If you're talking about advantages, you'd be siding with Sadavir Errinwright and secret projects. If you're talking about transparency and empathy that's some politicians in the show, some irl. Don't expect the other factions to also be transparent and empathetic though. Chrisjen would have had the same dealings in secret projects, but I think she would not have allowed human testing for any project. She is only transparent to avoid imminent war, she would have hid the protomolecule from Mars unless they needed Mars' assistance. Chrisjen is not innocent, she just doesn't hate Mars, she's indifferent to belters. Her whole job is to avoid war not beat Mars, they'd have to rebuild Mars if they defeated it. That's why she had to stop the war.
“Humanity has done amazing things by just muddling through, arguing and complaining and fighting and negotiating. It’s messy and undignified, but it’s when we’re at our best, because everyone gets to have a voice in it. Even if everyone else is trying to shout it down. Whenever there’s just one voice that matters, something terrible comes out of it.” -Jim Holden in Persepolis Rising, Book 8 of the Expanse, by James S. A. Corey
It's interesting to me how the factions in The Expanse mimic the factions in the Peloponnesian War. The U.N. is like Athens, Mars is like Sparta, and the Belters are like the Helots. Could be entirely circumstantial....but it seems that there is a lot of similarities.
Well, authors do take their inspiration from somewhere. With all the hints at Ancient Mythological figures, powers and entities, I wouldn't be baffled, if the authors would be inspired by that.
A problem solved by decent central governance to handle grievances. US states use to have this issue but putting the articles of confederation out to pasture solved that. EU had the same issue, granted its not perfect but the current EU is a shitload better than everyone trying to balance militaries powers on thin ice.
@@jwkelley The brilliance of the EU, in my opinion, is that the common currency makes war within absolutely unaffordable. whoever started it, and whatever the outcome, both victor and loser would have taken their war bonds in the same currency. that wouldn´t fly, they wouldn´t get the loans they need to escalate. I think this might be why the EU managed to prevent war in what has been the world´s worst powder keg for 3000 years flat. think of it, there is no square meter of europe that isn´t drenched in blood, but ever since the EU, we had NO violent conflict within it. that´s unprecedented, and it´s why I like living in the EU.
Kind of a weird take on the definition of utopia. Unity of thought and a lack of dynamism or conflict is a very particular version of utopia based on mid-20th century total ideologies. Most modern utopias acknowledge and require interpersonal and personal conflict to bring forth human creativity, innovation, and growth and rely less on external forces to exert unity. Even within TV scifi, Star Trek represents the Federation as a utopia where there isn't conflict over resources, but individuals are expected to challenge themselves and change society, but for the better.
yah conflict over resources is a pain in the ass. always worried about having a home, paying bill, having food to eat. Eliminating that would be a utopia for me. even if everyone still argued over other things, like the nature of life and reality.
You can very much view The Federation as a fascist technocratic military state and its framing in Star Trek as a benevolent all encompassing government is unrealistic.
@@brandonhennelly2972 online contrarian videos usually hold that opinion. Like Lore reloaded, just look them up. Ofc whether they make sense is up to you to decide.
- MINOR SPOILER AHEAD, READ AT YOUR OWN RISK - I warned you By the eighth book, she's known as Bobbie "like a fuckin' valkyrie" Draper of Sol, the dread of Laconia". She's pretty much The Punisher with boobs in an Iron Man suit... in space. To quote "turns out as formidable as the gunnery sargeant was by herself, she's a lot more scary if she gets to train her own backup". Alex's descriptions of our favorie Martian Marine are the best in the saga.
I love how The Expanse shows nobody knows what's going on but and so are always trying to guess what the other person is doing and get it wrong all the time.
"If everyone's in agreement there is tyranny." Er, no, tyranny is the opposite, someone forcing their views against another's disagreement. "There are no checks on thought" Again, that's like the opposite of tyranny. And you're saying it like it's a bad thing. Are checks on thought a good thing? "There is no moderating force on the most extreme propositions of man" Um... they would be no longer extreme or moderate propositions, that requires different propositions. It's all moot, as total unity is impossible. Even amongst geeks there is the war between mediums - comic fans vs readers vs watchers vs gamers, gamers are warring between mobile casuals, console peasants and pcmustardrace, PC gamers are torn over genres and generations, even fans of a single game are fighting over favorite character and/or strategy. This is simply how people are. I get your point that tension is needed and is a good thing... but you are presenting it in a really weird way. Moreover, tensions are not the same, they are on a spectrum of cooperation vs competition. On one extreme is something like WW2, where losing meant the end of existence (at least for the countries, and quite a lot of people), and every measure was deemed acceptable to win. Then are the more limited wars of Vietnam & Korea, where nukes were available but not used, then there is the rest of the Cold War, where there was posturing and arms races but no (direct) confrontation. Then we get to the current world, where there are trade wars and economic competition, but most countries are not afraid of being wiped out and not having absurd military budgets. So of course tension is fine, but Utopia would be a more cooperative place, with more constructive competition. Mars could put more money into terraforming, instead of its military. Earth could invest into its ecological and poverty programs, instead of more space battleships and defenses. Both could be competing in scientific achievements, not military buildup. I find the premise of The Expanse to be very naive. In times of higher tension and danger people fall into tribal behavior. They don't cross to the other side for cooperation, they hold their noses when faced with internal problems. During the Cold War the US cooperated with terrorists and dictatorships, did atrocities and coups, all in the name of defeating the Commies. They did not reach out to the USSR when seeing internal corruption. The same happens right now in the US, Republicans holding their noses and sticking with Trump, Democrats holding their noses and sticking with Biden. The same would happen in The Expanse - "Our leaders may be corrupt authoritarians, but the other side is surely much worse! We can't afford disunity right now!". And this is the worst side of humanity.
This is basically what I wanted to say after seeing this. There's no future I can imagine where humanity is completely without conflicts but I can definitely imagine a society where conflicts aren't an existential threat. A utopia wouldn't be absence of conflicts but rather absence of the kind of structures that perpetuates needless conflicts. Conflicts between classes and nations are essential squabbles over land or resources. There are of course conflicts which are harder to solve, but it's part of our society today that makes a lot of our conflicts hereditary problems we basically inherit from our ancestors. Like in the expanse a lot of what the belters want is unconditional air and water and that's what builds resentment over the years. Which is understandable. It's also very easy to solve. Like super easy. Just give them that. The only reason UN and Mars doesn't is because they want to be able to exploit them as much as possible which is realistic (at least there are plenty of similar examples in human history) but it's literally a non-issue really.
If solving exploitation was as easy as it sounds we wouldn't have future fictional settings with space FedEx and greedy companies who range from not wanting to answer a SOS for profit margin considerations to want to control an alien crazy substance that can kill millions...
@@CyclonerM "Solving" exploitation is not easy, but moderating it to a manageable level is not only doable but in progress. Not too long ago exploitation meant people were bought sold and worked to death, and children who did not meet their daily quota had their hands literally cut off. A bit later exploitation meant people working hard labor 14 hours a day, 6 days a week, payment barely enough to earn food, with little to no safety regulations, and no safety net. Currently exploitation means working minimal wage with safety net, or the Chinese 996 - 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, but decent wages and office conditions. It does not sound easy, but efforts to give people more rights and quality of life produce real results. Corporations have no alternative to being greedy - with single exceptions their goal is making money. It is the government's job to make it unprofitable to break the laws and regulation - through fines and criminal persecution. And countries have always wanted to control crazy substances than can kill millions - from nukes, to chemical and biological weapons. I'm not talking just about bad dictatorships, US, Canada and Great Britain had a joint research program that detonated anthrax spores on Gruinard Island - and this is only the stuff we know about. But they are far more likely to do crazy shit like this if they think their existence is in danger and they have little to lose.
@@ChineduOpara ah, so we excuse their mistakes by saying, "they're human." Like the police and soldiers who accidentally kill innocents, they're just "being human."
Ehh, it's 10 minutes of what someone thinks poli-sci is about. tbh seems like a knock-off Wisecrack video. They stuff so many ideas in there without examining any of them. In the end going for a "free market of ideas" argument but at a state level
The Shadows of Z'ha'dum officially approve of your theory of continual conflict being the ideal means to achieve a utopian state. --Mr. Morden (P.S. Those Vorlon ice cubes will just discipline their minds into utter stasis if we didn't stir up the pot from time to time and make'em man their squid ships and get out & about and see how we're reshaping the galaxy!)
This channel is what got me into The Expanse, I'd like to thank you for that. Also genuinely enjoyed this video, I really got my mind working, MOAR EXPANSE!
So fighting to have a utopia is utopia. Interesting video. It reminds me of how politicians are all up in each other's face infront of the people and aggressive in defending their parties but as soon as they're out of camera they are friends and do business with each other and it's all a pretense they keep up for their voters. Sometimes it's so heated but sometimes it's just a system of imbalance that keeps the balance.
There's a similar adage being said by everyone's favourite Canadian psychologist, which I'll paraphrase; "You want to exist in the dynamic state between order and chaos. If you're in a state of order all the time, you don't learn and things stagnate. If you're in a state of chaos all the time, nothing works and you still don't learn." Interesting thoughts - good vid :)
"Like, bud, you've gotta get your spaceship in order before you go out and try to conquer the galaxy. If you just leave things floating around then they're going to hit the bulkhead at _some_ point, man! Maybe not in the next minute, sure, but down the line, when you start decelerating, you're going to be in for a hell of a time, I'll tell you that. The only way to slay the xenos--which are really just a symbol for chaos, in an abstract sense--is to incorporate some aspect of _their_ being into _yourself!_ And people don't wanna do that, why would they? Xenos are nasty, and they make you feel really _bad,_ and people don't wanna feel bad! That's what makes it heroic!" -Dr. Peteran Jordson
Utopia to me is a post scarcity environment where people can chose to pursue careers/trades rather then Jobs. Much like in classic Startrek, i don't expect the elimination of conflict but a change in its nature that motivates people to explore themselves and the nature of life or reality.
Duuude. This one blew my mind. Very philosophical and introspective. Don't know if your other videos are like that, but this is the first one I've seen that hit home. Your observation about the necessity of tension and how that helps us in moving forward and from becoming complacent is gold. I would add that while this applies at a macro level for us as a species, it does at an individual level as well. For example, striving towards a utopia can be considered equivalent to striving for perfection. Which can also be stressful and counterproductive. Instead, it's just easier to accept the daily struggles we have as a part of reality and the human condition and strive to make the best of what we have.
Could you do a video discussing how perfect the title sequence is? In just a minute it established a world, shows you it’s history and much more without a single word. And as the seasons go on it changes to show different locations and themes.
Eden is a life with just enough challenges to be interesting, and enough stability for you to be over-all content and open the door with a bittersweet smile when death knocks on your door 🙂
I think a necessary ingredient is the possibility of utter, painful failure if you drop the ball. Having everything rigged against you is dystopia (aka the belt), but if you mess up, there must be consequences. there should be the possibility of a second chence, but failure has to hurt to prevent complacency.
yeah, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest we wouldn´t be. The utter exploitation of the Belt, and the resulting inability of the Belt to get their act together, is so gutwrenchingly plausible.
I postulate l that a common goal with more lateral conflict (who will reach this goal first) rather than direct conflict (oppositional views or resentments) work WAY better to achieving a goal. Like when we were in a race against Russia to be the first to land on the moon. It was a common goal that created progress without the risk of war. Kind of like how the protomolecule (and subsequently the ring) helped to slow tensions and how being trapped within ring space eventually made all involved to power down their ships. A common goal or enemy tends to unite factions.
PLEASE DO VIDEOS ON: Top 10 Standard Issue Infantry Firearms in Sci-Fi. Top 10 Post Apocalyptic Nations and Factions. Everything Wrong with the Battle of Hogwarts.
Wendy's is a great American company and vendor. Don't let what happened in Georgia make them look bad. Even if they're fast food. Not to mention they're usually the best quality for the price IMO. Spicy chicken sandwiches from Hardees get an honorable mention as well from me
"the subconscious mind tricks it user that complete agreement whereby there is no conflict and everyone is in complete agreement, everything is in a state of harmony, this is the idea of utopia" - 4:20 this is the flawed premise his whole argument is based off of.
👏👏👏👏👏👏Ben, this was one of your top10 videos. excellent point. Especially how the tension itself is not 'evil' but that it is the balancing and binding force between entities. if the tension is unchecked, it is disruptive. the tension is checked when one entity seeks out the other to squelch it. Each entity is stronger and wiser for it. i.e. A wind storm may make a tree swing wildly and it may look like the wind might break the tree but the wind is only making the tree stronger and its roots deeper.
Thanks for the video, Ben- I really enjoy your content on this channel, as it’s usually pretty thought-provoking, while retaining a good amount of humor. The issues that you bring up and explore are just on a higher level than you’ll find on most of TH-cam. Honestly, even though I’m subscribed to maybe 100 or so channels, this is the one I really look forward to receiving a “new video notification” from every day. Thanks again for the quality episodes- looking forward to your next one. 👍🏻
Good video and vary good points and to add a Utopia to me is any society that everyone or most can feel comfortable in it. Like in my first book(Der's Story life and war in the 2040s) there are 5+ Utopias that cater to different ideals where all but one work together but still have tension. It is the only way I could think of to have a Utopian society is just to let people pick their favorite and live there like states and counties today.
Not even that. Utopia, is Greek and it literally means 'not-place' i.e. 'a place that doesn't exist'. The people who first coined the term did so to illustrate it doesn't exist.
The original coiner of the word (Thomas More) presumably meant it as a kind of pun or double entendre. "Outopia" means "nowhere", but "Eutopia" means "good place." By leaving off the first letter, the term "Utopia" becomes ambiguous enough to represent both concepts, i.e. "a good place that doesn't exist."
utopia is man or women is no longer bound to a planet..free and flying on a ship...traveling different worlds ...thats utopia than living on earth that people still searching for it..but government just give them income that satisfy their version of utopia what that may is searching for...its not cause they are lazy...they just feel hopeless or held back on their owned when opportunities always there to find pilots and ships available but fear is holding them back by decision that its easier just stay home and do nothing while becoming old fast ...thats what holding them back...progress of their life story ...unlike captain holden...its a ride he want to do this more ...he becoming recognize and important ...same as his crew feel much greater importance why they serve him and he is great commander of his ship that he always care for his crew life...thats is true utopia of searching in the stars of breaking free of cycle from earth
Arguably, in 1984 the situation is reversed. Rather than encouraging progress the ongoing conflict enforces stasis in order to help keep the proles and Outer Party members in line. It is even possible that the war is no longer happening. The stress and fear caused by belief that the war is happening is what Big Brother really wants.
@@kennetheaton1728 Point taken, but many of the people in “The Expanse” seem pretty stressed and fearful to me, much as they do on present-day earth, science fiction being the extrapolative medium that it is. And I emphatically reject the notion that no alternative is possible, let alone desirable, even if I have no clue what such a world might look like.
Yeah, that scene was so brilliant! short, no dialogue, and so powerful and nuanced. And Frankie Adams nailed it. The whole sequence how she ended up working for Avasarala is GOLD!
Whilst I generally agree with your assessment of the political tensions in the Expanse, I would suggest that the predominant underlying conflict in the story is between bad actors and the population at large. There are few characters in the story that actively want conflict or even tension, predominantly everyone wants their own piece of peace in the universe, but with the system set as it is, bad actors can exploit it for their own gain. This is repeated at a micro and macro level throughout the story, and our heroes are almost always the peacemakers acting on behalf of the masses rather than the figureheads exercising their perceived power. I view through my own lense obviously, but what I see, just as in Star Trek, is a reasonably subtle advocation for socialist ideas for the benefit of all. Thanks for talking about the Expanse :)
The Expanse is basically telling us the same message Star Trek does. However, while Star Trek tries to sell us those ideas - The Expanse shows us what happens if we reject them.
the Expanse imho is the series that best incorporated Game Theory out of all recent ScFi (Battlestar galactica arguably did a good job, but the Expanse is better in this regard): A system state optimal for everyone is unstable if it is exploitable for bad faith actors, and an unexploitable system state is stable, but suboptimal for everyone. The Expanse repeatedly shows how a situation that could be better than necessary for everyone gets exploited, and turns south for everyone. Take the Belt: they were starting to gain real weight. then Marco shows up. Or Ilus: Company and colonists could have cooperated for mututal benefit. But Noooo....
Counterpoint, system wide castastrophe has nearly struck at least once per season since the show started heavily based on the inability of the three powers to communicate effectively and sincerely and deal equally with each other. A degree of tension is, probably good. But perpetual tension at the levels seen throughout the Expanse is unsustaistanable as somebody is eventually going to oopsie themselves over the red line. Likewise, having descenters and critics means little if you either can ignore them, or as the belt has learned to its perpetual misfortune, crush them under superor military might.
What he calls maintaining tension, I call flirting with mutually assured destruction. What would have been smart for all sides in the Expanse to do is establish a deconfliction hotline, outline reasonable red lines to national security, dial back their ambitions, and quit the brinksmanship. That’s how we got through the Cold War, and that’s what Mars and the UN eventually do in the Expanse (albeit somewhat late). Unfortunately, greedy and overambitious politicians engaging in brinksmanship far from their red lines is what led to the war in the Expanse, and what appears can possibly lead to nuclear war on Earth in the next few years.
You can have the tension be limited to be intellectual. The example stated with how the US is structured is one example where the utopia is not complete agreement in the ideas but complete agreement in the process. This process would be where the expression of tension is presented and "fought out", like elections, speaking and debate forums, etc.
As a former Wendy’s employee who loves the Spicy Chicken Sandwich(with zesty honey mustard instead of mayo and pickles instead of tomato) this made me smile
A philosophy that has a very well known and short name, "balance of power".. Hence why the best prevention of to us using nukes against eachother is because (And a big thank you to Russia for misplacing most of theirs when the USSR dissolved) most the rest of the world has them too...
Is it odd that my utopia is simply a world where everyone has the ability to pursue their goals with minimal collateral harm, and/or unnecessary interference
Just, for example, the ability to pursue dreams. For most, just having housing and food is a struggle. They may want to pursue art or science but can't barely even feed themselves because of their situation in life, either due to their own mistake or their circumstances from birth
Great video and solid points on the principles of the dynamic political conflict! Conflict in its various forms is the healthiest of processes for the animal that is human while being the most organic system of our development. Conflict alongside its natural associate of tension is what allows us to lead ourselves to the truest evolution possible. While it isn't the most glamourous of concepts in comparison to Utopia, in its natural embrace of chaos it is the most beautiful and amazing element to see in our entertainment.
At the risk of sounding a little too political, this is why I like American politics, in general. The Democrat and Republicans, the liberals and conservatives, and the various other parties competing ideologies allows us to have a balanced system where the most radical of either side is kept in check. Though this does rely on healthier dialogue then seems to be taking place right now.
The ideal is that power remains in tension, swaying back-and-forth along a certain range, never going so far to one side that violence erupts. To me, violence within a democratic system is a sign that the system is out of order.
@@GenerationFilms I can agree with that. Since our system relies on what I will refer to as institutional conflict, it would make sense that actual violence would represent a leaning to far out of the ideal range.
The way this video sumerised the conflict between earth Mars and belt reminded me of 1984 and Oceania , Eurasia and Eastasia. Except in 1984 the war is just used to keep resources and people depleted and doesnt drive innovation. I guess the issue with tension on a large scale results in such a loss of resources
So basically two bullies and their groups are fighting over control of the school, and the kids they stole lunch money from are giving them both the finger Also damn expanse, you go way deeper than I already was starting to get a bad headache
I really liked the political explanation, as it matches my own. I view disagreement as integral to progress and moderation. . As few people are going to point out flaws in thinking/argument better than those who disagree with you. This is also why one of my favorite ways to learn is through debates. I also find that one of the stronger motivators for researching facts, is the fear of getting your getting you ass kicked in a future debate. Also in the debate, you reap the benefits of learning through the other person's research as well. As the reality is that nobody can do all the research by themselves, especially if you don't know where to look; so your opponent condensing their own research or pointing you where to look, is always a great boon. . The mitigating factor is also extremely important. If there is no resistance, one group can runaway into a stagnated tyranny. Whether that be political or academic tyranny. As such I view having diversity of ways of thinking as very important in society.
@@GenerationFilms No, thank you. As your video may increase the number of people who realize the positives of there being people they disagree with. Or at the very least, it might make them more tolerant of those they disagree with. And I think we deeply need that for a healthy society. Also I wouldn't be able to learn anything if everyone I ran into agreed with me. . So again, I can't thank you enough.
I would suggest reading up on the very original utopia, the book by the same name from the 15-th century. Utopias are not inherently desirable, just the opposite.
Well this was needlessly complicated. The political conflict is a pretty straightforward allegory for real-world geopolitics. The UN/Earth represents the US, MCR/Mars represents the Soviet Union, or possibly China depending on how you read it, and the Belt represents the third world/global south. The shift in the political conflict in seasons 4 and 5 of the Expanse suggests that Mars is meant to represent the Soviet Union, with the defeated, corrupt Mars representing the west's perception of the modern-day Russian Federation. The conflict between the Inner Planets and Marco Inaros represents the current era of repurposing old Cold War hardware and infrastructure for a forever war against any and all global south autonomy (branded as "the war on terror").
I love the show for what it is.. visual, interesting and Awesome. What you’re saying is or might be on point... but I love the show and cast and how it’s developing.
An easy way of bringing people together is to introduce a threat from outside. This is why the entirety of Earth joined together in Starblazers 2199 against the Alien Threat. You should watch and review that show; you will be glad you did.
Hey does anyone here know how to actually edit videos? I have a few video editors but all I can figure out how to do is combine mp3s, images and mp4s, then clip them and cut them. But I don’t know how to actually edit things onto videos, such as words or different special effects. Can anyone help lead me in the right direction? Thank you :)
Don't forget the spicy nuggets...those are also ambrosia. Oh, and nice take on the need for equilibrium between powers/forces...and the fine line we walk between various forms of tyranny(imbalance). Star Wars hints at this with the force needing to be in balance.
@@michaelchaney2336 I would argue that any interference without understanding is in in fact irrational and anything that causes damage, physical or otherwise is an act of violence.
I partially agree, but I don't think "extreme" is the right measure of something being necessarily avoided, since many things that are seen as normal today were seen as extreme not too long ago, e.g. women's suffrage. What is seen as normal may be contingent and very historically specific, and there may be sudden unforeseen changes in the world situation that make old ways impossible (e.g. the Expanse's appearance of the ring gates). The right idea though is that you need a balance of power and a free flow of ideas.
Congratulations. You are now Druid. I have to admit you came close to stunning me. I didn't think you had it in you. But this piece... Yeah. I am impressed. You are Druid.
What a fantastic world view, realistic but not nihilistic, and the use of the expanse as an analogy is great! American Ben you are a modern day philosopher
I have to say, I find this train of thought a bit incoherent. First the main point, how is The Expanse's conflict misunderstood, is it that it people believe it is a bad one but are mistaken for doing so? Or is this video attempting to argue that it is actually... good? It isn't clearly or explicitly stated but neither is any other point so I guess it is the closest conclusion. That conflict is inherent in humanity is true but also obvious and a shallow assertion of fact and in any case isn't really expanded upon anyway. I don't see the connection between tyrannical oppression and unity of thought nor is it really expanded upon either when I'd argue they're almost opposites, since unity of thought negates the need for any oppression. But most importantly, I'd argue, is the gross simplification that without international (or in this case, interplanetary) political conflict, no inter-personal conflicts at all can exisist, ergo no tensions and no drive for progress. However it is shown, quite explicitly to in fact be a hindrance or obstacle towards progress in the show, not to mention in the real world. Here, the least conflicted global areas are the most progressives by almost every measurable static.
Human conflict is driven by a thirst for power. Even in a Star-Trek like society of abundance, there will be those who want to rule, and they will clash.
Very deep and cerebral analysis and conclusion. I wonder if the author read that from another source, or if he reach to that thinking by himself. Congratulations, anyway.
Arguments of this video as I understood them: 1) That perfect harmony in society can only be accomplished with uniformity of thought 2) Uniformity in thought is inherently tyrannical 3) Differences of opinion create conflict 4) Conflict between groups of people (groups in this context including anything from states, to religious groups, to class divides within a state, etc.) drives innovation and progress 5) THEREFORE: Perpetual conflict between different groups of people (whether within the state or external to the state) is desirable to drive innovation, progress, and to prevent the tyranny of uniform thought. This argument is valid. If you accept the premises (1 - 4) then you will accept the conclusion (5). Entire political philosophies exist centered on the idea that humans are predisposed to conflict and our natural state of being is to always be in conflict with some other group of beings too weak to destroy us but to strong to be crushed overnight. But I'm going to attack the premises because I take issue with them: 1) I reject the idea that a difference of opinion inherently creates conflict. There are limits of course (if one group believes it has the right to exist, and another group rejects that, these are two ideas that cannot coexist without tension and often violence), but I would contend that it is very possible for competing ideas to exist in a tension-less harmony. The only ideas that cannot coexist with others are ideas that inherently demand the removal of competing ideas. Atheism and theism, for instance, do not necessarily need to be in tension as there is no practical point of tension between the two views. They might contest one another on the nature of reality, but there is nothing about a belief in God or a lack of belief in God that by itself demands interference or interrogation with the other group (note I use theism in a broad sense as specific religious traditions do conflict with atheists and I will not erase that). If you cannot handle the existence of ideas contrary to your own without experiencing stress or tension I'd call that a personal problem and not human nature. 2) Conflict between groups of people is simply one form of conflict that exists. Sure, computers were created in war, but vaccines were created due to conflict between mankind and nature. Furthermore, this particular example took steps to ameliorate that conflict yet did not see a reduction in innovation or progress in fighting disease. Conflict in general does drive progress if you view conflict as any occasion where what a person or group of people wants and what is real do not match up. Conflict between groups of people is simply one of many possible conflicts and it can actually be regressive at times (leading me to point 3). 3) Conflict does not inherently drive progress. It usually does but it can also retard progress depending on the nature of the conflict and the interests at play. A prominent real life example is the conflict between moneyed interests in the energy sector and the science of climate change retards progress in addressing climate change, as scientists spend limited resources doing studies that show yes it's still happening and yes it's still manmade that could be better spent on coming up with solutions. The only premise I can really see as being true is "uniformity of thought is inherently tyrannical", which is not enough to hold up the conclusion.
I partially agree, but would point out that while not everything is a zero sum game, some things are. Differences of opinion can cause conflict, competing needs will. I believe I first read it in Dune, and question it's applicability in all contexts, I mostly agree with the statement that the greatest threat to a young individual of any species is another of it's own kind. It is rare for two species to have overlapping interests with niche partitioning or extinction of one species to settle the issue, and by the same extension the only time predators are more of a constant threat than rivals is when a population is actively collapsing. The fact that two individuals, for beasts or humans or adequately advanced machines, are similar is ultimately a cause of and reason for conflict. This conflict can only be contained by a measure of trust and compromise, which take time to build up and seconds to destroy.
Also, I partially disagree with point 1. I do not need to believe that party B should not exist, and nor does party B need to believe that I should not exist, for us to be in conflict. It is enough that we should disagree on how to arrange the furniture. Is this a big conflict? Hopefully not, but it is a matter in which a compromise must be reached and both parties must ask what is actually important to them. It is also why neighbors have such a long history of hating each other's guts out (sometimes literally). If you listen to any individual cause of the conflict, much less the stated causes of both "parties" (angry mobs who hate others within their mob more than the people they are trying to kill) they will sound quite stupid, but much compromise creates great opportunity for resentment and frustration. Thankfully, it also creates opportunity for cooperation and shared benefit. Ultimately, I believe that conflict is not the natural state of humanity in its totality, but it is and shall remain a component of our existence baring consideration.
war is war, destruction is destruction. war is not destruction, destruction is not war. when two entities are at an impasse conflict ensues. when those entities have enough people and resources that conflict becomes war. even in war destruction should be avoided, thus a system which allows for war without destruction becomes ideal. conflict can be avoided with enough resources and freedom, though conflict breeds innovation and shows us our flaws. therefore a world without conflict is a world that does not innovate or improve itself.
Personally I'd view Utopia as a world with no wars, all using clean renewable energy... and the ability to disagree on things without devolving into violence or insults.
@@KateeAngel not really no. If I disagree with someone and they don’t threaten to hit me because of it, I’ll just walk away still disagreeing with them. If they threaten to use violence against me if I don’t change my mind I’ll probably more carefully consider the nuances of their argument.
I can help but constantly think about what humanity should or would do in the wake a ring system. If we ventured into it fractured we will he forcer fractured as a species. But if we venture into it as a single human civilization, we could expand into the stars as a single united speices. Its like a monumental fork in the road that would dictate the entire development of a intersteler civilization
Sure, with the note that you don't have to be hurling nukes or rocks at each other to avoid stagnation. Currently US and China are waging trade war, diplomacy and culture wars, without shooting at each other. These kinds of conflicts are much more constructive and better at avoiding stagnation than something like the Cold War or WW2.
I had trouble with the belters being `poor` as just the energy requirements needed for travel and goods movement would be huge and only a small fraction of that energy use could have provided a cushy living.
Their energy, food and other costs are being paid, or have been paid (and not generously), by the interests on earth and Mars that profit from their labor. Even the police force on Ceres is based on earth.
@@michaelhall2709 Still , in reality , the belters have it the cushest because of the energy per capita is so enormous they would have to be criminally neglectful to not be having the best jollies . I cannot see how you can control anything billions of kilometres away with a population able to travel freely and exploit any resources ..how would it be enforced ?. If you can send `heavies `millions kilometres to enforce a `created hardship` then your not short of anything either !
@@MyKharli Well, I think you are kind of restating Marco Inaros’ point: the Belters ultimately don’t need Earth or Mars and can do just fine for themselves. But a lot of their food and infrastructure was still being supplied by Earth, and the farms on Ganymede were still a long ways from being rebuilt. Asteroid mining can make you rich, but you can’t eat rock. Now that Earth’s ability to export goods has been smashed to pieces, that’s going to be a real issue for them.
@@michaelhall2709 Maybe , but why ? the energy alone intransport for asgricultural goods doesnt make sense..you could mine sea water and build all the underground grow rooms and lighting you can imagine for a fraction of the energy budget ..its a good story but not real to me
@@MyKharli *Sigh* I’m not sure why this is so difficult but I’ll try one last time. Yes, the Belters are theoretically rich (or would be if they could cease with all the infighting and corruption), but they’ve been under the thumb of Earth and Mars for decades, and the type of infrastructure necessary to feed lots of people in space doesn’t just spring into being overnight. Topsoil is notoriously difficult to manufacture, and unless you’re lucky enough to find a carbonaceous chondrite asteroid in your neighborhood you’ll need to get your substrate from Earth, which won’t be in much of a position or mood to help after you just pulverized it with a couple of rocks. Hydroponics has its own issues, and in any case all of this stuff takes years to build during which time millions of your people still need to be fed. This isn’t the Star Trek universe, where magic replicator technology makes Lots of Available Energy = Instant Food a real thing.
The most absurd thing about The Expanse is the planet-wide governments. Realistically, not even continent-wide governments can work. People in different places have different cultures, languages, they're separated by geography, and just overall have priorities so different that if anyone attempted to unify them, even if they actually succeeded, they'd be unable to function unless one group successfully subdued the others. The colonization of the expanse would look like the European age of conquest, with rival powers within Earth grabbing up as much territory in other planets as they can to prevent other powers outflanking them. Eventually these outer-space colonies will demand self government and either be commonwealth nations like the former British empire or they'll just break away. So, Earth will still be divided into nations, and so will the other planets.
Eh, not quite the size of entire continents, but we have several nation-states in the world now that occupy very large percentages of the continents they're on, and therefore contain such large quantities of both geography and population that they've had to figure out how to govern at that scale. (And have done so with reasonable levels of success, sufficient to continue existing as political entities for a couple of centuries or more.) The USA, Russia, and China, for example, are all gigantic and extremely diverse both geographically and demographically. This isn't unique to the modern era, either. The Romans did it a long time ago, and made it work for around 2000 years. (Though that's counting the Byzantines as a continuation of the Roman Empire; they lasted about a thousand years longer after the western empire collapsed.) It's a complicated problem, for sure, and no doubt the difficulty scales up with size, but I don't think it's a hard, insurmountable obstacle. The real world shows that it's quite possible to overcome these types of challenges up to a certain point, so the only question is how much further it could be scaled up.
Earth's great advantage over the other powers is Chrisjen Avasarala.
Naw
Marcos inaros wants to know her location.
If you're talking about advantages, you'd be siding with Sadavir Errinwright and secret projects.
If you're talking about transparency and empathy that's some politicians in the show, some irl. Don't expect the other factions to also be transparent and empathetic though.
Chrisjen would have had the same dealings in secret projects, but I think she would not have allowed human testing for any project.
She is only transparent to avoid imminent war, she would have hid the protomolecule from Mars unless they needed Mars' assistance.
Chrisjen is not innocent, she just doesn't hate Mars, she's indifferent to belters.
Her whole job is to avoid war not beat Mars, they'd have to rebuild Mars if they defeated it. That's why she had to stop the war.
true
@@Resanctify did you watch the new episodes?
"Life is pain, highness. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something."
that smiling man pfp is perfect, too.
As you wish.
Inconceivable!
@@gordol66 I don't think that means what you think it means...
@@SebAnders Anybody want a peanut?
“Humanity has done amazing things by just muddling through, arguing and complaining and fighting and negotiating. It’s messy and undignified, but it’s when we’re at our best, because everyone gets to have a voice in it. Even if everyone else is trying to shout it down. Whenever there’s just one voice that matters, something terrible comes out of it.” -Jim Holden in Persepolis Rising, Book 8 of the Expanse, by James S. A. Corey
It's interesting to me how the factions in The Expanse mimic the factions in the Peloponnesian War. The U.N. is like Athens, Mars is like Sparta, and the Belters are like the Helots.
Could be entirely circumstantial....but it seems that there is a lot of similarities.
Bruh... Persepolis Rising is a little bit on the nose now the we think about it... Here comes the Persian Empire...
That's a rather basic take
Well, authors do take their inspiration from somewhere. With all the hints at Ancient Mythological figures, powers and entities, I wouldn't be baffled, if the authors would be inspired by that.
@@nulnoh219that’s Laconia
I think it's more of a historical pattern than one specific case. Their dynamic is also very very similar to the one between the US and the USSR
"Utopia is a having a coffee maker" James Holden, probably
Hahaha
Enjoying my bit of Utopia right now.
"You should try tea..." Prax
@@jacobekker *glares in Captain Janeway, Holden, and black coffee*
French press coffee in the morning, herbal tea infusion in the evening = utopia!
"I don't prepare for war because I want war. I do so because I love peace."
"Si vis pacem, para bellum."
Peace means having a bigger stick than the other guy
- Tony Stark
A problem solved by decent central governance to handle grievances. US states use to have this issue but putting the articles of confederation out to pasture solved that. EU had the same issue, granted its not perfect but the current EU is a shitload better than everyone trying to balance militaries powers on thin ice.
@@jwkelley The brilliance of the EU, in my opinion, is that the common currency makes war within absolutely unaffordable. whoever started it, and whatever the outcome, both victor and loser would have taken their war bonds in the same currency. that wouldn´t fly, they wouldn´t get the loans they need to escalate.
I think this might be why the EU managed to prevent war in what has been the world´s worst powder keg for 3000 years flat. think of it, there is no square meter of europe that isn´t drenched in blood, but ever since the EU, we had NO violent conflict within it. that´s unprecedented, and it´s why I like living in the EU.
" Utopia is having good water pressure" - Josephus Miller, probably :0
no he hates the whole concept of utopias "Optimism is for Earthers and assholes"
Utopia is having clean, breathable air. -- Belter kids
Kind of a weird take on the definition of utopia. Unity of thought and a lack of dynamism or conflict is a very particular version of utopia based on mid-20th century total ideologies. Most modern utopias acknowledge and require interpersonal and personal conflict to bring forth human creativity, innovation, and growth and rely less on external forces to exert unity. Even within TV scifi, Star Trek represents the Federation as a utopia where there isn't conflict over resources, but individuals are expected to challenge themselves and change society, but for the better.
yah conflict over resources is a pain in the ass. always worried about having a home, paying bill, having food to eat. Eliminating that would be a utopia for me. even if everyone still argued over other things, like the nature of life and reality.
You can very much view The Federation as a fascist technocratic military state and its framing in Star Trek as a benevolent all encompassing government is unrealistic.
@@brandonhennelly2972 online contrarian videos usually hold that opinion. Like Lore reloaded, just look them up. Ofc whether they make sense is up to you to decide.
Star Trek is an interesting but highly unrealistic sci-fi series.
@@mrevilducky depends when and how you choose apply the definition in the creative process. Are you talking about pre or post Gene?
This was obviously made before Marco Inaros wrecked the homeworld by throwing rocks at it.
"Human mecha, Bobbie Draper..."
Accurate
- MINOR SPOILER AHEAD, READ AT YOUR OWN RISK -
I warned you
By the eighth book, she's known as Bobbie "like a fuckin' valkyrie" Draper of Sol, the dread of Laconia". She's pretty much The Punisher with boobs in an Iron Man suit... in space. To quote "turns out as formidable as the gunnery sargeant was by herself, she's a lot more scary if she gets to train her own backup". Alex's descriptions of our favorie Martian Marine are the best in the saga.
Take it back Bobby is bae!
@@KirillTheBeast " Really, Amos? We are dressing up for a suicide mission, and all you can think of is 'Ooh, Boobies' ??
I love how The Expanse shows nobody knows what's going on but and so are always trying to guess what the other person is doing and get it wrong all the time.
"If everyone's in agreement there is tyranny."
Er, no, tyranny is the opposite, someone forcing their views against another's disagreement.
"There are no checks on thought"
Again, that's like the opposite of tyranny. And you're saying it like it's a bad thing. Are checks on thought a good thing?
"There is no moderating force on the most extreme propositions of man"
Um... they would be no longer extreme or moderate propositions, that requires different propositions.
It's all moot, as total unity is impossible. Even amongst geeks there is the war between mediums - comic fans vs readers vs watchers vs gamers, gamers are warring between mobile casuals, console peasants and pcmustardrace, PC gamers are torn over genres and generations, even fans of a single game are fighting over favorite character and/or strategy. This is simply how people are.
I get your point that tension is needed and is a good thing... but you are presenting it in a really weird way.
Moreover, tensions are not the same, they are on a spectrum of cooperation vs competition. On one extreme is something like WW2, where losing meant the end of existence (at least for the countries, and quite a lot of people), and every measure was deemed acceptable to win. Then are the more limited wars of Vietnam & Korea, where nukes were available but not used, then there is the rest of the Cold War, where there was posturing and arms races but no (direct) confrontation. Then we get to the current world, where there are trade wars and economic competition, but most countries are not afraid of being wiped out and not having absurd military budgets.
So of course tension is fine, but Utopia would be a more cooperative place, with more constructive competition. Mars could put more money into terraforming, instead of its military. Earth could invest into its ecological and poverty programs, instead of more space battleships and defenses. Both could be competing in scientific achievements, not military buildup.
I find the premise of The Expanse to be very naive. In times of higher tension and danger people fall into tribal behavior. They don't cross to the other side for cooperation, they hold their noses when faced with internal problems. During the Cold War the US cooperated with terrorists and dictatorships, did atrocities and coups, all in the name of defeating the Commies. They did not reach out to the USSR when seeing internal corruption. The same happens right now in the US, Republicans holding their noses and sticking with Trump, Democrats holding their noses and sticking with Biden.
The same would happen in The Expanse - "Our leaders may be corrupt authoritarians, but the other side is surely much worse! We can't afford disunity right now!". And this is the worst side of humanity.
This comment deserves more likes.
@@biohita Thanks.
This is basically what I wanted to say after seeing this. There's no future I can imagine where humanity is completely without conflicts but I can definitely imagine a society where conflicts aren't an existential threat. A utopia wouldn't be absence of conflicts but rather absence of the kind of structures that perpetuates needless conflicts. Conflicts between classes and nations are essential squabbles over land or resources. There are of course conflicts which are harder to solve, but it's part of our society today that makes a lot of our conflicts hereditary problems we basically inherit from our ancestors. Like in the expanse a lot of what the belters want is unconditional air and water and that's what builds resentment over the years. Which is understandable. It's also very easy to solve. Like super easy. Just give them that. The only reason UN and Mars doesn't is because they want to be able to exploit them as much as possible which is realistic (at least there are plenty of similar examples in human history) but it's literally a non-issue really.
If solving exploitation was as easy as it sounds we wouldn't have future fictional settings with space FedEx and greedy companies who range from not wanting to answer a SOS for profit margin considerations to want to control an alien crazy substance that can kill millions...
@@CyclonerM "Solving" exploitation is not easy, but moderating it to a manageable level is not only doable but in progress. Not too long ago exploitation meant people were bought sold and worked to death, and children who did not meet their daily quota had their hands literally cut off. A bit later exploitation meant people working hard labor 14 hours a day, 6 days a week, payment barely enough to earn food, with little to no safety regulations, and no safety net. Currently exploitation means working minimal wage with safety net, or the Chinese 996 - 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, but decent wages and office conditions. It does not sound easy, but efforts to give people more rights and quality of life produce real results.
Corporations have no alternative to being greedy - with single exceptions their goal is making money. It is the government's job to make it unprofitable to break the laws and regulation - through fines and criminal persecution.
And countries have always wanted to control crazy substances than can kill millions - from nukes, to chemical and biological weapons. I'm not talking just about bad dictatorships, US, Canada and Great Britain had a joint research program that detonated anthrax spores on Gruinard Island - and this is only the stuff we know about. But they are far more likely to do crazy shit like this if they think their existence is in danger and they have little to lose.
That was a semester's worth of Political Science in ten minutes!!!
Heck yeah. lots of Poli-sci rolled up in a short video
But political science teachers will tell you one faction is always right
@@ChineduOpara ah, so we excuse their mistakes by saying, "they're human." Like the police and soldiers who accidentally kill innocents, they're just "being human."
Yup
Ehh, it's 10 minutes of what someone thinks poli-sci is about. tbh seems like a knock-off Wisecrack video. They stuff so many ideas in there without examining any of them. In the end going for a "free market of ideas" argument but at a state level
The Shadows of Z'ha'dum officially approve of your theory of continual conflict being the ideal means to achieve a utopian state. --Mr. Morden
(P.S. Those Vorlon ice cubes will just discipline their minds into utter stasis if we didn't stir up the pot from time to time and make'em man their squid ships and get out & about and see how we're reshaping the galaxy!)
In all seriousness, "Get the Hell out of our galaxy!" ;)
Babylon 5 was ahead of its time in the writing department.
This channel is what got me into The Expanse, I'd like to thank you for that. Also genuinely enjoyed this video, I really got my mind working, MOAR EXPANSE!
So fighting to have a utopia is utopia.
Interesting video. It reminds me of how politicians are all up in each other's face infront of the people and aggressive in defending their parties but as soon as they're out of camera they are friends and do business with each other and it's all a pretense they keep up for their voters. Sometimes it's so heated but sometimes it's just a system of imbalance that keeps the balance.
The Belters have done nothing too serious he says, clearly this was made before season 5.
There's a similar adage being said by everyone's favourite Canadian psychologist, which I'll paraphrase; "You want to exist in the dynamic state between order and chaos. If you're in a state of order all the time, you don't learn and things stagnate. If you're in a state of chaos all the time, nothing works and you still don't learn."
Interesting thoughts - good vid :)
"Like, bud, you've gotta get your spaceship in order before you go out and try to conquer the galaxy. If you just leave things floating around then they're going to hit the bulkhead at _some_ point, man! Maybe not in the next minute, sure, but down the line, when you start decelerating, you're going to be in for a hell of a time, I'll tell you that. The only way to slay the xenos--which are really just a symbol for chaos, in an abstract sense--is to incorporate some aspect of _their_ being into _yourself!_ And people don't wanna do that, why would they? Xenos are nasty, and they make you feel really _bad,_ and people don't wanna feel bad! That's what makes it heroic!"
-Dr. Peteran Jordson
Utopia to me is a post scarcity environment where people can chose to pursue careers/trades rather then Jobs. Much like in classic Startrek, i don't expect the elimination of conflict but a change in its nature that motivates people to explore themselves and the nature of life or reality.
It would be like that anime movie of a witch trying to succeed in her goals (forgot the name)
Or the movie Wreck It Ralph 2
A great career in space Station sanitation.
There is a Chinese proverb that goes something like this: What is whole, must fragment and what is is pieces, must put itself back together.
Duuude. This one blew my mind. Very philosophical and introspective. Don't know if your other videos are like that, but this is the first one I've seen that hit home.
Your observation about the necessity of tension and how that helps us in moving forward and from becoming complacent is gold. I would add that while this applies at a macro level for us as a species, it does at an individual level as well.
For example, striving towards a utopia can be considered equivalent to striving for perfection. Which can also be stressful and counterproductive. Instead, it's just easier to accept the daily struggles we have as a part of reality and the human condition and strive to make the best of what we have.
Hey thanks for watching and offering your thoughts! 🙏
Could you do a video discussing how perfect the title sequence is? In just a minute it established a world, shows you it’s history and much more without a single word. And as the seasons go on it changes to show different locations and themes.
Eden is a life with just enough challenges to be interesting, and enough stability for you to be over-all content and open the door with a bittersweet smile when death knocks on your door 🙂
I think a necessary ingredient is the possibility of utter, painful failure if you drop the ball. Having everything rigged against you is dystopia (aka the belt), but if you mess up, there must be consequences. there should be the possibility of a second chence, but failure has to hurt to prevent complacency.
Not gonna lie, I mostly just came here to find out why a chicken sandwich showed when I hovered my cursor over the thumbnail.
Gotta say, now I really want a wendy's spicy chicken sandwich. Well, the whole meal
Videos like this make a future of a vast human colonization of planets hard to hope for because we are still stuck in our ways, great video.
yeah, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest we wouldn´t be. The utter exploitation of the Belt, and the resulting inability of the Belt to get their act together, is so gutwrenchingly plausible.
I postulate l that a common goal with more lateral conflict (who will reach this goal first) rather than direct conflict (oppositional views or resentments) work WAY better to achieving a goal.
Like when we were in a race against Russia to be the first to land on the moon. It was a common goal that created progress without the risk of war. Kind of like how the protomolecule (and subsequently the ring) helped to slow tensions and how being trapped within ring space eventually made all involved to power down their ships. A common goal or enemy tends to unite factions.
PLEASE DO VIDEOS ON:
Top 10 Standard Issue Infantry Firearms in Sci-Fi.
Top 10 Post Apocalyptic Nations and Factions.
Everything Wrong with the Battle of Hogwarts.
On the guns list, the M-41A Pulse Rifle for having one of the sexiest reports of any sci-fi firearm
Okay, but the book's battle or the movie's battle? Or both?
@@stephenhinojos1994 Movie
That last one-oh god yes please
best handgun for me will always be the Colonial Handgun from Battlestar Galactica
The amount of time dedicated to spicy chicken sandwiches is mildly uncomfortable. Everyone knows nuggets are the superior chicken delivery system.
But is the chicken in the spicy chicken sandwich not just one big chicken nugget?
Hold up there buster...
@@ashhinman1919 hes got a point...
Wendy's is a great American company and vendor. Don't let what happened in Georgia make them look bad. Even if they're fast food. Not to mention they're usually the best quality for the price IMO. Spicy chicken sandwiches from Hardees get an honorable mention as well from me
You are all wrong, chilli is the superior food form to all others and will dominate the menu for a thousand years.
"the subconscious mind tricks it user that complete agreement whereby there is no conflict and everyone is in complete agreement, everything is in a state of harmony, this is the idea of utopia" - 4:20 this is the flawed premise his whole argument is based off of.
👏👏👏👏👏👏Ben, this was one of your top10 videos. excellent point. Especially how the tension itself is not 'evil' but that it is the balancing and binding force between entities. if the tension is unchecked, it is disruptive. the tension is checked when one entity seeks out the other to squelch it. Each entity is stronger and wiser for it. i.e. A wind storm may make a tree swing wildly and it may look like the wind might break the tree but the wind is only making the tree stronger and its roots deeper.
Nice comment! Thanks as always!
Thanks for the video, Ben- I really enjoy your content on this channel, as it’s usually pretty thought-provoking, while retaining a good amount of humor. The issues that you bring up and explore are just on a higher level than you’ll find on most of TH-cam. Honestly, even though I’m subscribed to maybe 100 or so channels, this is the one I really look forward to receiving a “new video notification” from every day. Thanks again for the quality episodes- looking forward to your next one. 👍🏻
Thanks so much, this is motivating!
Good video and vary good points and to add a Utopia to me is any society that everyone or most can feel comfortable in it. Like in my first book(Der's Story life and war in the 2040s) there are 5+ Utopias that cater to different ideals where all but one work together but still have tension. It is the only way I could think of to have a Utopian society is just to let people pick their favorite and live there like states and counties today.
Utopia - A place that doesn't exist
James Moore
Not even that. Utopia, is Greek and it literally means 'not-place' i.e. 'a place that doesn't exist'. The people who first coined the term did so to illustrate it doesn't exist.
The Expanse depicts a dystopian future, but Star Trek gives a utopian one
The original coiner of the word (Thomas More) presumably meant it as a kind of pun or double entendre.
"Outopia" means "nowhere", but "Eutopia" means "good place."
By leaving off the first letter, the term "Utopia" becomes ambiguous enough to represent both concepts, i.e. "a good place that doesn't exist."
@@kerbodynamicx472
idk, i wouldn't call it dystopian, it's rather realistic aside from the complete absence of AI
utopia is man or women is no longer bound to a planet..free and flying on a ship...traveling different worlds ...thats utopia than living on earth that people still searching for it..but government just give them income that satisfy their version of utopia what that may is searching for...its not cause they are lazy...they just feel hopeless or held back on their owned when opportunities always there to find pilots and ships available but fear is holding them back by decision that its easier just stay home and do nothing while becoming old fast ...thats what holding them back...progress of their life story ...unlike captain holden...its a ride he want to do this more ...he becoming recognize and important ...same as his crew feel much greater importance why they serve him and he is great commander of his ship that he always care for his crew life...thats is true utopia of searching in the stars of breaking free of cycle from earth
I'd like a Wendy's Spicy Chicken sandwich, hold the protomolecule!
This argument is reminiscent of the relationship between Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia in Orwell's 1984.
Arguably, in 1984 the situation is reversed. Rather than encouraging progress the ongoing conflict enforces stasis in order to help keep the proles and Outer Party members in line. It is even possible that the war is no longer happening. The stress and fear caused by belief that the war is happening is what Big Brother really wants.
@@kennetheaton1728 Point taken, but many of the people in “The Expanse” seem pretty stressed and fearful to me, much as they do on present-day earth, science fiction being the extrapolative medium that it is. And I emphatically reject the notion that no alternative is possible, let alone desirable, even if I have no clue what such a world might look like.
Nah not really
Nah not really
Nah not really
I'll never forget when Bobby makes it to the ocean, gazes as at it and it's just filthy, just floating chemicals and trash.
And yet she was still overwhelmed by the shear size of it. A powerful juxtaposition.
Yeah, that scene was so brilliant! short, no dialogue, and so powerful and nuanced. And Frankie Adams nailed it. The whole sequence how she ended up working for Avasarala is GOLD!
Galaxy brain American Ben over here with an enlightened take on solar system conflict. Bravo.
Enjoyed your video as always. May all your political power struggles be democratic, and may all your wars be cold.
Whilst I generally agree with your assessment of the political tensions in the Expanse, I would suggest that the predominant underlying conflict in the story is between bad actors and the population at large. There are few characters in the story that actively want conflict or even tension, predominantly everyone wants their own piece of peace in the universe, but with the system set as it is, bad actors can exploit it for their own gain. This is repeated at a micro and macro level throughout the story, and our heroes are almost always the peacemakers acting on behalf of the masses rather than the figureheads exercising their perceived power.
I view through my own lense obviously, but what I see, just as in Star Trek, is a reasonably subtle advocation for socialist ideas for the benefit of all.
Thanks for talking about the Expanse :)
The Expanse is basically telling us the same message Star Trek does. However, while Star Trek tries to sell us those ideas - The Expanse shows us what happens if we reject them.
the Expanse imho is the series that best incorporated Game Theory out of all recent ScFi (Battlestar galactica arguably did a good job, but the Expanse is better in this regard): A system state optimal for everyone is unstable if it is exploitable for bad faith actors, and an unexploitable system state is stable, but suboptimal for everyone.
The Expanse repeatedly shows how a situation that could be better than necessary for everyone gets exploited, and turns south for everyone.
Take the Belt: they were starting to gain real weight. then Marco shows up. Or Ilus: Company and colonists could have cooperated for mututal benefit. But Noooo....
Great point of view and criticism about utopias! Really adds to how I view the expanse series and much more :)
Counterpoint, system wide castastrophe has nearly struck at least once per season since the show started heavily based on the inability of the three powers to communicate effectively and sincerely and deal equally with each other. A degree of tension is, probably good. But perpetual tension at the levels seen throughout the Expanse is unsustaistanable as somebody is eventually going to oopsie themselves over the red line.
Likewise, having descenters and critics means little if you either can ignore them, or as the belt has learned to its perpetual misfortune, crush them under superor military might.
What he calls maintaining tension, I call flirting with mutually assured destruction.
What would have been smart for all sides in the Expanse to do is establish a deconfliction hotline, outline reasonable red lines to national security, dial back their ambitions, and quit the brinksmanship. That’s how we got through the Cold War, and that’s what Mars and the UN eventually do in the Expanse (albeit somewhat late).
Unfortunately, greedy and overambitious politicians engaging in brinksmanship far from their red lines is what led to the war in the Expanse, and what appears can possibly lead to nuclear war on Earth in the next few years.
You can have the tension be limited to be intellectual. The example stated with how the US is structured is one example where the utopia is not complete agreement in the ideas but complete agreement in the process. This process would be where the expression of tension is presented and "fought out", like elections, speaking and debate forums, etc.
This video can be sold as a understanding of the Sith code.
So what you are saying is... Purge the vegans for their heresy so we can achieve perfection?
;)
😑
@@GenerationFilms wo now as long as the trees don't start speaking veganese we should be fine
You mean vegan humans or the vegans from "Contact"?
we have no need of such heretics
no no, let them eat all the vegetables, more spicy chicken sandwiches for us.
As a former Wendy’s employee who loves the Spicy Chicken Sandwich(with zesty honey mustard instead of mayo and pickles instead of tomato) this made me smile
I want one
A philosophy lesson using The Expanse. I like it.
A philosophy that has a very well known and short name, "balance of power".. Hence why the best prevention of to us using nukes against eachother is because (And a big thank you to Russia for misplacing most of theirs when the USSR dissolved) most the rest of the world has them too...
Is it odd that my utopia is simply a world where everyone has the ability to pursue their goals with minimal collateral harm, and/or unnecessary interference
You basically got that. Right now
@ close, not quite, but close
@@James-ep2bx how so
Not at all. I think most really have that as the core concept, but that there's significant disagreement on what that means
Just, for example, the ability to pursue dreams. For most, just having housing and food is a struggle. They may want to pursue art or science but can't barely even feed themselves because of their situation in life, either due to their own mistake or their circumstances from birth
This is probably one of the most intelligent assessments of the human condition I have ever heard. Chapeau, Monsieur!
Great video and solid points on the principles of the dynamic political conflict! Conflict in its various forms is the healthiest of processes for the animal that is human while being the most organic system of our development. Conflict alongside its natural associate of tension is what allows us to lead ourselves to the truest evolution possible. While it isn't the most glamourous of concepts in comparison to Utopia, in its natural embrace of chaos it is the most beautiful and amazing element to see in our entertainment.
0:31 - what movie is that exploring spaceship taken from ... it does not look familiar to me at all?
At the risk of sounding a little too political, this is why I like American politics, in general. The Democrat and Republicans, the liberals and conservatives, and the various other parties competing ideologies allows us to have a balanced system where the most radical of either side is kept in check. Though this does rely on healthier dialogue then seems to be taking place right now.
The ideal is that power remains in tension, swaying back-and-forth along a certain range, never going so far to one side that violence erupts. To me, violence within a democratic system is a sign that the system is out of order.
@@GenerationFilms I can agree with that. Since our system relies on what I will refer to as institutional conflict, it would make sense that actual violence would represent a leaning to far out of the ideal range.
The way this video sumerised the conflict between earth Mars and belt reminded me of 1984 and Oceania , Eurasia and Eastasia. Except in 1984 the war is just used to keep resources and people depleted and doesnt drive innovation. I guess the issue with tension on a large scale results in such a loss of resources
Without something to overcome, there is no growth.
Totally agree with you
I would struggle mightily to overcome a robot catgirl waifu harem
Someone was having fun with a thesaurus recently.
(great way to lean new words tbh)
Amelioration and fissiparous. Never heard either before today but happy to learn them!
So basically two bullies and their groups are fighting over control of the school, and the kids they stole lunch money from are giving them both the finger
Also damn expanse, you go way deeper than I already was starting to get a bad headache
I really liked the political explanation, as it matches my own. I view disagreement as integral to progress and moderation.
.
As few people are going to point out flaws in thinking/argument better than those who disagree with you. This is also why one of my favorite ways to learn is through debates. I also find that one of the stronger motivators for researching facts, is the fear of getting your getting you ass kicked in a future debate. Also in the debate, you reap the benefits of learning through the other person's research as well. As the reality is that nobody can do all the research by themselves, especially if you don't know where to look; so your opponent condensing their own research or pointing you where to look, is always a great boon.
.
The mitigating factor is also extremely important. If there is no resistance, one group can runaway into a stagnated tyranny. Whether that be political or academic tyranny. As such I view having diversity of ways of thinking as very important in society.
I enjoyed your comment! Thanks!
@@GenerationFilms No, thank you. As your video may increase the number of people who realize the positives of there being people they disagree with. Or at the very least, it might make them more tolerant of those they disagree with. And I think we deeply need that for a healthy society. Also I wouldn't be able to learn anything if everyone I ran into agreed with me.
.
So again, I can't thank you enough.
I would suggest reading up on the very original utopia, the book by the same name from the 15-th century.
Utopias are not inherently desirable, just the opposite.
What is the sport at 9:44 called?
"Human mecha..." that made my day XD
Well this was needlessly complicated. The political conflict is a pretty straightforward allegory for real-world geopolitics. The UN/Earth represents the US, MCR/Mars represents the Soviet Union, or possibly China depending on how you read it, and the Belt represents the third world/global south. The shift in the political conflict in seasons 4 and 5 of the Expanse suggests that Mars is meant to represent the Soviet Union, with the defeated, corrupt Mars representing the west's perception of the modern-day Russian Federation. The conflict between the Inner Planets and Marco Inaros represents the current era of repurposing old Cold War hardware and infrastructure for a forever war against any and all global south autonomy (branded as "the war on terror").
I love the show for what it is.. visual, interesting and Awesome. What you’re saying is or might be on point... but I love the show and cast and how it’s developing.
And now Wendy's spicy chicken sales have increased 20% for today.
An easy way of bringing people together is to introduce a threat from outside. This is why the entirety of Earth joined together in Starblazers 2199 against the Alien Threat. You should watch and review that show; you will be glad you did.
I like that the vanduul attacks happened in Star citizen, humanity is pretty damn peaceful in that game.
I watched this on Nov 4 2020. Very timely.
Hey does anyone here know how to actually edit videos? I have a few video editors but all I can figure out how to do is combine mp3s, images and mp4s, then clip them and cut them. But I don’t know how to actually edit things onto videos, such as words or different special effects. Can anyone help lead me in the right direction? Thank you :)
I finally finished Th4e Expanse, so I can finally watch all your vids without fear of spoilers.
Don't forget the spicy nuggets...those are also ambrosia. Oh, and nice take on the need for equilibrium between powers/forces...and the fine line we walk between various forms of tyranny(imbalance). Star Wars hints at this with the force needing to be in balance.
what's the sport I saw in 9:52? It looks fun
I don't think of utopia is as much a lack of conflict, but rather a universal acceptance of non violent and rational means of resolving conflict.
Damage is damage, nonviolent or not. Damage can be psychological so rational interference without understanding.
@@michaelchaney2336 I would argue that any interference without understanding is in in fact irrational and anything that causes damage, physical or otherwise is an act of violence.
What film is 0:40 taken from? Looks like a interesting film
Bladerunner
@@neon-lake Nice! Thank you so much!
I partially agree, but I don't think "extreme" is the right measure of something being necessarily avoided, since many things that are seen as normal today were seen as extreme not too long ago, e.g. women's suffrage. What is seen as normal may be contingent and very historically specific, and there may be sudden unforeseen changes in the world situation that make old ways impossible (e.g. the Expanse's appearance of the ring gates). The right idea though is that you need a balance of power and a free flow of ideas.
This is some deep philosophy, it is also correct. Competition is a fundamental part of human nature.
Congratulations. You are now Druid. I have to admit you came close to stunning me. I didn't think you had it in you. But this piece... Yeah. I am impressed. You are Druid.
What a fantastic world view, realistic but not nihilistic, and the use of the expanse as an analogy is great! American Ben you are a modern day philosopher
And I can't help but think this video perfectly describes what's happening currently...in our world.
This is why I love this channel.
Brilliant analysis!
I have to say, I find this train of thought a bit incoherent. First the main point, how is The Expanse's conflict misunderstood, is it that it people believe it is a bad one but are mistaken for doing so? Or is this video attempting to argue that it is actually... good? It isn't clearly or explicitly stated but neither is any other point so I guess it is the closest conclusion. That conflict is inherent in humanity is true but also obvious and a shallow assertion of fact and in any case isn't really expanded upon anyway. I don't see the connection between tyrannical oppression and unity of thought nor is it really expanded upon either when I'd argue they're almost opposites, since unity of thought negates the need for any oppression. But most importantly, I'd argue, is the gross simplification that without international (or in this case, interplanetary) political conflict, no inter-personal conflicts at all can exisist, ergo no tensions and no drive for progress. However it is shown, quite explicitly to in fact be a hindrance or obstacle towards progress in the show, not to mention in the real world. Here, the least conflicted global areas are the most progressives by almost every measurable static.
Another great one. Thanks!
who is the head of MCRN? We always knows the leaders for both OPA & UNN but I've never seen the top heads for MCRN
Prime Minister Nathan Smith (portrayed in TV by Clyde Witham). Gets voted out by vote of no confidence and replaced by Emily Richards
Human conflict is driven by a thirst for power. Even in a Star-Trek like society of abundance, there will be those who want to rule, and they will clash.
Very deep and cerebral analysis and conclusion. I wonder if the author read that from another source, or if he reach to that thinking by himself. Congratulations, anyway.
Arguments of this video as I understood them:
1) That perfect harmony in society can only be accomplished with uniformity of thought
2) Uniformity in thought is inherently tyrannical
3) Differences of opinion create conflict
4) Conflict between groups of people (groups in this context including anything from states, to religious groups, to class divides within a state, etc.) drives innovation and progress
5) THEREFORE: Perpetual conflict between different groups of people (whether within the state or external to the state) is desirable to drive innovation, progress, and to prevent the tyranny of uniform thought.
This argument is valid. If you accept the premises (1 - 4) then you will accept the conclusion (5). Entire political philosophies exist centered on the idea that humans are predisposed to conflict and our natural state of being is to always be in conflict with some other group of beings too weak to destroy us but to strong to be crushed overnight.
But I'm going to attack the premises because I take issue with them:
1) I reject the idea that a difference of opinion inherently creates conflict. There are limits of course (if one group believes it has the right to exist, and another group rejects that, these are two ideas that cannot coexist without tension and often violence), but I would contend that it is very possible for competing ideas to exist in a tension-less harmony. The only ideas that cannot coexist with others are ideas that inherently demand the removal of competing ideas. Atheism and theism, for instance, do not necessarily need to be in tension as there is no practical point of tension between the two views. They might contest one another on the nature of reality, but there is nothing about a belief in God or a lack of belief in God that by itself demands interference or interrogation with the other group (note I use theism in a broad sense as specific religious traditions do conflict with atheists and I will not erase that). If you cannot handle the existence of ideas contrary to your own without experiencing stress or tension I'd call that a personal problem and not human nature.
2) Conflict between groups of people is simply one form of conflict that exists. Sure, computers were created in war, but vaccines were created due to conflict between mankind and nature. Furthermore, this particular example took steps to ameliorate that conflict yet did not see a reduction in innovation or progress in fighting disease. Conflict in general does drive progress if you view conflict as any occasion where what a person or group of people wants and what is real do not match up. Conflict between groups of people is simply one of many possible conflicts and it can actually be regressive at times (leading me to point 3).
3) Conflict does not inherently drive progress. It usually does but it can also retard progress depending on the nature of the conflict and the interests at play. A prominent real life example is the conflict between moneyed interests in the energy sector and the science of climate change retards progress in addressing climate change, as scientists spend limited resources doing studies that show yes it's still happening and yes it's still manmade that could be better spent on coming up with solutions.
The only premise I can really see as being true is "uniformity of thought is inherently tyrannical", which is not enough to hold up the conclusion.
I partially agree, but would point out that while not everything is a zero sum game, some things are. Differences of opinion can cause conflict, competing needs will. I believe I first read it in Dune, and question it's applicability in all contexts, I mostly agree with the statement that the greatest threat to a young individual of any species is another of it's own kind. It is rare for two species to have overlapping interests with niche partitioning or extinction of one species to settle the issue, and by the same extension the only time predators are more of a constant threat than rivals is when a population is actively collapsing. The fact that two individuals, for beasts or humans or adequately advanced machines, are similar is ultimately a cause of and reason for conflict. This conflict can only be contained by a measure of trust and compromise, which take time to build up and seconds to destroy.
Also, I partially disagree with point 1. I do not need to believe that party B should not exist, and nor does party B need to believe that I should not exist, for us to be in conflict. It is enough that we should disagree on how to arrange the furniture. Is this a big conflict? Hopefully not, but it is a matter in which a compromise must be reached and both parties must ask what is actually important to them. It is also why neighbors have such a long history of hating each other's guts out (sometimes literally). If you listen to any individual cause of the conflict, much less the stated causes of both "parties" (angry mobs who hate others within their mob more than the people they are trying to kill) they will sound quite stupid, but much compromise creates great opportunity for resentment and frustration. Thankfully, it also creates opportunity for cooperation and shared benefit. Ultimately, I believe that conflict is not the natural state of humanity in its totality, but it is and shall remain a component of our existence baring consideration.
When the Wendy's #6 is mentioned in tandem with utopia, I know I am home.
war is war, destruction is destruction. war is not destruction, destruction is not war. when two entities are at an impasse conflict ensues. when those entities have enough people and resources that conflict becomes war. even in war destruction should be avoided, thus a system which allows for war without destruction becomes ideal. conflict can be avoided with enough resources and freedom, though conflict breeds innovation and shows us our flaws. therefore a world without conflict is a world that does not innovate or improve itself.
Balance is a concept many people do not understand, and don't like it when they do.
Missed you guys yesterday.
Great video for the morning
Personally I'd view Utopia as a world with no wars, all using clean renewable energy... and the ability to disagree on things without devolving into violence or insults.
Only the threat of potential violence will make people want to negotiate to prevent it. It’s a paradox of diplomacy.
@@fifthcolumn388 only because of governments and states, because those have monopoly of using force and power. That is why I am an anarchist
@@KateeAngel not really no. If I disagree with someone and they don’t threaten to hit me because of it, I’ll just walk away still disagreeing with them. If they threaten to use violence against me if I don’t change my mind I’ll probably more carefully consider the nuances of their argument.
I can help but constantly think about what humanity should or would do in the wake a ring system. If we ventured into it fractured we will he forcer fractured as a species. But if we venture into it as a single human civilization, we could expand into the stars as a single united speices. Its like a monumental fork in the road that would dictate the entire development of a intersteler civilization
Wow!!! Bravo!! Well said!!
1:12 Londres Nova. That's the capital of Mars.
Checks and balances...avoiding too much power in too few hands
Doors and corners. that´s where it gets you. Always check doors and corners.
Do anyone know where the clip withe the colourful couple kissing is from?
Pleasantville. Underrated movie.
@@GenerationFilms Thanks for the reply. will have to give this one a go.
Wow. Very deep. Nice.
Was in my truck watching this video thinking what I want for food thought of wendys and then bam!!! Spicy chicken sandwich. I k where I'm going
“Stillness equals stagnation, stagnation equals death.” Nitsche
Sure, with the note that you don't have to be hurling nukes or rocks at each other to avoid stagnation. Currently US and China are waging trade war, diplomacy and culture wars, without shooting at each other. These kinds of conflicts are much more constructive and better at avoiding stagnation than something like the Cold War or WW2.
Excellent
I had trouble with the belters being `poor` as just the energy requirements needed for travel and goods movement would be huge and only a small fraction of that energy use could have provided a cushy living.
Their energy, food and other costs are being paid, or have been paid (and not generously), by the interests on earth and Mars that profit from their labor. Even the police force on Ceres is based on earth.
@@michaelhall2709 Still , in reality , the belters have it the cushest because of the energy per capita is so enormous they would have to be criminally neglectful to not be having the best jollies . I cannot see how you can control anything billions of kilometres away with a population able to travel freely and exploit any resources ..how would it be enforced ?. If you can send `heavies `millions kilometres to enforce a `created hardship` then your not short of anything either !
@@MyKharli Well, I think you are kind of restating Marco Inaros’ point: the Belters ultimately don’t need Earth or Mars and can do just fine for themselves. But a lot of their food and infrastructure was still being supplied by Earth, and the farms on Ganymede were still a long ways from being rebuilt. Asteroid mining can make you rich, but you can’t eat rock. Now that Earth’s ability to export goods has been smashed to pieces, that’s going to be a real issue for them.
@@michaelhall2709 Maybe , but why ? the energy alone intransport for asgricultural goods doesnt make sense..you could mine sea water and build all the underground grow rooms and lighting you can imagine for a fraction of the energy budget ..its a good story but not real to me
@@MyKharli *Sigh* I’m not sure why this is so difficult but I’ll try one last time. Yes, the Belters are theoretically rich (or would be if they could cease with all the infighting and corruption), but they’ve been under the thumb of Earth and Mars for decades, and the type of infrastructure necessary to feed lots of people in space doesn’t just spring into being overnight. Topsoil is notoriously difficult to manufacture, and unless you’re lucky enough to find a carbonaceous chondrite asteroid in your neighborhood you’ll need to get your substrate from Earth, which won’t be in much of a position or mood to help after you just pulverized it with a couple of rocks. Hydroponics has its own issues, and in any case all of this stuff takes years to build during which time millions of your people still need to be fed. This isn’t the Star Trek universe, where magic replicator technology makes Lots of Available Energy = Instant Food a real thing.
The most absurd thing about The Expanse is the planet-wide governments.
Realistically, not even continent-wide governments can work. People in different places have different cultures, languages, they're separated by geography, and just overall have priorities so different that if anyone attempted to unify them, even if they actually succeeded, they'd be unable to function unless one group successfully subdued the others.
The colonization of the expanse would look like the European age of conquest, with rival powers within Earth grabbing up as much territory in other planets as they can to prevent other powers outflanking them. Eventually these outer-space colonies will demand self government and either be commonwealth nations like the former British empire or they'll just break away. So, Earth will still be divided into nations, and so will the other planets.
Eh, not quite the size of entire continents, but we have several nation-states in the world now that occupy very large percentages of the continents they're on, and therefore contain such large quantities of both geography and population that they've had to figure out how to govern at that scale. (And have done so with reasonable levels of success, sufficient to continue existing as political entities for a couple of centuries or more.)
The USA, Russia, and China, for example, are all gigantic and extremely diverse both geographically and demographically. This isn't unique to the modern era, either. The Romans did it a long time ago, and made it work for around 2000 years. (Though that's counting the Byzantines as a continuation of the Roman Empire; they lasted about a thousand years longer after the western empire collapsed.)
It's a complicated problem, for sure, and no doubt the difficulty scales up with size, but I don't think it's a hard, insurmountable obstacle. The real world shows that it's quite possible to overcome these types of challenges up to a certain point, so the only question is how much further it could be scaled up.