In my last essay, I lament confusion between magic and science fiction, and remarked on Roddenbury's apparent poor understanding of even elementary science. Instead, I propose Star Trek was mainly a vehicle for inculcating the public with Roddenbury's philosophical, political, and religious views.

Today, we explore one of the most successful of those ideas: Roddenbury's belief in social evolution -- that our society is, "Every day, in every way, getting better and better and better".

Briefly:

• Man, as an animal, must be evolving.
• This evolution is not merely physical, but also sociological.
• Sociological evolution must produce a more moral society.
• "More moral" is to be defined relatively, by Gene Roddenbury's preferences.

In other words, the entire force of human history and the laws of nature would be to make humanity more closely conform to Gene Roddenbury's ideas. This is communicated in episode after episode:

• In the future, people will no longer need to work -- the Enterprise is staffed by volunteers who work solely for personal satisfaction.
• There is no longer any war. Nor poverty.
• We've "outgrown" our need for money, and thus capitalism. People give as they wish, and take as they need. In other words, Marxism, with Marx's fake "scientific" backdrop et al
• Humanity will be united under a single world government.
• Humans never seem to have any religion ("We no longer need gods", Kirk tells Zeus) -- though other species (Klingons, etc.) each have only one religio/philosophical belief system per homeworld. These religions are not "backward" when practiced by other races, merely "quaint" parts of their culture.
• All of humanity has learned not to interefere with the development of "other cultures"

Do I need to explain this is a load of fertilizer? Or why?

First, even if we assume humanity did and is still evolving, then social Darwinism is quite right. Of course, all the anthro- and sociologists decry social Darwinism because it underwrote much Nazi ideology. Or rather, because Nazi-style eugenics, or something very much like it, is a logical consequence of such thinking. In other words, they have a problem with what happened, but don't reject the underlying philosophy of survival of the fittest in it's environment -- with today's environment being a global society.

And of course, the traits selected against today would be: high standard of living, high level of education, and high income, and marital fidelity since folks lacking these traits reproduce far more than those who have them. And certainly, a propensity towards alcoholism, diabetes, glaucoma, etc. hasn't stopped anyone from reproducing lately, so these traits must also doing much better these days. In other words, health and life-extending technologies are making humanity genetically and physically weaker, not stronger.

Nobody likes these ideas, so they shy away from teaching them as the logical consequence of evolution. But it is where evolution takes us, if we believe it was and still is the guiding force of humanity's destiny.

Of course, the above is about physical evolution of individuals: not the moral evolution of society itself. What about this?

I see plenty of evidence that we're "evolving" technologically -- i.e. because of writing and other means for persistent memory, our level of technology has continued to increase throughout history.

As I like to say, technology begets technology.

But let's not confuse technology with morality. A thug armed with an AK-47 is no more moral than a thug armed with a stick. Technological sophistication has nothing to do with morality. In fact, it doesn't even have anything to do with average education levels, which, as far as I can see, have been on a continual decline in the West for about the last century, even as technology has grown by leaps and bounds.

Where is the evidence that we are better, more loving, caring animals than, say, the ancient Babylonians or Egyptians? If I had to produce it, I'd point to the temporary ascendancy of Judeo-Christian ethics in modern Western culture. But that's not exactly evolution, is it? And these values are rapidly being repudiated in Western culture: we in the West are collectively returning to our pagan origins.

And of course, if we were to look at history, we'd see the thousands slaughtered Vlad the Impaler, the Romanovs, the Crusades, and the barbarism of Ghengis Khan. But then in our last century -- presumably our "most improved" one, right? -- we'd see instead the millions tortured and killed by Hitler, Stalin, Admin, Hussein, Mao, the Khemer Rogue, and Hirohito's advisors and generals.

Yep, there's obviously been a lot of big improvements in our character lately.

Yet the idea of moral, social evolution is so deeply ingrained in today's Western culture that many of my fellow bloggers can't seem to go a week without appealing to the notion. Even while they cuss and behave in a way which would make many of their grandparents cringe at their vulgarity and uncharity. Moral evolution? Point me to the evidence folks!

Sure, racism is on the run. Sure, women can vote. But simulataneously, more areas are falling under Islamic sharia and our universities have lost their respect for free inquiry, free speech, and scientific research which is free to reach politically "incorrect" results. National sovereignty is declining, and profoundly anti-democratic institutions like the EU, the UN, and China are rising.

Next, if we are indeed, as a society, getting "better" -- then what's "good"? How can we say we're "improving" without having any clear idea of what's good and bad, better and worse? Our moral relativism would only offer a thousand different, conflicting ideals towards which society must surely be evolving. It must be getting more religious, to please the Christian, and yet more sceptical, to please the atheist. More orgiastic, to please the libertine, and yet more prudent for the social conservatives.

Of course, for Roddenbury resolved these conflicts easily: All people who disagreed with him were simply wrong. The actual future must be his: A peaceful, Marxist, humanist one. With relative morals. Except if you were Roddenbury, himself, in which case yours were right.

In conclusion, the evidence shows we are "evolving" technologically, but not morally. Recent history shows we're as brutal, overall, as we've ever been, if not more so. There have been some brief improvements in the West for the last 17-25 centuries or so, but those seem, by some curious coincidence, to have happened in areas within the sphere of Jewish and Christian influence, which is currently waning in the West.

This complete lack of evidence for "social evolution" reveals it to be an unquestioned dogma of an unreasoned, blind faith, rather than the "scientific fact" it's proponents depict.

And yet, despite lacking supporting evidence, and in the face of plenty to the contrary, this anti-rational dogma is almost universally accepted by my peers, who I hope have merely absorbed it unconsiously.

Good job, Roddenbury.

Next time: Gimme that Star Trek Religion!