalitarian in the future. Maybe we'll become more bigoted and the aliens will be disgusted with that.

Another conflict may be the issue of expansion and terraforming. Maybe we (or the others) will have a revulsion to the colonization of other worlds and the creation/replacement/adaption of biospheres because it prevents independent evolution of intelligent life in the future. That's the abortion debate on a much larger scale.

Ooh great examples!

I could see human rights as a potential conflict point.

Terraforming might also be something to fight over but really I can only see that being an issue in instances where planets have life already. And I don't see civs going to war over planets that have only got pond scum rather than advanced multicellular life but that's probably me projecting.

For all the other ideologies, I just can't see them fighting over them. To me, ideology is all about resource control, whether it's about who can have babies and when or who controls the dirt dug up to turn into useful products. Being about resources, I think their ability to spark interstellar war will be a moot point given my thoughts.

Perhaps. But our own civilization is all we really have to go on at the moment when theorizing how other alien civilizations might think and act.

I don't discount it entirely. I just think arguments along those lines are lacking in imagination. That's not an insult - I have no pretenses that I'd be able to imagine truly alien civilizations either. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should be wary of saying things must be this way or things will likely be this way instead of things could be this way.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I'm pretty sure if there are no resources for people to fight over, they'd fight for glory or just because they got bored.

The question is how they will "fight".
The great Powers of Europe haven't been at war with each other for over six decades, but they still fight each other for glory regularly.
They just went from killing each other by the thousands with swords and guns to a dozen people running around on a a standard-sized grass field trying to kick a ball into a rectangle for ninety minutes.
Physical sports contests between humans and aliens might be impossible due to different anatomies, but we'll figure something out.
How a about Civ 159 (where alien/human civs on the human/alien worlds require additional DLC) or Starcraft 8 ?
Maybe even a Command & Conquer reboot or good Master of Orion sequel ?
Or just a real-life space race that gives braggong rights to whoever first builds a ring world or dyson sphere or makes it to another galaxy ?

For all the other ideologies, I just can't see them fighting over them. To me, ideology is all about resource control, whether it's about who can have babies and when or who controls the dirt dug up to turn into useful products. Being about resources, I think their ability to spark interstellar war will be a moot point given my thoughts.

That might be the most Marxist thing ever said on this forum and I'm a bit mystified that it didn't come from me, Traitorfish or any of the other usual suspects. Control of resources was probably alwas a factor, but I don't think it was the dominant factor insome conflicts like the Crusades or the French Revolutionary Wars.