#agricultural utopia

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"'BACK-TO-LAND' PLAN URGED AS SLUMP CURE," Toronto Star. October 5, 1933. Page 2. --- Georges Bouchard, M.P., Asserts It Will Alleviate Unemployment ---- Strong support of a "back-to-the-land" movement as a cure for the unemployment problem in Canada was urged by Georges Bouchard, M.P., author and agricultural expert of Quebec, speaker to-day at a luncheon meeting of the Empire club at the Royal York. He outlined what he considered a suitable plan whereby governments and relief agencies could launch a widespread "back-to-the-land" scheme which would greatly alleviate present economic ills.

Mr. Bouchard, a part-time professor at the agricultural college of St. Anne de la Pocatiere, gained considerable prominence last year when he wore in the House of Commons a suit of homespun cloth, woven from undyed black and white wools by his wife. It is indicative of his personal belief that the beautiful and cultural aspects of farm life must be re-emphasized.

The speaker urged a three-fold consideration of the "back-to-the- land" question. "We must attack it with a courageous hand, a thinking brain and a loving heart," he said.

[khushicore]

HUMAN FORM (EXERCISE 3 DRAFT 2) Imagining what the Human Form would be 80 years in the future

Food Food will be personalized through smart “nutrition pods” in homes, which analyze health data and create meal capsules using nutrient-dense algae, lab-grown proteins, and tailored micronutrients. 3D food printers will produce dishes based on dietary needs, reducing food waste. Urban rooftop farms and biomes will produce seasonal vegetables and herbs, allowing for hyper-local and fresh food without the need for long-distance shipping.

Water Communities will operate on closed-loop water systems, capturing, purifying, and recycling all water within each district. Buildings will feature “dew collectors” that harvest water from the air, supplementing traditional sources. Smart sensors will analyze water quality and suggest conservation tips through community apps, ensuring every drop is used efficiently and safely.

Housing Homes will be built from regenerative materials that naturally absorb carbon dioxide. Living walls and roofs will support biodiversity by housing pollinator plants and providing nesting spaces. Community living spaces will be modular and transformable, adapting to residents’ needs over time and minimizing waste in construction. Neighborhoods will include shared gardens and social spaces that foster a sense of belonging.

Education Education will be globally accessible through immersive virtual classrooms and AI mentors that adapt to each student’s learning style. Learning will emphasize empathy, critical thinking, and collaboration with other cultures, creating a well-rounded, globally-aware population. Students will have experiential learning options like virtual field trips to historical events and hands-on labs in sciences, arts, and engineering.

Healthcare Healthcare will be deeply personalized, with AI continuously monitoring health through implanted or wearable micro-devices. Homes will have wellness capsules for preventive care, where individuals can track vitals, administer diagnostics, and even dispense treatments for minor issues. Gene therapies and nano-medicine will target diseases before symptoms appear, while mental health AI will provide ongoing support for emotional well-being.

Social Equity A focus on equity will ensure universal access to resources, with AI tools identifying and addressing systemic disparities in real-time. Community resource centers will provide free access to essential services, from legal aid to education. Basic income and shared ownership models will empower people to lead fulfilling lives without financial strain, ensuring a high quality of life for everyone.

Gender Equality Gender-neutral policies will govern workplaces, education, and healthcare, where systems automatically adapt to prevent discrimination and ensure equal access. Public life will embrace all gender identities, with AI-driven bias detection in policy-making, hiring, and healthcare to create a supportive, equitable environment.

Work & Income Work will focus on societal and environmental impact, with people choosing meaningful projects aligned with their values and talents. Automation will handle routine tasks, and flexible, short-term contracts will allow individuals to work on various projects without traditional career limitations. Basic income will provide security, and jobs will focus on creative and intellectual growth.

Energy / Electricity Energy sources will be entirely renewable, drawing from an interconnected global grid that relies on solar satellites, fusion power, and advanced wind and tidal systems. Every building will generate some power, whether through solar windows, kinetic floors, or wind-capturing facades. AI-managed grids will balance supply and demand globally, ensuring clean, constant power for all.

Peace & Justice Justice will focus on proactive solutions, with AI mediators analyzing and preventing conflicts before they escalate. Legal decisions will be guided by AI to eliminate bias, with a focus on rehabilitation and community repair. Peace will be maintained through citizen-driven councils and data-informed governance, ensuring justice that serves both individuals and society.

Transportation Transportation will be rapid, silent, and eco-friendly, with electric air taxis, maglev trains, and autonomous pods that communicate to optimize routes and reduce traffic. Walkways, bike paths, and green public transit will be woven into city layouts, reducing the need for private vehicles and encouraging low-carbon travel options.

Political Voice Blockchain voting will make democratic processes secure, with real-time community polling allowing citizens to weigh in on local and global decisions continuously. Digital transparency will hold leaders accountable, and citizens will participate in policy discussions via interactive forums, creating a fluid, engaged democracy.

Air Pollution Green technology like air-purifying trees and advanced filtration towers will neutralize urban pollutants. Smart pollution-monitoring systems will detect and address air quality issues in real-time. All vehicles and factories will run on clean energy, making urban air as pure as natural reserves.

Noise Pollution Cities will be designed to minimize noise, with sound-absorbing materials in streets, buildings, and transportation. Noise-reduction sensors will monitor and adjust sound levels in real-time, allowing for dynamic control of city noise. Nature corridors and quiet zones will provide spaces of calm within busy cities.

Non-Human Life Urban planning will prioritize habitats for non-human species, with green corridors, sky gardens, and biodiverse public spaces. AI-driven conservation initiatives will protect local ecosystems, monitor animal populations, and balance human activity with the needs of wildlife, fostering cohabitation.

Chemical Pollution Production processes will rely on sustainable, non-toxic materials, and manufacturing facilities will be carbon-neutral. Specialized filtration systems in factories will remove pollutants from water and air, while decentralized recycling will ensure efficient, eco-friendly waste management. Policies will enforce “green chemistry” standards, replacing harmful chemicals with biodegradable options.

Water Bodies & Supply Water sources will be safeguarded with advanced filtration and AI-monitored purity systems. Large-scale desalination plants, powered by renewable energy, will make ocean water a primary source of drinking water. Floating wetlands and bioengineered plants will support marine biodiversity and maintain water ecosystems' health.

Waste Management Waste will be a thing of the past as a circular economy takes hold. AI-powered sorting systems will redirect waste materials to recycling, composting, or repurposing channels, creating a closed-loop system. Biodegradable packaging and products will eliminate plastic waste, and waste-to-energy systems will provide additional renewable energy sources.

Land Use, Streets & Public Spaces Public spaces will be vibrant, with urban parks, walkable pathways, and shared green areas. Streets will prioritize pedestrian and cyclist accessibility, reducing car dependency. Public squares will host events, cultural activities, and community markets, creating hubs of social and economic engagement within neighborhoods.

Ocean Pollution Autonomous clean-up drones will patrol and cleanse oceans, capturing plastic and pollutants. Coral and marine life restoration projects will rebuild biodiversity in damaged areas, while biodegradable materials will prevent future pollution. Global cooperation will enforce ocean protection zones, fostering healthy marine ecosystems.

Effects of Climate Change Cities will adapt to climate extremes with buildings designed to withstand storms, floods, and extreme heat. Urban forests, wetlands, and green roofs will help regulate temperature and manage water flow. Reforestation and carbon capture technology will mitigate CO2 emissions, while predictive AI will help prepare for natural disasters.

Urban Agriculture & Greenification Cities will integrate agriculture into every available space, from rooftop farms and vertical gardens to community plots. Bioengineered plants will improve air quality and reduce urban temperatures, while automated irrigation systems will optimize water use. Green spaces will create a cooler, more livable environment for all.

Gender & Sexuality Gender inclusivity will be ingrained in every institution, with healthcare, education, and public spaces respecting and supporting all identities. Inclusive laws and policies will ensure that everyone can express themselves authentically without societal restrictions, creating a world of acceptance.

Diversity & Inclusion AI will ensure representation across all sectors, proactively identifying and addressing any bias or inequality. Policies will promote equal opportunity, and educational institutions will prioritize cultural, ethnic, and neurodiverse awareness, fostering communities that celebrate all identities.

Accessibility Universal design will make every environment accessible, with real-time AI assistance guiding individuals with disabilities. Public spaces, transportation, and technology will prioritize accessibility, using innovations like automated wayfinding, speech-to-text devices, and sensory-friendly environments.

Sustainability Sustainability will be a core tenet of all systems, with regenerative practices embedded in production, architecture, and daily life. Circular economy principles will guide product design, and global collaboration will drive environmental protection, creating a society that flourishes alongside the planet.

[golivefest]

Utopian Canon~* #1 (Jan / Feb)

We’re honoring Orb Box via featuring tributes to the dancer & artist. Feel free to tag us with any tributes to amplify. We'll share in the first issue of the Utopian Canon~* (3/1)

Thank you to Orb for your support. 💜

#BLKPWR 🖤 #HEAL 💜

Do you remember Orb Box @ Perform/Transform?

Help us protect black women + create a world w/o police* Survivor fund #YCAharm 💜 Open convo #YCAconvo 🔊

Shoutout to our supporters Chicago Public Schools, the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago & more for helping us raise #reparations. Our Food Sovereignty Award-winning #reparations program is 55% funded for its next order of free homes 👨🏿‍🌾🌻

Whites! Give reparations here: tinyurl.com/lbgcreparations · 🌻

Thank you for ending homelessness! RSVP!

We're also proud to highlight a classic interview from our utopian platform, via Let's Build Garden City! 🌻Check out our interview supporting fresh food with Nick Lucas of AUA (Advocates for Urban Agriculture)!

Thank you utopians for helping amplify the #COVIDstrike ⬛ to end the virus. Our petition hit a new goal, once we get 500 signatures we'll start a fb event! 🌐

Share our brand new #After12 💜🔊 daily worksheet Master thread & our thread for preventing genocide. They help all folks interested in building utopia tap in daily with our platform to protect women, raise #reparations, organize & celebrate! 🖐🏿🥳

Thanks again to the Nicki Minaj fans who supported the #YCA survivor fund in Jan / Feb! This was our biggest bump since starting it after our original petition! 🎉 Revisit our classic Q&A w/ PIVOT GANG member Frsh Waters. #mtvxo 🌐

Also shoutout to these friends of the festival:

Chance the Rapper teased new music from his upcoming album! Check out October's Utopian Canon~* for another shoutout!

Legendary artist/activist, fellow #nomoneynoborders champion & Perform/Transform festival participant + organizer Adam Gottlieb released a new song dedicated to preventing genocide. Press play: "Marching Vigil Song (for Gaza)"

Finally, our host + just released a compilation of collaborations, BF² (BIGGEST FLIPS, vol. 2). Many of the folks featured are crucial to our utopian platform! He's posting the Behind-the-Scenes pieces he promised us for the tape's tracks! 🎶🔥

*

How are you building utopia? How does pop culture inspire you? Leave a message or tag us in a post to be featured in the Utopian Canon~*

[justalittlesolarpunk]

I’ve teased it. You’ve waited. I’ve procrastinated. You’ve probably forgotten all about it.

But now, finally, I’m here with my solarpunk resources masterpost!

YouTube Channels:

Andrewism

The Solarpunk Scene

Solarpunk Life

Solarpunk Station

Our Changing Climate

Podcasts:

The Joy Report

How To Save A Planet

Demand Utopia

Solarpunk Presents

Outrage and Optimisim

From What If To What Next

Solarpunk Now

Idealistically

The Extinction Rebellion Podcast

The Landworkers' Radio

Wilder

What Could Possibly Go Right?

Frontiers of Commoning

The War on Cars

The Rewild Podcast

Solacene

Imagining Tomorrow

Books (Fiction):

Ursula K. Le Guin: The Left Hand of Darkness The Dispossessed The Word for World is Forest

Becky Chambers: A Psalm for the Wild-Built A Prayer for the Crown-Shy

Phoebe Wagner: When We Hold Each Other Up

Phoebe Wagner, Bronte Christopher Wieland: Sunvault: Stories of Solarpunk and Eco-Speculation

Brenda J. Pierson: Wings of Renewal: A Solarpunk Dragon Anthology

Gerson Lodi-Ribeiro: Solarpunk: Ecological and Fantastical Stories in a Sustainable World

Justine Norton-Kertson: Bioluminescent: A Lunarpunk Anthology

Sim Kern: The Free People’s Village

Ruthanna Emrys: A Half-Built Garden

Sarina Ulibarri: Glass & Gardens

Books (Non-fiction):

Murray Bookchin: The Ecology of Freedom

George Monbiot: Feral

Miles Olson: Unlearn, Rewild

Mark Shepard: Restoration Agriculture

Kristin Ohlson: The Soil Will Save Us

Rowan Hooper: How To Spend A Trillion Dollars

Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing: The Mushroom At The End of The World

Kimberly Nicholas: Under The Sky We Make

Robin Wall Kimmerer: Braiding Sweetgrass

David Miller: Solved

Ayana Johnson, Katharine Wilkinson: All We Can Save

Jonathan Safran Foer: We Are The Weather

Colin Tudge: Six Steps Back To The Land

Edward Wilson: Half-Earth

Natalie Fee: How To Save The World For Free

Kaden Hogan: Humans of Climate Change

Rebecca Huntley: How To Talk About Climate Change In A Way That Makes A Difference

Christiana Figueres, Tom Rivett-Carnac: The Future We Choose

Jonathon Porritt: Hope In Hell

Paul Hawken: Regeneration

Mark Maslin: How To Save Our Planet

Katherine Hayhoe: Saving Us

Jimmy Dunson: Building Power While The Lights Are Out

Paul Raekstad, Sofa Saio Gradin: Prefigurative Politics

Andreas Malm: How To Blow Up A Pipeline

Phoebe Wagner, Bronte Christopher Wieland: Almanac For The Anthropocene

Chris Turner: How To Be A Climate Optimist

William MacAskill: What We Owe To The Future

Mikaela Loach: It's Not That Radical

Miles Richardson: Reconnection

David Harvey: Spaces of Hope Rebel Cities

Eric Holthaus: The Future Earth

Zahra Biabani: Climate Optimism

David Ehrenfeld: Becoming Good Ancestors

Stephen Gliessman: Agroecology

Chris Carlsson: Nowtopia

Jon Alexander: Citizens

Leah Thomas: The Intersectional Environmentalist

Greta Thunberg: The Climate Book

Jen Bendell, Rupert Read: Deep Adaptation

Seth Godin: The Carbon Almanac

Jane Goodall: The Book of Hope

Vandana Shiva: Agroecology and Regenerative Agriculture

Amitav Ghosh: The Great Derangement

Minouche Shafik: What We Owe To Each Other

Dieter Helm: Net Zero

Chris Goodall: What We Need To Do Now

Aldo Leopold: A Sand County Almanac

Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, Stephanie Foote: The Cambridge Companion To The Environmental Humanities

Bella Lack: The Children of The Anthropocene

Hannah Ritchie: Not The End of The World

Chris Turner: How To Be A Climate Optimist

Kim Stanley Robinson: Ministry For The Future

Fiona Mathews, Tim Kendall: Black Ops & Beaver Bombing

Jeff Goodell: The Water Will Come

Lynne Jones: Sorry For The Inconvenience But This Is An Emergency

Helen Crist: Abundant Earth

Sam Bentley: Good News, Planet Earth!

Timothy Beal: When Time Is Short

Andrew Boyd: I Want A Better Catastrophe

Kristen R. Ghodsee: Everyday Utopia

Elizabeth Cripps: What Climate Justice Means & Why We Should Care

Kylie Flanagan: Climate Resilience

Chris Johnstone, Joanna Macy: Active Hope

Mark Engler: This is an Uprising

Anne Therese Gennari: The Climate Optimist Handbook

Magazines:

Solarpunk Magazine

Positive News

Resurgence & Ecologist

Ethical Consumer

Films (Fiction):

How To Blow Up A Pipeline

The End We Start From

Woman At War

Black Panther

Star Trek

Tomorrowland

Films (Documentary):

2040: How We Can Save The Planet

The People vs Big Oil

Wild Isles

The Boy Who Harnessed The Wind

Generation Green New Deal

Planet Earth III

Video Games:

Terra Nil

Animal Crossing

Gilded Shadows

Anno 2070

Stardew Valley

RPGs:

Solarpunk Futures

Perfect Storm

Advocacy Groups:

A22 Network

Extinction Rebellion

Greenpeace

Friends of The Earth

Green New Deal Rising

Apps:

Ethy

Sojo

BackMarket

Depop

Vinted

Olio

Buy Nothing

Too Good To Go

Websites:

European Co-housing

UK Co-housing

US Co-housing

Brought By Bike (connects you with zero-carbon delivery goods)

ClimateBase (find a sustainable career)

Environmentjob (ditto)

Businesses (🤢):

Ethical Superstore

Hodmedods

Fairtransport/Sail Cargo Alliance

Let me know if you think there’s anything I’ve missed!

[johannestevans]

What’s In A Uniform?: Imperial Attitudes Reflected in Starfleet’s Uniforms

Relationships with imperial attitudes reflected in uniform and costuming in Star Trek

Read this essay in An Injustice! / / Read this essay on my Patreon / / Leave a tip

A press photo of the TNG cast, via TrekCore.

Introduction

Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry’s vision of a post-war and post-scarcity future filled to the brim with infinite diversity in infinite combinations, is often posited as a luxury-filled communist utopia in space.

In the 24th century within the United Federation of Planets, the need for wages and money has broadly been eliminated; everyone can choose to embrace whatever education, craft, or career suits them; no one within the Federation’s bounds is denied shelter, food, or other necessities in exchange for labour or some other pay.

Therefore, no one is press-ganged or forced into service, and there is no obligation or expectation that people join Starfleet. People do so because they want to.

Why do they want to?

Unlike here on Earth today, no one in Starfleet is joining up in order to send money home to their families, in order to get a university degree they couldn’t hope to afford otherwise, in order to feed themselves, house themselves, in order to escape their homes and their families.

Many of them are scientists or would-be explorers. They want to meet new people, and be of service to them, and to the Federation of Planets. They want to help others. They’re curious about the broader universe, desire to seek out new species and new civilisations, new worlds.

They want to go boldly where no one has gone before.

That phrasing was an update in Star Trek: The Next Generation and other Treks from The Original Series —in order to enfranchise Trek’s philosophy of gender equality within its world and universe, “no man” was changed to “no one”, to make it gender-neutral.

But the core of that phrasing still has its problems — to boldly go where no one has gone before?

Which is it? Are we seeking out new species and new civilisations, or are we going where no one has gone before? What is it, by the way, that makes these species and civilisations “new”? Many of the species and civilisations crews in Trek make contact with are just as ancient and established, if not more so, than the peoples of Earth.

I’m being pedantic, of course — of course they don’t mean “new” as in freshly birthed or developed, but new to them, to the crews of the Enterprise or the other star ships. They’re not implying those peoples or planets are lesser or younger, merely that they haven’t met before.

What about that use of the word “explore”, then? This phrase, “strange new worlds”? What about “to boldly go”?

What makes those worlds strange? What makes the crews of Star Trek bold?

The word “exploration” is a very fraught one, when considered in an imperial context.

Countless hundreds of “explorers” in our relatively recent history have traipsed into what they have written home and called wilderness, because it did not resemble what they thought of as agriculture, because it did not resemble their expectations of fields and farms, but in actual fact was carefully balanced agroforestry.

They have called land “pristine” and “untouched”, have perhaps made reference to the idea that no human beings have been there before, or that no human could live there… When many indigenous peoples were and had been there previously. When those same peoples might well live there today, or would do, were it not for the colonial invasion of and theft of the land.

When we talk about “exploration”, we’re typically speaking about someone entering a new and foreign environment to them, studying it, learning more about it, and a certain authority is placed upon a term like explorer.

People still celebrate Columbus Day, still refer to America as “the New World”, when Christopher Columbus came upon a continent scattered with different and diverse peoples, spreading all manner of disease and sickness to them whilst he and his men worked to enslave, torture, and murder those people in their thousands; people still refer to in regular conversation to the likes of James Cook, the white British explorer who was rightly and justly executed in Hawai’i after decades of exploitation; to Francis Drake, who enslaved and trafficked thousands of Africans, was assisted other English forces in massacring hundreds of Irish on Rathlin Island, and carried this experience in thievery and human trafficking when we approached his raids of Spanish ships during his world’s circumnavigation.

These men are referred to as “explorers”, and a certain romance is placed on the word, where an “explorer” is often thought of in the same breath as “hero” or “founding father” or other iconic figure.

Attempts are made within Trek, though, to bear this history in mind and take efforts to distance itself from it — the Prime Directive demands that crew do not expose civilisations to Starfleet’s advanced technology before they have developed sufficiently to meet Starfleet with technology of their own, ostensibly to prevent these peoples and civilisations from being exploited by a more powerful civilisation.

This non-interference policy — when it’s actually adhered to — protects these cultures from seeing Starfleet or its people as superiors or saviours, should prevent them from being pedestalised or from interfering where they shouldn’t in a more vulnerable culture’s history, politics, and its people’s lives.

Other diplomatic policies are established — first contact protocols expect Starfleet personnel to defer to the other culture’s norms and social expectations during initial diplomatic proceedings; offers of assistance and gifted resources are frequently made by Starfleet, so long as they feel like it, and so on.

Efforts are made, in short, to approach the wonder of exploration and the United Federation of Planet’s expansion throughout the universe whilst making efforts to distance themselves from the violence of colonial explorers’ legacy.

Much of the desire in creating Star Trek’s initial cast was to show a variety of diverse people within the core cast, to create and hone a vision for the future —yes, Spock himself is a half-Vulcan, a literal alien on the crew, but more than that, to have a Russian on the bridge, signalling the long-time end of the Cold War and its animosities, was a clear and intentional choice; also to have characters like Hikaru Sulu and Nyota Uhura in the core cast in senior crew positions, enfranchising racial diversity within Star Trek’s crews from the very beginning, even before they had the first interracial kiss on television.

Throughout each Star Trek series, attempts are always made to introduce, enfranchise, protect, and champion diversity in all manner of forms — different Treks have of course been criticised for going about this at times in the wrong way or for not going far enough, for failing in certain areas, but the purpose of this essay is not to criticise it for the imperial legacy in the show, or the presence of colonial ideas and biases reflected in its uniform choices.

I myself am of course very anti-military and opposed to these colonial attitudes, but this piece is less about directly criticise those attitudes and is more about interrogating our biases both as viewers of and the primary audience for Star Trek and similar sci-fi shows, and therefore as creators.

What do we see when we look at the uniforms in each of the Star Trek series? What do those uniforms tell us as viewers about each individual character, and about the vessel and crew as a whole? What do these uniforms symbolise, and what biases might we be bringing with us when we interpret the presence of them, positive or negative?

What do these uniforms indicate and communicate to crew members and civilians within the diegesis of each show, and what are their purposes? Is every uniform on every crew in each show worn with the same purpose?

What’s in a uniform? Who and what and why is it for?

I’m going to be analysing each of the crews’ uniforms, what we can take from their appearances, the broader meaning of symbols and connotations included within these uniforms, the philosophy of uniforms in the first place, and then later discussing more at length audience and creator bias around these philosophies and how we might shift or set them aside, if we wish to.

I’ll be discussing these in both diegetic (within the Star Trek universe, by its internal boundaries and expectations) and extra- or non-diegetic terms (outside of the Star Trek universe, by our own expectations).

Because this sort of critical analysis of visuals and symbols is inherently about semiotics, or the study of how meaning is created, it might be helpful if you’re not familiar to read a primer on semiotic terms, such as this one from the University of Vermont.

The Historical Roots of Naval Uniforms

Costume designer William Ware Theiss and Gene Roddenberry specifically wanted to move away from a militaristic design in the crew uniforms for Star Trek: The Original Series (Star Trek Costumes: Five Decades of Fashion from the Final Frontier, by Terry J. Erdmann and Paula M. Block), and instead evoke stripped-down naval elements.

This desire to evoke the navy over the military might serve in some eyes to distance Trek’s crews from being interpreted as an invading or more aggressive, antagonistic force, to indicate that there is a command structure without it being made up of soldiers.

Before I go into uniforms within Star Trek, I want to talk a little about the history of naval uniforms themselves.

The uniform for officers in the Royal British Navy was not introduced until 1748 — before this, there were British military uniforms, which were the traditional “red coats”.

Before the English Civil War ending in 1651, this uniform started out as red jackets worn by certain ceremonial guards and limited forces, and over time as a distinct English army was cultivated and built up, their wearing of these red jackets became standardised. By the late 1600s, soldiers primarily wore these red jackets, and more complex and ornate uniform elements were often added ornamentally for officers in different military forces.

The reason for the introduction of naval uniforms in 1748 was actually out of a desire for better appearances — naval officers were concerned that military officers were perceived as more respectable than themselves in part because of their uniforms. While officers would appear “formal” and “respectable” in portraiture or for formal and notable appearances, they did not have a specific uniform.

These dress uniforms started out in blue, contrasting the military red, but mirrored the white shirt, gold buttons, gold edging and lamé present in military uniforms.

After the introduction of the uniform, it was edited and cultivated over time, both by the naval forces adding to and developing standard uniforms elements and also by rich or fashionable members of the naval forces who wished to edit and embellish their uniforms to make them more handsome, more impressive, or seem more commanding.

The amount of embellishment on a uniform might loosely indicate the rank or importance of the officer wearing it — lesser officers might have no golden embroidery at all, but not all decorative elements were optional additions. There were more standardised elements, such as in the gold banding around the sleeve of a jacket to indicate rank — a rear-admiral might have one ring of gold around the sleeve, a vice-admiral two, and a full admiral three.

Notable are the introduction of epaulettes, which were added to the standard British military uniform in 1795, although they were previously added for reasons of fashion and appearance by some officers. Epaulettes were added to the British Naval uniform having taken inspiration from the French, and this adoption was criticised in parts.

Swords were part of uniform elements as well — the swords used by naval officers in battle were generally short swords or cutlasses, as these officers would have been fighting in close quarters with other men close by; in portraiture they were depicted with more ornate ceremonial swords, such as long swords or other dress swords with decorative scabbards.

Other elements of the uniform were medals and other honours — apart from medals given to men in the form of brooches or hanging coins to be worn on the breast, they might have worn other elements such as sashes in certain colours to indicate their knighthoods or similar titles; many officers might have worn similar signet rings, cufflinks, or other jewellery to one another, and their seals, which were metal dies or engraved gems used to place wax seals on their letters or correspondence, might also have been worn as decorative elements, especially visible in portraits.

Gene Roddenberry famously wished for the Star Trek uniforms to be sleek, simple, and cut-back of extraneous detail, he hated zippers, he didn’t want crewmen to have pockets, didn’t want there to be messy or additional extraneous details.

This is of course in stark contrast to the history of the British naval uniform which later went on to inspire the developing American naval uniform — almost everything I’m describing is about aesthetics rather than about practicality.

Official uniform standards often demanded breeches worn with stockings and shoes for its officers — these were attractive, handsome, showed off the calves of the officers, met the expectations and desires of the Admiralty, but were ultimately far less practical than trousers, which could be pulled on immediately in a pinch, or stripped off in the event of injury, and boots, which provided far more protection to the foot and calf, and were more secure than shoes.

Non-officers were not expected to wear uniform with colours or aesthetics in mind at all until much later in the history of the navy’s development. Their clothes were expected to be well-kept, clean, and in good order, but more particular and specific uniform elements weren’t expected for ordinary seamen and other non-officers until a good deal later.

It’s worth asking ourselves, then — what was the point of these uniforms and their elements? What were they conveying?

Military uniforms can be said to exist for very simple reasons — if two armies are on a battlefield, they need to have elements that distinguish the two armies from one another so that when you bash someone’s head in, it’s the enemy’s head and not your friend’s. This could be as simple as wearing different colours (ideally colours that don’t change too much when stained with blood) or different shaped helmets.

As warfare has evolved and become more complex with time, additional elements have become standard in military uniforms — beyond wanting to know who’s on your side and who isn’t, you might want to know from a distance who’s the commander on the field, what weapons someone might be using, who is a medic.

A naval ship, however, is not a battlefield.

It’s self-contained, separate from civilians, let alone enemies. Uniforms were initially requested by naval commanders, after all, because they wanted to look more impressive in portraits and at parties, and they wanted to be recognisable at a glance as naval officers, important within the naval structure and separate from military or artillery officers.

The secondary purpose of these uniforms remain important — you want to know who your superiors are, might wish to be able to guess their speciality, if they’re a medic, or similar, but this need for appearances goes beyond simple vanity.

Uniform within the British navy did appeal to officers’ vanity, yes, particularly when additional embellishments or ornamentation was their focus, but the purpose of portraiture in British and broader Western society was not as simple as depiction. One’s portrait did not merely serve to stroke one’s ego and boost one’s marriage or promotion prospects — portraiture was political.

Yes, it might serve an individual’s hope of attaining office or promotion, but these portraits also served the needs and desires of the British Naval Admiralty and therefore the broader British Empire.

The admiralty demanded certain aesthetics because of how they contributed to the British Navy’s reputation as a whole, aiding the admirals’ ability to leverage certain political power and command in all forms of political life, and contributed to the perspective of British Naval officers as respectable, commanding, powerful, and worthy of any and all political office.

As time has gone on, these needs for aesthetic and the political worth and value of a uniform has only increased — by the 1960s, the inspiration Roddenberry and Theiss were working with was not edited and specific only for portraiture.

Images via Naval History and Heritage Command.

In the American Navy they were inspired by, uniforms were standard for all crewmen, not merely officers, and these uniforms had been edited and carefully designed over centuries to balance practicality with appearance. The above military uniforms are attractive and in line with formal expectations of dress, such as in the use of ties, shined leather shoes, skirts for women, pressed trousers for men, each of these garments having been ironed and worn with clean, straight creases —the colours present, blue, white, or khaki, are used for different variations of dress intended to bear in mind not only department or service rank but also climate, and we see the use of gold stripes on the sleeves as used in Star Trek to indicate rank.

We also see other indicators of rank and service history — particular hats for certain ranking crew members with especial insignia; shoulder patches that might indicate squadron or department; coloured bars worn on the breast are everyday edited versions of any service medals or honours they have received so that actual medals can be reserved for dress uniform; golden rope worn over the shoulder (aiguillette) indicates service as an attaché or aide.

These are of course separate from the expectations for dress uniform which was more ornamental and might be worn for special occasions, parades, or, as in history, portraiture — much of what we see in service uniform are more concise or succinct expressions of the information encoded more elaborately in these dress uniforms.

Why all this information encoded in the uniform?

The stars, the insignia, the service ribbons — a great amount of information is encoded in the uniform itself, visible at a glance for those able to decode or recognise it.

An officer can walk through a crew and know just by looking at someone’s uniform their department, their rank, their squadron or unit, they might be able to see their service history and any honours they’ve received, and so on.

Helpful to get all that information without asking them or reading a file — helpful, too, in figuring out who a crewman was in case of death, if their face is damaged or no one recognises them.

Elements of the Starfleet Uniform

A photo of the Spock and Kirk, via TrekCore.

The original uniform as presented in Star Trek: The Original Series is fairly simple and straight forward — we see the three departmental colours, gold for command, red for engineering and security, and blue for medical and science, spread across each of the uniform jerseys, which each have a black lining around the collar. For those crew wearing mini skirts or dresses, the collar is worn lower and bares more of the neck and upper chest, but retains the black lining.

Sheer tights are worn for those in dresses and skirts, and those in trousers wear a loose three-quarter length trouser with a flared hem that can either be tucked into the calf-length boot or is worn loosely over it. These black leather boots are tight to the foot and leg and mostly have a slightly pointed toe.

And then are the additional elements — each crewmember has the Starfleet insignia sewn over their breast, with the central insert in the insignia indicating department; we also see the golden bands around the sleeve, indicating someone’s rank, three bands for captain, two for first officer or department chef, et cetera.

These uniforms are simple and cleanly designed with very few extraneous elements.

The lack of zips mean no one gets caught in them or, if caught in phaser fire, presumably, no zippers are going to be fused or burned; the lack of jackets, ties, or other hanging or removable elements mean that none of these can get caught on or in machinery or similar; presumably, temperature is kept at as comfortable a level for all crewmembers as possible.

So, what are the elements communicated by this uniform, for other crewmembers or civilians familiar with Starfleet protocol? The uniform immediately communicates:

crew member’s department, visible from a distance by colour coding, and then communicated specifically up close by the insignia

captaincy or other command rank visible on the sleeve (one reason that cropped sleeves have been criticised in women’s uniforms in other Treks is because to do this immediately removes those women’s visible presence within the command structure)

crewmember’s gender (until TNG onwards, only women wear the miniskirt or wear the more revealing collar)

Some of the female crew wear earrings, but we don’t typically see anyone wear necklaces, rings, or bracelets, and these elements are presumably not permitted within uniform guidelines, but crew are permitted to cut and wear their hair as they choose.

Janice Rand’s ornate beehive hairdo and Nyota Uhura’s hair are obviously more carefully cared for than that of most of their male crewmembers’, but in general we can extrapolate from visuals that crew are expected to keep their hair either short, cut to be ear-length or shorter, or tied up and fastened out of the way, and that crew in the course of TOS’ original series generally are to be clean-shaven. Judging by Joseph M’Benga’s hair, there is no expectation or requirement that Black crewmembers or other crew with tightly coiled hair relax their hair or shave their heads.

Once we get to the original films, and especially as we get to The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager, these uniforms do begin to change and evolve.

A photo of the Spock and Kirk, via TrekCore

We retain the colour coding for department in these new uniforms, although the colours have changed around — red is now for command, blue remains for science and medical, and gold is for engineering and security.

Black is now more incorporated into the uniform, and we see higher Nehru collars with visible pips to indicate place in the command structure — these are far more visible on a comm screen than someone’s sleeves, and can also communicate more information than the sleeve bands, with the number of gold pips indicating rank in the command structure, and black pips can indicate that someone is a junior or a lieutenant of their rank.

The jackets in these uniforms remain tightly tailored to the body, but can now be stripped off or worn open over the vest or undershirt underneath; instead of an embroidered insignia, we now see the introduction of the Starfleet comm badge in place of the handheld communicator, a brass shine that mirrors that of the pips.

The men’s boots have alas lost their sexy pointed toe and are now squarer — these boots are more comfortable with more foot room. Women’s boots retain the pointed toe and also have a block heel. I might argue that a diegetic reason for the TOS crew to retain the pointed toe for all crew might have been to make it a bit easier for crew to easily hook their feet into narrow ladders, much like cowboy boots have a pointed toe to make it easier to hook one’s feet into stirrups, although realistically it’s just a fashion update.

We’re also seeing the introduction here of more non-crew uniforms — being a counsellor and outside of the chain of command, we see Deanna Troi in a jumpsuit without any pips; we also see the likes of Wesley’s cadet uniforms, which feature a softer corded wool around the collar and shoulders, and have him in that pale grey to show that he, too, is outside of the command structure.

We see more diversity in people’s hairstyles and uniform wear; men begin to appear in skants alongside women, albeit primarily in the background; we see more varied hairstyles, including longer and looser hairstyles; we see more beards and moustaches.

These uniforms communicate the same data the original uniforms do with further detail, and without the same strict gendering present in TOS’ uniforms. They’re nicer uniforms, better constructed, more practical, more flexible.

And yet there’s more, isn’t there?

Rather like a naval captain wearing a sash to indicate his title, we see Worf wearing a baldric to denote his position in the House of Mogh, and this allowance is allotted him to ensure his Klingon identity is not denied him just because of his membership in Starfleet.

But when Ro Laren is invited to join Starfleet, she’s told not to wear her earring, of religious and cultural significance to Bajorans much as Klingon houses are of cultural importance to them. Why? What makes the Bajoran earring inappropriate within Starfleet uniform protocol, and not the Klingon baldric?

Is it because Worf is an officer of standing, but Ro Laren is an ensign or less? Is it because Worf grew up on Earth, raised by humans, and his attachment to the Klingon empire is not one that might undermine his loyalty to the United Federation of Planets, whereas Ro Laren understandably thinks of Bajor before she does Starfleet and the Federation? Is it because Bajor’s culture is respected less than that of the Klingon Empire’s — is it because the wearing of Bajoran earrings is explicitly tied to Bajoran religious beliefs and often marked with their castes, and these two cultural aspects are thought to be at odds with Starfleet’s predominant ideology?

These questions beg another — what is a uniform for? Why do Starfleet crew wear a uniform?

To show that they represent Starfleet — so that others can see they represent Starfleet. Their actions are Starfleet’s, and Starfleet is expected to take responsibility for any actions of their crewmembers whilst wearing their uniforms and operating their vessels; crew represent, in Starfleet uniform, Starfleet’s interests, and moreover, the interests of the United Federation of Planets.

Even more so than on a naval vessel, crew on a spacefaring vessel do not need to be wearing a uniform for the sake of people knowing who not to shoot at — these uniforms are useful for internal reasoning. They have rules and regulations, and a psychological advantage.

Uniforms, aptly, promote unity. Remind a crew that they operate as one body, and that that body represents a larger whole. Wearing a uniform creates a sense of equality and shared experience among the crew during working hours; it removes any distraction; it ensures that all clothing worn on shift is fit for purpose, safe, and appropriate.

Ro Laren’s earring, via TrekCore.

Why was Ro Laren’s earring a concern? Because a uniform is meant to eclipse the personal identity of the crewmember.

Klingons have a storied and often antagonistic history with the United Federation of Planets. Most members of Starfleet, and indeed, most members of the Federation, will recognise a Klingon on sight, and they will have ideas and opinions, assumptions, about aggressive Klingon culture. Klingons are not expected to be members of the United Federation of Planets any time soon — their culture is not going to be subsumed underneath the Federation’s liberally multicultural identity. It’s too strong, too different, too discrete from Federation values.

What of Bajoran values?

Throughout Deep Space Nine, a central question is whether Bajor is going to join the United Federation of Planets — before that, in The Next Generation, a central question is if Starfleet is going to help Bajoran refugees, Bajoran survivors, Bajoran captives, out from beneath their Cardassian aggressors. Starfleet condemns Cardassia’s actions, but their hands are tied. The Federation is already at odds with the Cardassian Empire, but they can’t risk all-out war just for Bajor.

For the wormhole, later on, that’s different — the wormhole is beneficial to them. Bajor is strategic only because of its connection to Terok Nor / DS9, and therefore the wormhole.

Bajor itself has had its natural resources plundered by Cardassian oppression, the planet blighted with drought, illness, filled with orphans. Where is the benefit in adding Bajor to the United Federation of Planets? What value do they bring to the Federation?

Their poetry? Their ancient technological breakthroughs? Their music? Their architecture, their art, their highly developed freedom fighting tactics?

What does Starfleet need with any of those? Especially when they come attached to religious beliefs?

What’s a uniform for?

We’re human beings on Earth in the 21st century, and when we see a Starfleet uniform, we make certain assumptions about it. What do we think about when we see a uniform — when we see a naval uniform, a military uniform?

A naval or military uniform is neat and tidy and orderly. It’s respectable. It’s often called a service uniform, the naval and military service called as such because “serving your country” is viewed as noble, honourable, and yes, respectable.

What assumptions do we make, when we see someone in a service uniform? Do we make positive or negative assumptions? Do we think that person is punctual, neat, obedient, commanding, intelligent, focused, diligent, hard-working? Do we see a crisply ironed service uniform and think of them as sloppy, foolish, disrespectful, messy?

Do we look at a uniform and think of national service? Think of that person volunteering in their community and helping lay sandbags during a flood, cooking at soup kitchens or packaging boxes at food banks?

Do we look at a service uniform and think of its wearer as “serving their country”, protecting its freedoms and its culture from foreign threats, or do we look at a service uniform and see a murderer serving the interests of oil barons and arms dealers?

For members of Starfleet, it’s valuable that Starfleet uniforms indicate at a glance where someone’s place is within the chain of command. You can tell whose orders you should be following, and who should be obeying your orders. Obedience to one’s superiors is important, and is even considered an indicator of respect. Why?

Because Starfleet believes in equality, yes, and believes in unity, but only certain individuals are appointed deciders of action.

Your actions as an ensign are up to you until your superior commands otherwise; that lieutenant’s actions, and those of their inferiors, are up to them until their chief decides otherwise; that chief’s decisions and their inferiors are up to them until the captain decides otherwise; that captain and their crew’s decisions are up to them until an admiral or someone else further up the chain of command decide otherwise.

Why is a chain of command important?

Someone might say it eliminates confusion in the field; it lets everyone know what their place is, and who they should go to with questions or concerns; it prevents people from struggling with conflicting orders or instructions; it eliminates time taken for discussion or debate under pressure, as the most important decision is made by a designated commander.

This is a cultural idea. It is a perspective that comes from a culture that believes in top-down power structures and social stratification that matches those power structures.

Living on Earth in the 21st century, we are continuously surrounded by these cultural ideas and these perspectives, and we carry those biases with us when we see Starfleet uniforms.

Let’s look at them again and try to do it from an outsider’s lens.

What Does The Uniform Mean?

We are an alien species, and we are introduced to a Starfleet crew. They say that they have come from the United Federation of Planets, a union of planets in the Alpha Quadrant who share resources and ideas.

What can we tell from them by looking at them, assuming we know nothing of Human, Vulcan, Klingon, or other Federation species’ cultures or appearances?

We see a variety of people of approximately similar sizes. They are all solid, warm-blooded, and as a rule, they appear to have two legs, two arms, two eyes, a nose with two nostrils, a mouth. They broadly breathe the same air, eat similar if not the same food, have similar needs and requirements as far goes gravity and temperature, and the majority of them rely on five senses — sight, hearing, physical touch, scent, and taste, with some of them also having a telepathic or empathic sense.

Their heads sit on a neck, which sits on a torso, and while their organs may rest in different places and there is a diversity between their individual internal organs and discrete biological make-ups, each primarily seems to have a ribcage that houses some organs and a softer lower half.

Genital make-up is different between certain species and there is a diversity of genitalia — size, function — between individuals within a species. Roughly correlating to their genitalia within species — although not in all cases, and not universally, we might see differences in body hair, facial pigmentation, bone and muscle density, fat distribution, vocal range and resonance, and so on.

Their bodies might be different, but what unites them is the uniform they wear — much as it might be separated into three distinct colours, the uniform styling is the same for each crewmember, tailored to the size and shape of their body, made of the same materials. To us, in the event we know nothing of uniforms themselves and come to this meeting from a wholly different cultural perspective, what does this uniform signify?

That these people have a united purpose? A united origin — the same union of territories, if not the same specific territory? A united set of values, perspectives, cultures, ideas, beliefs?

What might we assume the colours of their uniforms symbolise? What interpretations might we make of the colours they wear, bringing our own cultural ideas with us — assuming we can see colours at all? Are some of these colours desirable to us, and others not? Some of them important and others less so?

If Starfleet’s culture and its ideas, if the United Federation’s ideas, are truly wholly foreign to us and hitherto unimagined, how do we interpret such an idea as “the chain of command”?

A captain leads their crew: the captain’s orders, when given, are obeyed.

What does this signify?

From our perspective, familiar with a military or naval service, familiar with top-down power structures, we understand the idea of power and decision-making being concentrated at the top of a pyramid and disseminated in smaller and smaller parts as one works further down that pyramid.

But from an outside perspective, how might we interpret a captain?

What makes other people obey that captain’s orders or instructions? How does the captain make those decisions? If the captain has a telepathic sense, are they acting on the shared desires and ideas of the other crew? Are they representing the mutual ideas of the whole? Are they making their own decisions unilaterally? If so… why? How?

What gives that captain more of a right to make those decisions than their subordinates? These pips or these bands on the sleeve, are they the source of someone’s power? If two people swap uniforms, do their positions and levels of command change? No? This means that the pips represent something in the individual, and that the power is not concentrated in the pips themselves.

How are these pips administered?

Are they allotted to crew members based on their age? Based on their species, sex, their place of birth, the circumstances of that birth, their parenthood? Their level of performance in some sort of exam or tournament? Their number of sexual partners? Their number of achievements in one area or other? Their number of children? Their innate strength or some other personal biological or genetic component of their body or person?

Is it up to a vote, who gets certain pips? A committee? What decides this vote or committee? What creates this democratic process?

In the original imperial chain of command, the top-down structure all the way to the top went to the prevailing monarch — in the British navy, the king or queen. This king or queen was given rule by birthright — by Divine Right.

With time, the chief of these services in the West has broadly changed from the monarch, decided by random circumstance of birth, to a democratically elected president, prime minister, or other political leader, but the rest of the chain has remained the same.

We can infer from different series that the President of the United Federation of Planets is democratically elected, although we don’t know how long a president is in office for or what the process of electing them looks like, who is permitted to vote and who isn’t, and who is permitted to run for office. Are presidents sponsored by political parties or pressure groups? Is it required that a president has experience in Starfleet, the ambassadorial core, or some other aspect of service? Is diversity in presidential candidates prioritised or in some way protected?

Democracy as we define it in the West is typically a matter of individuals casting votes for candidates.

In the UK and the USA, this democratic process is simple — a winner is decided on a basis of who is “first past the post”. In short, whichever candidate gets the most votes wins the post for which they are running. The candidates voters are able to choose between, the ones which are written on a ballot, are put forward by registered political parties within the geographical area where votes are being put forward. Presidential or prime ministerial candidates are not voted for directly by individual voters — instead, individuals vote for candidates within their voting constituencies.

As each of these individuals belongs to a political party, presidential leadership — or leadership in the House of Commons — is decided based on the winning political party, the one with the most individuals elected, but this process is widely criticised.

What do we do if voter turnout is low? If only 45% of eligible voters turn up to vote, only 45% of voters got a choice in the decision — Australia has made voting compulsory to avoid this. What if some voters wish to vote, but are unable to — if voting booths are inaccessible, if voters are disabled, if they’re at work on the day of the election? Many countries institute national holidays for elections, allow postal voting or forms of e-democracy.

What if two constituencies have wildly different populations? Does a person in one constituency get more power over a decision because there are fewer other voters living nearby? Many countries institute a form of proportional representation to get around this, as well as working to combat gerrymandering as a political tactic.

In the UK, a strong and stable government on election day is a descriptor of a House of Commons in which at least one political party — or a union of parties — dominates the house. This is defined as a strong government because bills they wish to put forward are easily able to be voted through by their representatives. When there is no dominant party within the house, this is sometimes referred to as a “lame duck” government, and parties typically form coalitions in order to be able to dominate the house even with insufficient votership to do so directly.

In Germany, political stability is not defined by the same expectations — one political party dominating all others and being able to make unilateral decisions would be seen as a sign of an unstable government, as coalitions of parties have been crucial to Germany’s political process for some time.

And yet for all I’ve mentioned different Western countries and their differing expectations of democracy — the US, the UK, Germany, Australia, and for all I might mention others, Ireland, France, Spain, Belgium, Canada, and countless others, within their militaries and their navies, they still have a chain of command.

Democracy is antithetical to a chain of command — choices by committee are made with an assumption of equals contributing to a whole, but choices within a top-down power structure are ultimately decided by those at the top.

When Ro Laren joins Starfleet, and when other Bajorans initially join Starfleet, it is under an expectation that they leave certain elements of their culture behind — these expectations are later relaxed, and Bajorans are permitted to wear their earrings just as Klingon service members are permitted their baldrics; just as Scottish members of crew are permitted to substitute trousers and certain dress uniform elements for sporrans and kilts; just as Nog and other Ferengi are permitted to wear a veil at the back of their heads to emphasise the size of their ears; just as one background member of the Lower Decks crew is permitted to wear a hijab.

The key word here is “permitted”. They are given permission by their superiors to alter their uniform in this manner. It is not a right: it is a dispensation.

In its original introduction to the navy, the purpose of uniforms was to make commanders and officers appear more respectable and be perceived as more respectable. Later on, the uniform became itself a sign of respect, and adherence to that uniform a sign of respect. Customisation of that uniform was no longer to be done on an individual basis.

To customise a uniform is to introduce disparate or unique elements to that uniform, and therefore, to potentially interrupt the chain of command. What if someone interprets an alteration to that uniform as a sign that that person is a separate individual who can disobey orders or give orders outside of the command structure?

What if that individual is an individual, not not in service of — and beholden to — the collective?

The United Federation of Planets believes in equality and protects the rights of the individual until they join the Federation’s naval wing, and then, their individuality is subsumed by the expectations of the whole — some individuality is permitted, is given dispensation for, and some is not. Some individuality is an interruption or a threat to the chain of command, and some is not.

Ergo, some individuals are simply more acceptable than others.

Who decides which are more acceptable? The person higher up in the chain of command. Power comes from the top.

How does one get higher in the chain of command?

By being the most acceptable.

The Wider Ramifications

Star Trek is a set of series and shows about exploration, which, as I said in the beginning of this piece, is quite the loaded the term. Starfleet crews expand outward from the boundaries of the United Federation of Planets — their core of command — and they seek out new ideas, new cultures, new resources. Some of these are subsumed into Starfleet’s ideals, and the ideas or resources they enjoy best are dispatched back to the core to be enjoyed by those there.

This is also a top-down process.

Bajor can be mined for resources by Cardassia, and mined for crew by Starfleet, refugees taken into crew, their information used in the war against Cardassia, their militia employed against Cardassia and the Dominion, but this is not a mutual exchange.

Bajor is under Starfleet’s protection. Starfleet can withdraw — and will withdraw — that protection whenever they see fit. This is leveraged as a threat multiple times throughout Deep Space Nine, most notably when Bajor seems to be returning to their caste system, which is understandably seen as a threat to the United Federation’s beliefs in equality.

Within the United Federation’s core, resources are freely available for all, but this privilege is not extended to the people of Bajor. They have not joined the Federation of Planets and put aside their planetary identity for the Federation’s.

Many Starfleet crew, and Starfleet’s own command, step back and allow the rape and destruction of Bajor’s people, its culture, by the Cardassian Empire: it is only when the Dominion threatens both Bajor and the Federation itself that Bajor is seen more seriously, and treated with more seriousness.

How often does this play out in different Star Trek episodes? Native Americans are forced from their ancestral homelands to new planets, and then they are forced from those and pushed to new ones. Planets are mined for resources, and peoples and cultures die.

Sometimes, Starfleet intervenes — sometimes, they watch.

Star Trek is a product of its creators and its viewers — it was originally made primarily by white Americans in 1960s USA as a vision for the future, of unity and equality for all, reaching out for other peoples across the stars. Each iteration of the Star Trek series has evolved and explored more what this utopian vision means, what its limitations are and what its most beautiful ideas might be.

Deep Space Nine is of course the classic Trek most critical of these ideas — it asks point blank questions about religious and cultural intolerance, about the limitations of the United Federation’s liberal multiculturism, where not everyone is truly accepted or even truly tolerated, despite the philosophy that every crewmember would like to believe in. It interrogates the biases that Star Trek holds and those that define it, most famously in episodes like Far Beyond the Stars, but also in episodes like The Abandoned, which interrogates and break down the anti-Blackness ever present in Star Trek’s attitudes and perspectives on the Jem’Hadar. Today, new Trek interrogates and considers its own past and the changes it makes to its universe, in Lower Decks and in Discovery, most of all.

But even they still have the uniform — how could they not have the uniform?

What would Star Trek look like without those uniforms? How would it work, how could it work?

These uniforms are not only pieces of cloth and leather — they represent a whole power structure and philosophical paradigm. We look at people in uniform like theirs, and many of us assume we’re looking at the good guys. That they mean well, that they’re doing good things, and care about each other.

That people without uniforms like theirs must be lesser, more backward, less disciplined, less moral or ethical, less controlled. Less together, less cohesive — less valuable.

The belief in a top-down power structure, ever present as it is, infects every part of our perspectives and our views on the world, every bias that we hold.

Picard and Riker in naval uniforms in Generations, via TrekCore.

One of the most iconic moments in Deep Space Nine is Garak and Quark’s infamous root beer conversation, where they talk about how Starfleet and the United Federation of Planets are quite insidious in their cultural domination, that bit by bit, they affect others to take on their cultural values and ideas.

Starfleet in many ways is more insidious than the Borg — at least the Borg says outright that assimilation is their goal and their mission, and tells people what’s going to happen to them. Starfleet doesn’t do that.

It holds back certain privileges and protections until people put aside the parts of themselves and their cultures that make them undesirable to Starfleet, until they work to assimilate within Starfleet’s boundaries and desires, and then they turn around and view that as a sign of the Federation’s ideological and philosophical supremacy in the first place. Why else would people change themselves to fit, after all?

They never forced anyone to join, never threatened violence.

Star Trek is, after all, a show written by white Americans, and American cultural hegemony is even more wide-reaching today than it was in the 1960s — the world over, people watch American shows and television, English is the predominant lingua franca, people are expected to accept US dollars and value the US dollar.

If the US decided to go to war tomorrow, it would affect everybody else in the world, American or otherwise. The US decides embargoes, has military and naval bases in most every territory on the planet, commands much of the world’s economy and money, such that American politicians and individuals can have devastating effects on elections or markets or any other aspect in various other countries throughout the world.

This is not to say that other countries in the West are not complicit and active in this sort of imperial domination, particularly the UK, France, Australia, and Canada, and that the impacts of this domination are most of all pushed and felt within the Global South, the better to exploit and oppress people, governments, and systems — merely that the US has the largest media output in terms of books, film, television, news, and structures of dissemination thereof.

If Starfleet is based loosely on the US Navy, and in Star Trek we primarily see those speaking American English, holding modernised American ideals, with a similar structure of command, a similar top-down power structure, and a multicultural philosophy bound by its liberal limitations, what is to be said for Starfleet’s own values, and the cultural hegemony of the United Federation of Planets itself?

These things aren’t said explicitly because these aspects form the whole of someone’s world views, these biases often carried within us, examined or unexamined, but we can see them reflected in signs and symbols around us when we interrogate them down to their root, which was the purpose of this piece.

I love Star Trek a great deal and have since I was a child, but the older I get and the more I watch, the more I become acquainted with its flaws and its weaknesses, and none are more striking than how monocultural it seems at times, and how often other cultures are so automatically dismissed as violent or lesser or somehow a threat to the whole, even when the opposite is true.

Every episode of Star Trek has someone exploring and seeking out a strange new world, and so often, that world is expected to change because of what Starfleet has done, what they’ve requested, and yet Starfleet rarely changes its culture or its methodology in the same huge or explosive ways, even from series to series, the top-down power structures stay in place, everyone still wears uniforms, and so on.

A uniform is more than shared costume — it represents shared values.

What becomes important to ask when we see a uniform like this in sci-fi or in our more magical or fantastical or utopian universes, is why people wear the uniform, and how much choice do they truly have in the values it represents?

How much can they change them, if they wish to — and how much are they allowed to wish to change them at all?

[elbiotipo]

Finally read All Tomorrows last night and I know why people recommended it to me all the time, it was a very interesting piece of *biopunk* speculative evolution with a fascinating overarching story. It was also a breeze to read, I expected it would be long and a bit tiring (like Man After Man) but no, it was very illustrated and in fact it left you hungry for a bit more, I love the way it lets you fill in the gaps.

Of course, like always, it falls in the same old trope that biotechnology = bad and gross. It doesn't fall straight into saying biotechnology is evil, but the element of body horror is very, very, very much present in all the book. The fact that being warped into abominations is shown as the big event of human evolution reminds me of Man After Man, where "human evolution" doesn't occur "naturally" or as a result of, well, human selection, but as a result of a higher power messing with humans. All those strange beings we see in the book were not the ultimate result of environmental pressures, "artificial" selection or people bioengineering themselves. They were the result of fucked-up eldritch beings who wanted to make fucked-up humans. Which is kind of dissapointing if you are looking for a book that actually talks about future human evolution.

Which brings me to a discussion of the future of human evolution. Because, obviously, humans are evolving today. But I don't think we can see the real effect of biological evolution in the timescale we are managing as current humans. From a quick search, there have been only 500 generations since the arrival of agriculture and thus of all recorded or remembered history as we know it. That's not nearly enough biological time to see any major changes. Yes, there have been changes. And the development of human intelligence and brain size was quick and monumental, with many things we still don't really understand (like the origin of language and abstract thought). But do notice that the body plan of a modern human does not radically depart from Homo erectus, 2 million years ago.

Some authors like Olaf Stapledon (one of the great grandfathers of science fiction) in Last and First Men (which could be considered the 1930s version of All Tomorrows, in fact All Tomorrows to me is the modern Last and First Men) thought that we would continue to have evolutive pressures like natural selection and our species will continue evolving over millions of years. This is true as all species are still evolving including us, but in just a few decades we have discovered genetic engineering, and it won't be too long before, somehow, it is used in the path of our evolution. All Tomorrows of course talks about this with the Star People and later the Asteromorphs, but I believe it leaves out the prospect of humans guiding their own evolution for the (admitedly interesting) plot twist of the Qu changing them themselves.

What would have happened (or rather, what WILL happen) if humans are left to evolve by themselves? I'm sure that we will find somewhen. And I think that cosmetic genetic modification will be part of it, which is why I personally found the depiction of the Star People so boring. Now, I don't think every human will genetically modify themselves into supermodels, for starters, our parameters of attractiveness are based on culture and material conditions, and people will always seek variety, but I do think "sexual selection" would be a major part of human evolution, and that some forms like the Star People, as practical(?) as they are, just don't have the appeal. The utopia of the Star People should have been just as interesting as the dystopia of the Qu, with people experimenting new ways to adapt their bodies and self expression. Not to mention people adapting to the many strange environments of space by themselves (an old sci-fi trope). And of course, there would always be humans who don't want any of that, preferring to stay as they are, or return as they were. None, none of the Asteromorphs desired that at all?

Even in my own biopunk setting, however, the future of human evolution is something I only can see as far as a couple centuries on the future. Anything more than that, with the infinite possibilities of genetic engineering, makes me dizzy to contemplate. So I think All Tomorrows, for daring to do this billions of years in the future, is an amazing book.

[tanadrin]

Proof that not having agriculture doesn’t make your society into an Arcadian utopia: some cultures invent intellectual property first.

[ancaporado]

I know that many ancaps/libertarians are pro population growth and pro development, I however think that the global population and megacities are a government abomination. I keep thinking that places like the UK/Beltway/LA of USA are so fucked up because they don't have any real wilderness left. it's just a cultivated grid of human housing, industry, agriculture, the largest undomesticated creature being a racoon or fox or something pathetically small and unthreatening. Even the meme "birds aren't real" I think is a riff on this; you live in a 100% man-made environment, even the birds might as well be government spy robots.

When you fundamentally have to interact with an artificial rules based world all the time you have a tendency to systematize everything, and believe the lie that imaginary things like laws and governments are real physical things, and not just the whims of the police officer on the corner. Somewhat like abuse victims internalize the rules of their abuser to avoid punishment and cope. The urban landscape is the breeding ground of the cancerous and parasitic human survival strategy we identify as socialism/collectivism/progressivism.

The only real laws are those of nature, physics, chemistry, biology, evolution. Humans are an animal and we adapt to our environment, which is a mouse utopia. The modern world is so sick and against nature because our power to wall it out of our lives has created a hubris to rebel against these things. Progressivism in a sense, is rejection of natural order, a rejection of subjection to nature or nature's God. This is how you get to where we are today. I don't need to list the examples, but the unreality of thinking we can abolish scarcity, inequality, sex, the family, etc...

I don't want civilization and cities and humans not to exist. I just want radical concentrations of those things. We had 2.5% the global population in antiquity and still got innovative and talented thinkers that we still discuss today, artists, engineers, etc. These people had ample access to an untamed world, one that was unpredictable, and challenged them.

The urban human is a domesticated one. They have no real self-determination. Without a world unmade by humans, they have no reference for something beyond the imagination of another human, no blank canvas to make their own. Like the shadows of Plato's cave I'd wager it's like a person forced to look into a mirror their entire life. They would have no ability to identify themselves in the mirror as they have no reference that the mirror isn't just the entire world.

Climbing mountains, navigating rapids, scaling rock walls, skiing couloirs... the physical conquest of nature yields a surprise that cannot be claimed from an artificial challenge.

Think of the sweating, yelling, heaving mass of Cairo,

Bangladesh

Lagos

Mexico city

You might just assume they make great films, music, art, thinkers, engineers, and we just don't hear about them because they don't get distributed here or something. No it's just a mass of human flesh consuming the natural world, no ability to reflect and create, just consume.

Almost all of these places import food from the temperate climates of developed nations. A two year breakdown of global supply chains would result in them starving in the millions.

Even here in western civilization we yield the prime 'high-density walkable" real-estate to degenerates via council and section 8 housing.

Government programs of fiat currency, the welfare-warfare state, followed by deindustrialization has resulted in a massive mismatch in human population and economic/environmental capacity. Sure, here's where someone could politely chime in that "humans have infinite creative capacity, we just need to unlock their potential and your Malthusian doomsday is no more" and I grant that to a degree.

But massive declines in human population, the standard of living, and technology are regular historical occurrences. Western science has had an absolute "ick" towards actually understanding and implementing Darwinism towards human populations. Country-wide datasets of IQ probably remain stable due to the continuing rise/Flynn effect of the middle/upper class offsetting the sliding downward of the welfare class. There's no evolutionary biologist who wouldn't recognize that the market economy selects for intelligence and the welfare state was our feeble altruistic effort to carry the "but I did have breakfast" population along with us.

We've had nearly a century and, in some cases of repeated teen pregnancies, 6 or 7 generations who were never asked to provide for themselves meaningfully. They live in an ever more confusing world of late payments, cash advances, welfare office applications, prison stints, evictions, and unplanned pregnancies. Each generation more befuddled than the last. Recent studies show that there have been population bottlenecks through human evolution. In the bronze age as few as 1 in 17 men reproduced at all.

Biological imperatives of reproduction rule over all other sentiments and altruistic masochism. For the silent generation and the boomers, the welfare state was a token price they agreed to pay to keep the peace and they could afford it as they got race-rioted out of their downtown homes into the suburbs. Now the jig is up and millennials en-masse are finding that they can't afford to have kids *intentionally*. They look at their pay stub getting taxed at 40% so that, over at the section 8 housing, "baby mamas" collect government checks for the consequence of a hookup with serial felons, who are also housed and fed with working people's taxes. The boomers made a devil's bargain, they cucked their children!

Now we enter the final death spiral of empires and welfare states: below replacement fertility rates and above GDP national debt!

The group most prepared for the coming calamity, the group who predicted it, and who will emerge as victors are those who are internally pro-growth/pro population but maintain in-group preferences. The stats bear out:

Now this shift isn't just conservatives but libertarians also. In a couple generations we have gone from 1% in the 70's to 10% in the 2010s and now easily 25% in the 2020's (many libertarians simply don't vote or vote republican). We will replace left-wingers, who only reproduce vampirically via public education, in the next generation. There is hope at the end of this journey but it will be difficult in the mean time. Prepare yourself accordingly.

[dorokora]

Transients I want to see in Housamo (very very long list)

Just a list of transients I think would be interesting to see in Tokyo;

Land of Wa:

Momotarō

Issun-bōshi

Nue

Baku (a creature who devours nightmares)

Satori (a monkey yokai who can read minds)

Olympus:

Ares

Athena

Aphrodite

Artemis

Medusa

Persephone

Echidna (Typhon’s wife)

Asclepius

Ganymede

Odysseus

Caeneus

Lycaon

Eris (goddess of discord known for instigating conflict and manipulation)

Kitzeth:

Zmey

Psoglav

Baba Yaga

Zoryas

Domovoy

Stribog

Wojtek

Takamagahara:

Sukunabikona (a dwarf who is the god of hot spring and is frequently paired with Okuninushi)

Yatagarasu

Takemikazuchi (the one who defeated Takeminakata and crushed his arms)

Oceanic Realm:

Pele (Hawaiian goddess of volcanoes and fire)

Kamapuaʻa (a pig-man who is the god of agriculture and is Pele’s husband)

Kāmohoaliʻi (a Hawaiian shark god)

Nanaue

Māui

Kapre

Muldjewangk

Tikbalang

Rūaumoko

Old Ones:

Mother Hydra (Dagon’s wife)

Shub-Niggurath

Gnoph-keh

Bokrug

Yig

Tir na nog:

Cernunnos

Medb

Scáthach

Cú Chulainn/Sétanta

Merlin

Ojáncanu

Epona (goddess of horses)

Eden:

Azrael (angel of death)

Metatron

Saint George

Samson

Gehenna:

Mammon (demon of greed)

Adrammelech/Andrealphus

Ares Goetia Demons:

Asmodeus

Gremory

Dantalion

Aamon

Stolas

Forneus

Andras

Camio

Furfur

Babilim:

Gilgamesh

Enkidu

Kingu (son of Tiamat who was killed by Marduk)

Inanna/Ishtar (also is Shamash’s twin sister)

Ereshkigal

Ninurta

Anzu

Deva Loka:

Vishnu

Lakshmi

Garuda (Vishnu’s mount)

Rama

Kumbhakarna

Vamana

Narasimha

Ganesha

Nandi (Shiva’s mount)

Agni

Karkadann (a mythical rhino)

El dorado:

Huītzilōpōchtli

Tlāloc (god of rain)

Coatlicue

Xochiquetzal

Camazotz (the bat who decapitated Ixbalanque’s brother)

Yggdrasil:

Nidhogg

Ratatoskr (squirrel messenger of the World Tree)

Baldur

Heimdall

Hel

Njord (god of the sea and is the father of Freyr)

Týr (had his right hand bitten off by Fenrir)

Great Spirit:

Urcaguary (god of treasures)

Nanook

Amaguq

Kamuy Kotan:

Rep-un-Kamuy (a sea god who is depicted as a Orca who is carefree and somewhat mischievous and armed with a harpoon)

Utopia:

Zakalwe (based of the character from the novel “Use of Weapons”)

Hourai:

Chang’e

Hou Yi (Divine archer and Chang’e husband)

Daoji/Ji Gong

Guan Yu

Red Hare (a famous horse owned by Lü Bu)

Xiezhi (a mythical creature that resembles a ox or goat with the ability to distinguish truth and lies and will stab liars with its horn)

Longmu (a goddess who raised five dragons)

Gonggong (had a fight with Zhurong and lost then broke one of the pillars that Nuwa had to fix)

Aaru:

Thoth

Ma’at

Hathor

Anubis

Bastet

Sekhmet

Sobek

Nephthys

Taweret

Hapi

Serket

Anhur

Rhodopis

Khonsu

Urban Legends:

Mothman

Ogua

Squonk

Burrunjor

Others:

Bishamonten (and the rest of the Seven Lucky God)

Genbu (The Japanese version of the Chinese Black Tortoise of the North)

Byakko (The Japanese version of the Chinese White Tiger of the West)

Lu Zhishen (from the Water Margin novel)

Dong Zhuo (Three Kingdom)

[snovyda]

Whenever I see the phrase "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism", I remember my parents' and grandparents' stories about their youths in the USSR, and how they were forced into pretty much slave labour at times.

From my grandma having to take part in asphalt road construction when she was 12 to 14 years old, after which she and other kids she worked with were all covered in blisters, to my parents being sent to do agriculture work every year as students, living in barracks that were actually barns with beds in them, where you could only wash yourself outside, and when those autumn nights were starting to get frosty, the water they were supposed to wash themselves with was literally frozen solid.

And that's not even mentioning the kolkhoz system, which was literally a rehash of serfdom, with peasants not having passports until the 1970's and thus not being allowed to even leave the territory of their kolkhoz, and needing special permissions from the director of the kolkhoz to do anything.

Truly a utopia.

[oldschoolfrp]

I thought of this comic and managed to find it again while my 3D printer was running day and night churning out miniatures and terrain -- "Invasion of the City Builders," Gold Key Star Trek #3, December 1968 -- A futuristic utopia is destroyed by its own self-replicating machines that build over every inch of land while their automated agriculture system breaks down. (No credits except to Western Publishing and Paramount Pictures; MemoryBeta lists writer Dick Wood and artist Alberto Giolitti).

I love the talking robot delivering a paper letter, and the antenna-like height of Spock's ears. The story idea is not a bad scenario hook for a sci-fi RPG adventure or miniatures battle.

[sourcreammachine]

idea:

a truck simulator / road trip style videogame but set in a transportpunk utopia

everything that can fit into a standard shipping container gets sent via freight rail. bridges over the bering, darién, gibraltar, york, dover and malacca carry ultrafast freight trains faster than Concorde, and conventional rail lines carry it further. there’s even automated sorting centres passing consumer packages onto delivery ‘vans’ which use the tram/trolley system, getting packages from another continent alll the way to your doorstep. it’s paradise

that’s all, of course, for everything that fits within a regulation-size shipping container. everything that fits in the rail system

you are a member of the hauliers’ cooperative. road haulage is for oversize loads only. your job is oversize loads

the motorways have either been replaced with new rail lines piggybacking their infrastructure, or they’ve been totally demolished – so you only have access to the regular old inter-town highways, or worse. many of these roads are in a bit of a state –claimed by potholes, overgrown with moss, flooded completely – so these deliveries need the hand of a professional

there’s not been zero advancement of battery-powered vehicles, not at all. your cab is proper cush with no pesky combustion engine in the way, and you’ve even got power delivery to your rear wheels to control the position of your ass. what’s more, space technology has replaced your wheel systems with the wheel-feet seen on planetary explorers, allowing for omnidirectional travel and perfect manoeuvrability. this is offroading, despite being on the road. your absolute top speed is probably 80kph in ideal safe flat conditions

with six hours a day (including lunch, with two hours possible overtime) you’ll be clearing a couple hundred k per day, from city to city. end your shift by plugging in at a chargepoint at the city’s truckstop, from where you can use the public transit system to see the sights, get some scran, and kip at a local bunkhouse (all free of charge). workers’ rights apply to you, of course

HSR connects cities, commuter rail connects towns, light rail connects large villages, and rural literail connects small villages – so the only private vehicles on the roads are typically carrying those who live outside villages to their local park & ride. most are ebikes. many walk

with almost no cars, with no buses, with no standard-size lorries, the roads are near-empty for traffic. with the road system massively scaled back, with swathes of agricultural land deprecated for rewilding, with massive curtailment of exurban sprawl through densification, the vistas you see are incredible

you are a part of the world and must work with it. the 4x4 (or more) nature of your vehicle is you communicating with the world around you, touching and feeling it to make your way through. you are not here to bulldoze and pave and carve a path, you’re negotiating access. this is why you’re a professional

[maximumphilosopheranchor]

Hitler and Stalin rose to power in Berlin and Moscow, but their visions of transformation concerned above all the lands between. Their utopias of control overlapped in Ukraine. Hitler remembered the ephemeral German eastern colony of 1918 as German access to the Ukrainian breadbasket. Stalin, who had served his revolution in Ukraine shortly thereafter, regarded the land in much the same way. Its farmland, and its peasants, were to be exploited in the making of a modern industrial state. Hitler looked upon collectivization as disastrous failure, and presented it as proof of the failure of Soviet communism as such. But he had no doubt that Germans could make of Ukraine a land of milk and honey. For both Hitler and Stalin, Ukraine was more than a source of food. It was the place that would enable them to break the rules of traditional economics, rescue their countries from poverty and isolation, and remake the continent in their own image. Their programs and their power all depended upon their control of Ukraine’s fertile soil and its millions of agricultural laborers. In 1933, Ukrainians would die in the millions, in the greatest artificial famine in the history of world. This was the beginning of the special history of Ukraine, but not the end. In 1941 Hitler would seize Ukraine from Stalin, and attempt to realize his own colonial vision beginning with the shooting of Jews and and the starvation of Soviet prisoners of war. The Stalinists colonized their own country, and the Nazis colonized occupied Soviet Ukraine: and the inhabitants of Ukraine suffered and suffered. During the years that both Stalin and Hitler were in power, more people were killed in Ukraine than anywhere else in the bloodlands, or in Europe, or in the world.

Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

[spiderfreedom]

About this post, out of curiosity, when do you think it all started? Is there research on like how far back it goes? It obviously isn't inherent to human nature; I know it's not. Is it just one of those toxic things that started from the beginning of organized religion :( ?

There's research, but there's a lot of controversy on when/how patriarchy developed. The most important thing to note is that Greek/Roman/Chinese/Japanese style misogyny is not universal and has not always been the norm. Societies differed a lot in how much power and autonomy women had. At the same time, we must be conscious even the 'best' societies of the past still had faults surrounding women.

Some places to start are:

Alice Evans: Ten Thousand Years of Patriarchy: This article looks at it from an economic and cultural perspective. I strongly recommend reading her Substack, where she travels around the world interviewing Third World Women and Feminists to see why their women's liberation movements have succeeded or failed! From the linked article:

Our world is marked by the Great Gender Divergence. Objective data on employment, governance, laws, and violence shows that all societies are gender unequal, some more than others. In South Asia, North Africa and the Middle East, it is men who provide for their families and organise politically. Chinese women work but are still locked out of politics. Latin America has undergone radical transformation, staging massive rallies against male violence and nearly achieving gender parity in political representation. Scandinavia still comes closest to a feminist utopia, but for most of history Europe was far more patriarchal than matrilineal South East Asia and Southern Africa. [...] Why do some societies have a stronger preference for female cloistering? To answer that question, we must go back ten thousand years. Over the longue durée, there have been three major waves of patriarchy: the Neolithic Revolution, conquests, and Islam. These ancient ‘waves’ helped determine how gender relations in each region of the world would be transformed by the onset of modern economic growth.

Another thing to remember/consider when it comes to studying the past is how few resources we have. We only know so much about how pre-historical humans organized their societies. Colonialism destroyed evidence of other societies with different ways of approaching gender. Many of the great apes we study are endangered. And literate societies happened to be patriarchal societies (likely related to literacy going hand in hand with bureaucracy and agriculture and the development of a state?) so we don't know as much as we could about women in literate regions.

Organized religion definitely codified a lot about patriarchy, but the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism) arose in regions of the world that were already patriarchal. So it's kind of a chicken and the egg problem when it comes to patriarchy and religion. We know that religions that worshipped goddesses, like Greek and Roman paganism and Hinduism, can still coexist with sexist societies.

These aren't great answers, but it's a big question and there are a lot of people working on answering it! It ties back into the bigger question of what our human ancestors were like, and whether we're kind of doomed to violence and xenophobia or whether there are alternatives. Some other books I've read that may be useful reading on this front are:

The Dawn of Everything. A long book, but it's a tour of human history and different societies and ways of organizing society. One of the chapters is on women, if I recall correctly.

Women's Work: The First 20,000 Years: Women, Cloth, and Society in Early Times. Women have been working with cloth for a very long time. In some societies, this allowed women a high degree of status (see the Minoans!) and in others, women were worked to the bone producing textiles (Ancient Egypt).

The book "Demonic Males" looks at the birth of patriarchy from a primatology perspective. Our ape ancestors show male-dominant behaviors and societies. It's controversial the extent this is directly responsible for misogyny and male violence, but I think it's likely that our ape inheritance influenced the structure of early humans - so we basically have a lot of baggage.

Broadly speaking, reading books on feminist anthropology will help you, because a lot of what we know about patriarchy is based on highly literate societies, which as we established, are also agricultural societies with bureaucracies and a hierarchical culture. That's hardly representative of the human condition. As an example, look at Inuit society - on the one hand, there is arranged marriage and all that it implies; on the other, we do not have the same ideals of silent women who stay at home - women are valued members of the society and their skills are explicitly recognized as necessary for survival. Compare Western cultures that view domestic tasks as "support" tasks while the "real" work is done by men.

Finally, this one is a bit old (1974), but it may give you a starting point for understanding feminist anthropology and the search for the origins of patriarchy: "Is Female to Nature as Male is to Culture". It can help us understand how female subordination manifests itself in different cultures, and to know what to look for.

I hope this has been helpful. If anyone can recommend good books on the origin of patriarchy/female subordination (especially for non-Western cultures), please feel free to add in the replies or reblogs!

[dr9com9ge-ix]

I'd adore to know more about Wili, if you've had any more thoughts...

Hello Anon! I’ve had many thoughts since this was sent and have accumulated them! Accompanied by some Wili Art by yours truly! (Long post warning, Yapping time! Thank you so much for sending this ask!!!!!)

So this is Wili- Former employee of K-corp (Specifically the food resource development team, Mostly focused on horticulture) and now current employee of the Limbus company! He has a strong desire (nearing obsession) to innovate on how food is obtained and spreading it across the city when he finds it by any means necessary! He left his old job because he felt like it was stagnating and didn’t let him expriment as much as he’d like to (He was in a very middle position I imagine, Not quite at the bottom but not a big enough shot to be on level with Dongrang or something)

And so this spurs him to look elsewhere to satisfy this hunger for knowledge, for a world where one could just pick an apple off a tree and never starve again and well like… His literal hunger!

So he was offered a chance to satisfy that by the Limbus company and he happily accepted! Ever curious about the abnormalities the company faces- If whether or not they’d taste good or provide anything for people. Both in the name of science and the future but also because he is hungry. A wee bit of mad scientist and a gourmand in one.

His EGO is called Stomachache!— It sort of delves into the carrot on a stick/ Forbidden fruit sort of vibe of the future he wants being akin to a ravenous hunger, the kind that turns people into feral animals. He literally bites people in his EGO attack! (Thats where the healing comes from-) He also is quite food agressive and it factors into his passive making him go faster, Probably the sanity hit from EGO use making him act alot less polite than he usually is.

He definitely wants the whole “Food is now easily accessible for everyone!” utopia so he could eat as much as he wants and not think of the possibility of it being taken from him- Also because he thinks the worst thing you could do to someone is just starving them!

Butcher Vanity is probably the main song I listen to when doodling him- Its a very him song to me. Also still thinking about other characters relating to his past/ would be in his Canto and I think it’d be cute to make em fruit themed (There… Isn’t alot of characters to work off of in his source material…Its literally just The Hungry Caterpillar)

Also for other EGOs aside from his own he definitely would have Mountain of smiling bodies/ Smile - Its relating to the hunger! And well he may or may not be willing to kill to have consistent and hearty meals. (also say Hi to Erik my boy he’s in this doodle page too). Maybe also a Fairy Festival/ Fairy Gentleman Ego too. As for IDs- Mayhaps an Eighth Chef/Greta one, a Liu assocation. All that jazz!

Other wee facts about Wili

- Wili has pretty bad hunger pangs, enough to make him want to eat before he thinks he’ll get them. Has a tendency to overeat though.

- He loves talking at length about agriculture — Though mostly from a scientific lens, as he’s never been a farm boy. Mostly working on plants in a lab setting rather than a field. He’ll also yap about food preparation too.

- Kind of dude that will try to grow stuff from groceries.

- His favorite food is a fresh fruit salad but a nice rare steak is a close second!

- He may or may not have considered who to eat first in case of an emergency and may have been too enthusiastic to try human flesh. (much to his coworkers’ horror and then eventual “Okay Wili we know…” /exasperated)

- His little caterpillar hairclip was a gift from a former coworker at K-corp. He thinks its very cute and just has it on him all the time.

-He’s… Maybe also inspired by the Genetically Modified Caterpillar video- In the sense of “Little hungry dude becomes horrifying due to this insatiable hunger and devours things due to science!”

- His name comes from the unused title/ Draft title of The Hungry caterpillar which was “A week with Wili the worm” Because I really didn’t want to name him after the author (I’d have Eric with a C and Erik with a K in that case) and couldn’t find a caterpillar-ish name that would work.

[gatheringbones]

[“Gustaw Herling-Grudziński, who endured Stalin’s Gulag while his brother was sheltering Jews, wrote that “a man can be human only under human conditions.” The purpose of the state is to preserve these conditions, so that its citizens need not see personal survival as their only goal.

The state is for the recognition, endorsement, and protection of rights, which means creating the conditions under which rights can be recognized, endorsed, and protected. The state endures to create a sense of durability.

A final plurality thus has to do with time. When we lack a sense of past and future, the present feels like a shaky platform, an uncertain basis for action. The defense of states and rights is impossible to undertake if no one learns from the past or believes in the future. Awareness of history permits recognition of ideological traps and generates skepticism about demands for immediate action because everything has suddenly changed. Confidence in the future can make the world seem like something more than, in Hitler’s words, “the surface area of a precisely measured space.”

Time, the fourth dimension, can make the three dimensions of space seem less claustrophobic. Confidence in duration is the antidote to panic and the tonic of demagogy. A sense of the future has to be created in the present from what we know of the past, the fourth dimension built out from the three of daily life. In the case of climate change, we know what the state can do to tame panic and befriend time.

We know that it is easier and less costly to draw nourishment from plants than animals. We know that improvements in agricultural productivity continue and that the desalination of seawater is possible. We know that efficiency of energy use is the simplest way to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. We know that governments can assign prices to carbon pollution and can pledge reductions of future emissions to one another and review one another’s pledges. We also know that governments can stimulate the development of appropriate energy technologies. Solar and wind energy are ever cheaper. Fusion, advanced fission, tidal stream power, and non-crop-based biofuels offer real hope for a new energy economy. In the long run, we will need techniques to capture and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

All of this is not only thinkable but attainable. States should invest in science so that the future can be calmly contemplated. The study of the past suggests why this would be a wise course. Time supports thought, thought supports time; structure supports plurality, and plurality, structure.

This line of reasoning is less glamorous than waiting for general disaster and dreaming of personal redemption. Effective prevention of mass killings is incremental and its heroes are invisible. No conception of a durable state can compete with visions of totality. No green politics will ever be as exciting as red blood on black earth. But opposing evil requires inspiration by what is sound rather than by what is resonant. The pluralities of nature and politics, order and freedom, past and future, are not as intoxicating as the totalitarian utopias of the last century. Every unity is beautiful as image but circular as logic and tyrannical as politics. The answer to those who seek totality is not anarchy, which is not totality’s enemy but its handmaiden. The answer is thoughtful, plural institutions: an unending labor of differentiated creation.

This is a matter of imagination, maturity, and survival. We share Hitler’s planet and several of his preoccupations; we have changed less than we think. We like our living space, we fantasize about destroying governments, we denigrate science, we dream of catastrophe. If we think that we are victims of some planetary conspiracy, we edge towards Hitler. If we believe that the Holocaust was a result of the inherent characteristics of Jews, Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, or anyone else, then we are moving in Hitler’s world.”]

timothy snyder, from black earth: the holocaust as history and warning, 2015