(tv clicks on)
Hello
My name is Jean-luc Picard
(♫ noirish violins ♫)
I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the sweat on his brow?
NO says the man on Vulcan it belongs to science and reason!
NO says the man on Kronos it belongs to the most honourable warriors!
NO says the Borg it belongs to everyone!
I rejected those answers and chose the impossible
I chose… space, the final frontier.
Where no youtuber would fear the censor
where no gamer would be bound by petty feminism
where Curio can watch as much KilianExperience as he wants
and end up putting the Andrew Ryan speech into every video from now on…
(♫ Curio piano theme plays ♫)
Hey everyone
I just wanted to take some time to talk about how great everything is going to be
when we’re living in Auto-Gay Luxury Space Communism.
I know this is a bit off-brand for my channel to talk about stuff this directly
But... okay, I promise my next thing is about games.
I have a-- let me check
(♫  "33 Pulse March" by Eric Taxxon ♫ )
4.5 thousand words on Frostpunk
I even have twenty pages explaining in full detail my opinions about Bioshock 2
Which I'll never release and you'll have to kill me if you want them you cowards!
Today though we're just gonna sit down,
it's raining outside
and have a nice cup of tea
and talk about how great socialism is.
And I'm deleting every opinion I disagree with from the comments section because as we all know
that's what socialism means.
Before we get started though I want to take a look
at why capitalism doesn’t belong in space.
There about eight things people need, like really need that the government can provide:
let's say...
housing, food, healthcare, power, water, education, travel, and... internet?
I mean some of these things are obviously more needed than others
The internet is clearly way more important than food or water.
And when we do away with capitalism we'll be able to
SOCIALIZE
GAMING
There’s a philosophical term you may know, called the is/ought gap.
It refers to the difference between statements about how things are
versus how things ought to be.
An interesting application of this idea is where people look at how the world *is*
and unable to find a reason why it is, start to think it's just the way it ought to be.
I think a lot of us see that there are homeless people
people who can't afford healthcare, or to eat healthfully, or pay their bills
and because we can't explain why that is
or maybe because we can't imagine changing it
we rationalize it as something that ought to be.
Is there a good reason a society shouldn't make making sure there are no homeless people it's #1 priority?
Can't think of one to be perfectly honest.
(tv clicks off, music stops)
Bezos: The source system can easily support a trillion humans
and if we had a trillion humans
we would have a thousand Einsteins and a thousand Mozarts
and... unlimited for all practical purposes
resources from solar power and so on.
(tv clicks off)
Jeff
buddy...
Come the fuck on
The biologist Stephen Jay Gould once said
"I am somehow less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain
than in the near certainty
that people of equal talent lived and died in cotton fields and in sweatshops.
Jeff...
how many Einsteins are working at Amazon factories
*right* now?
Bezos is the richest man in the world with an estimated net worth of over 100 billion dollars.
If you want to talk about unlimited resources for all practical purposes
let's talk about the fact the average American earns and spends somewhere in the ballpark
of two million dollars in their lifetime.
That means Jeff could make it so himself and 49,999 people
could live without worrying about money roughly their entire lives.
And that's making it so that taken care of for life
which isn't even what I'm talking about when I talk about the basic needs a person has
The average house price of America is still around $200,000 which means
Bees-man could buy...
500,000 houses and just give them to homeless people which is
roughly all the homeless people in America on any given night.
If he gave people $20,000 each he could cover
5 million Americans healthcare costs.
Wait, what is that? Is that for life?
That's only 2 years?
Wow. Wow guys.
What the fuck are you doing?
My point is the Bees-man could redistribute his money and help some people an enormous amount
or more people a bit less or tons of people a bit less than that, but still loads.
Instead though, he's planning to use his money to help a very very small number of people
to go into space and do...
stuff?
Even if his big vision is the human race spread out among the stars
that's not what Blue Origin is going to be doing *right now*
The changes I've suggested I put forward
semi-facetiously
Because the best use of his enormous amount of money probably wouldn't be to have it doled out in this manner
but used to effect systemic changes: create systems that serve people.
And in all fairness estimated net worth and cash in hand are very different things.
But why am I picking on poor Jeff?
I know, he's a huge Curio fan
he watches every single video,
so its not fair for me to tell him he has to give up all his wealth.
I'm just doing a section on capitalists here so I thought go after the richest capitalist
But ok, let's talk about money that is part of the public sector budget anyway.
The US military budget for 2018 was 700 billion dollars, so with that money
you can effectively take all the calculations they made earlier and multiply them by seven.
That's 350,000 people who could be financially taken care of for life
3.5 million houses or 14 years of health care for 5 million--
Okay seriously guys just saw your health care system the fuck out.
You pay more per person than any other country in the world
and you have on average the worst health care outcomes of all the richest countries
Peter Coffin already talked at length in this video about how the "only Capitalism could have created the iPhone" myth is...
Well, it's a myth.
Every technology that enabled the iPhone was researched through publicly funded study.
A lot of good research gets done through the military for sure and historically has done but
if the money didn't necessarily have to go through the military to do this research
research could be being done into even more varied fields and
the other money which goes towards, you know
bombing children and giving young physically fit people lifelong PTSD
could go towards other things like...
Well, I don't know...
I wish I had a handy-dandy list of say, eight things that we could put the money towards.
I recently found out about an app idea being researched, "emortal", for preserving family legacy.
Your pictures and videos and so on being saved for decades after you die so that your descendants can see them.
A part of me thought that was kind of neat, a part of me was slightly apprehensive
but then I found out they were asking how much people would pay for this service.
I knew it was research for a business, but I just didn't think about people having to pay.
Imagine in the future your great-grandchildren can't access their own family history because you invested in this service
But then somewhere between now and then your family wasn't so fortunate with money
or god forbid, someone had the goal to get sick under the American healthcare system.
I find something about the idea of your own family history being kept by a company
kind of uniquely horrifying and alienating.
Charlie Brooker doesn't even need to come up with new Black Mirror episodes anymore
he can just go on AngelList and see what the new startups are up to.
In fact the horror in an awful lot of Black Mirror episodes, pretty much all of them
come from capitalism being a controlling force in the future.
We see this kind of divide all over the place in media.
When people want to portray a good vision of the future, everything's provided for
it's Auto-Gay Luxury Space Communism
When they want to let us know things will be just as depressing and shit in the future, the future is Capitalist.
Look at Deckard. For sure, the guy has a hover car, but he starts to pay money for his ramen noodles.
Like a chump.
Like a RUBE.
When Captain Picard wants ramen noodles, he just pushes a *button*
One of my favorite books is the Martian by Andy Weir
which was recently adapted into a film starring Matt Damon
The book was written based on tons of research and collaboration with NASA so the science is the story is pretty spot-on
There's actually only one factually wrong bit of science in the whole story.
And it's the storm that causes the problem in the first place.
Weir had to exaggerate the wind speeds on Mars to make a plausible premise.
In the book astronaut Mark Watney is swept away during a storm on Mars and his crew have to leave without him.
NASA, the US government, and eventually the Chinese space program scientist
all collaborate in the efforts to get Mark back home.
Mark uses his botany expertise and very rudimentary engineering and science knowledge to survive.
What's incredible about the story is the spirit of collaboration and in particular
the plot point where the Chinese scientists decide to hand over technologies
they've been working on in secret to help bring Mark home.
The scientific community reaches past borders and nations to help someone out
just human being to human being.
You know who doesn't figure in this story?
Elon fucking Musk.
And boy, is he ever bitter about it.
Musk: I mean I'd like there were a few things like the wind force on Mars is not really that high...
(♫ I thought I had it all together ♫)
Like the wind force on Mars
(♫ I was lead astray ♫)
slow mo: Like the wind force
Yes, you're right the sandstorm is unrealistic.
(♫ the day you walked away ♫)
That was a that was a deliberate sacrifice 
(♫ you were the clock that was ticking in my heart ♫)
of accuracy for dramatic purposes
(♫ changed my state of mind ♫)
Bush vo: Ladies and gentlemen
(♫ but love's so hard to find ♫)
We got him
(♫)
(cheering)
(♫ your feelings change like the weather ♫)
(♫ went from clear to grey on that cloudy day ♫)
(tv clicks off; silence)
Musk: I'm coming a little worried that it might not make people too keen on going to Mars
(laughter)
It's time for me to tell you all again to read White Trash by Nancy Isenberg
I can only be stopped from recommending this book by a silver bullet directly through the heart
or my Patreon passing a thousand dollars a month.
Your move.
At the time that many people started setting out from Europe to America as a new chance for a better life
the exact kind of promises were made about the way things would be in America as Jeff Bistro is making now
about how the future will be living all around the solar system.
There will be unlimited resources, enough room for everyone to be fruitful and multiply
If the systems of power in 19th century Europe had been open to reform
the people who are unhappy with their lives wouldn't necessarily have needed to leave
for a better life in America because they could have instead built a new system with *real* direct democracy
Where people aren't alienated from their labor and everyone gets basic support as a bare minimum.
Or they could have made an authoritarian hellworld,
where the people in charge control every tiny thing of everything every person does,
because as we all know, that's what socialism means!
Socialism is where the government does stuff,
and the more stuff the government does, the more socialister it is.
Okay, huge pet peeve time.
(♫ Curio theme ♫)
Authoritarian libertarian is not inherent leaning of left right.
Claiming it is is collapsing two political axes into one and is a horrendous fallacy.
There are authoritarian right wingers or libertarian right wingers
and there have been authoritarian left wingers and libertarian left wingers.
Obviously things are interrelated, but like,
you can't seriously think that being economically conservative isn't going to hurt people.
So trying to be economically conservative and socially progressive at the same time is...
flawed.
It's troublesome...
*Prob-le-maaa*
So just to be clear:
Authoritarian government is not inherent to socialism
but none of you are coming to this video expecting that any form of socialism means total dictatorship.
Right?
(concerned:) Right?
Okay, let's talk about Star Trek.
I need you to get really optimistic with me
I'm saying this explicitly because I know the optimism isn't lots of people's natural state
especially right now, especially with everything going on.
That's why I'm asking you to just max your hope bar for just a little while.
Just put your all into being really really optimistic with me for like 15 minutes
Let's talk about Auto-Gay Luxury Space Communism
So called because everyone is automatically gay
and if you try to be straight you're executed because as we all know that's what socialism means.
Introducing the new Heterometer!
(♫ snappy drum music ♫)
In the old defunct capitalist society we needed to use our inbuilt Gaydar's to figure out who was GAY.
But now thanks to Auto-Gay Luxury Space Communism, we have the Heterometer!
With the new Heterometer we could figure out who's straight so they can be *punished*
(music cuts)
Everything on the submarine is designed to maintain the well-being and readiness of the missiles inside these tubes
(unintelligible)
(♫ synth music ♫)
(silence)
Character: How much did this thing cost?
Picard: Economics of the future is somewhat different
You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century.
Character: No money?
(nervously whispers): You mean you don't get paid?
Picard: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives
We work to better ourselves
and the rest of humanity.
(♫ cheesy 90s music ♫)
(in German) Hello and welcome to our studio interview.
(more German) ...the doctrine [unintelligible].
These are from resurfaced recordings, made in 1938...
Picard: It's what all this is about.
A lot has changed in the past 300 years.
People are no longer *obsessed* with the...
accumulation of *things*
We have eliminated hunger.
Want!
The *need* for possessions.
We've grown out of our infancy.
British Host: Do you THINK that people have a in general society has a problem seeing fat people as sexy?
And so what you're doing is quite confrontational almo--
Guest: I think so, I think
(♫ Western music ♫)
Picard: ...you there. 
Offenhouse: Then what will happen to us?
There's no trace of my money. My office is gone
What will I do? How will I live?
Picard: This is the 24th century.
Material needs no longer exist.
Offenhouse: Then what's the challenge?
Picard: The challenge Mr. Offenhouse is to improve yourself!
To enrich yourself!
Enjoy it.
I must have been 10, when I first saw Picard say,
that they have no money in the future.
And that just seemed fucking wild to me.
I had said and thought a lot as a child that money seemed to be something that made people unhappy.
And I was starting to grasp why it was necessary so that people could trade goods and services efficiently,
so hearing the idea of a society without it
(♫ "Pixel Palace" by Eric Taxxon ♫)
and not a prehistoric society, but one in the far future--
That's some good shit.
Just a note, it might be helpful to try looking at governmental policy in terms of
socialism that's possible, and socialism that's already happening.
A full socialist government isn't the only one that can implement socialist policies.
In fact, one of the modes of governance that socialists push for is Social Democracy.
If you don't know, that's basically how things are now in the US, UK, EU and so on except that
all the basic needs of people are taken care of,
the eight things I mentioned earlier except internet
because these FOOLS lack sufficient VISION.
So let's talk about providing for those eight basic needs.
Right now in the modern day
there are more empty homes in the US and the UK than there are homeless people.
Do I need to say what I think should happen here?
In countries we called developed countries
about a hundred kilos of food is wasted every year per person at the consumption stage.
As in, just thrown away uneaten.
That's about 10% of the average American yearly food consumption per person
That doesn't mean from your plate or out of your fridge
the largest wastage happens in the bins at the back of supermarkets.
In fact many restaurants and shops have started giving their waste food to food banks
or letting people take food for free or of extremely reduced prices shortly before closing.
Clearly the system could be made a heck of a lot more efficient
and better for people who are hungry and can't afford food.
The point is...scarcity is manufactured.
For profit.
The food we need is there and it is thrown out rather than leak profit through devaluation.
On a global scale, wealthy nations throw out surpluses
produced by subsidized farmers by dumping them, via aid programs, in poorer nations.
Which crashes internal food markets of countries that are forced to participate in global capitalism
from a weaker position without market protection.
I don't really know why more people don't understand the idea
that it makes people money to pretend there's only so much to go around.
Incidentally, pretty much every government in the world subsidizes farms at times depending on the economy
Ensuring food production keeps going is a natural part of government already
and it's something you could label socialism already happening.
But you don't see Charlie Kirk rallying to stop subsidizing farms.
Well maybe you do, that guy has pudding for brains I don't know.
Here in the UK utilities companies are heavily regulated to protect us
They have to make sure you can pay your rent before taking your bill payments
and if you can't they try everything possible to prevent having to turn off your supply.
At that point the government may as well just run the companies itself
and ensure access to all these essential services regardless of income
without the profit motive to raise prices.
Healthcare is dealt with differently in different countries around the world, but
to be honest
If you're American watching this and you need convincing that your healthcare system... needs work?
This video just might not be for you bud.
Come back next time and I'll tell you how Spiro Year of the Dragon is racist.
Here in the UK we have the NHS which provides healthcare free at point of use to all citizens.
It's pretty fucking neat and if you were born in the UK since 1948, you already benefited from socialism so
Ha! We fucking got you!
Free education is something that according to pretty much all the indicators profits the country economically.
We already have free education up to age 18.
So does the US, it's even mandatory and you don't see Charlie Kirk arguing to make children pay for...
Actually never mind.
Nationalized systems of travel is a bit of a sticky one and varies enormous the country to country
and even just region to region.
But giving people access to free or even just cheap travel allows them to commute to work easier
so in terms of benefits to economy holistically, it's a pretty easy one to see.
I'll leave you with Shaun's video about trains and just remind you that Virgin Trains in the UK takes
subsidies from the government while turning a multi-million pound profit.
Internets an odd one I know, but there are various arguments you can make about nationalizing
or rather socializing the internet.
The first and probably simplest is the fairly philosophical argument
is that the internet has so completely transformed the whole world
that restricting people's access to it is, in some ways,
restricting their access to the modern world.
I mean, have you ever tried to explain what a meme is to your mum?
My mum is actually a lecturer in linguistics,
so she explained memetic theory to me...
But that's not the point!
The next argument is that if we look at the Internet as a secondary space, another realm we exist in;
tons of people effectively commute to work through the internet now.
There are loads of people who earn money online, myself included,
and this is the first month in my life *ever*
that the money I earned online was more,
than the bill I pay to be online every month.
Furthermore if we're picturing the internet as a place
as an analogous argument to the one we make about housing as in:
Everyone deserves a place on the internet.
The last argument is that the infrastructure of the internet already exists in most of the places
and will exist pretty much everywhere very soon and on a technical level
the infrastructure of the internet is very similar to say the electrical grid or the water system.
The argument here is the internet is essentially a utility.
So the arguments for nationalizing the internet are in line with the arguments for nationalizing water or power.
So which argument will I go with?
All of them, my dude. Those aren't mutually exclusive points, like...
Pick the one you find most compelling, if you want, but
these are all good reasons to make sure
the internet is for everyone, in my opinion.
Did you ever hear the Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise--
No no no, the tragedy of the commons?
It's a social science term, that describes a situation,
in which individual users acting in self-interest
collectively deplete or spoil a common resource, ruining it for themselves.
Okay, that's a bit dense. Imagine a group of shepherds sharing a field, grazing their...
Hang on, this is the Socialism in *Space* essay.
Okay, imagine a group of scruffy-looking nerf herders,
grazing their nerf in a shared meadow, in space!
There are commonly agreed rules like no over grazing,
bring beer every Wednesday, keep an eye out for Tusken Raiders.
If one of the herders uses the field too much, breaks the rules, that individual will benefit in the short term.
But in the long term, if enough people do this,
everyone loses as the meadow becomes unable to support grazing at all.
It benefits a company in the short-term to charge people for their basic needs,
but long-term society becomes a grassless meadow.
Capitalism is an ongoing tragedy of the commons across many dimensions.
It's all of us being made to exploit each other to live.
It's everyone collectively thinking, simultaneously
Capitalism is the removal of the collective rules,
that keep us from ruining the things we need.
So by now we're all agreed on at least a social democracy, right?
In other words, that all basic needs (but especially access to video games and anime)
should be nationalized and belong to everyone.
I hope we're agreed, but I am also looking forward to the pedantic response video
by someone with more copies of Atlas Shrugged than even I have,
explaining why not every human being deserves a house to live in or food to eat...
But they definitely don't think that because of racism or classism or anything else,
they're just... uhh... overwhelmingly rational.
Great, let's talk about how sweet the future is gonna be now.
In Star Trek, generally, a vision of the future is presented
where everyone works together to basically just do cool shit all the time.
In Star Trek food, scarcity is a thing of the past,
because machines can conjure food out of thin air.
Overcrowding isn't a concern, because humans have spread out across the stars.
Automation takes care of pretty much all the necessary systems, so people can just do anything they like.
If someone wants to be an artist, they just create the art they want, unburdened by profit motive.
If someone wants to write they can write whatever they want and it doesn't have to make them money to live.
Not only do they not have to worry about censorship,
they don't have to worry about appealing
to what people already expect and want.
They can experiment and play around.
In the Next Generation, we see Picard say at one point that humans don't use money anymore,
and everyone is taken care of and works for the betterment of mankind.
This fact is repeated across the different Star Trek series.
Making it pretty resoundingly clear, that the Federation society is some form of socialism.
Democratic Socialism is named for democratic government along with these kinds of provision.
Everyone is being taken care of as priority #1
It's pretty fair to imagine the government in Star Trek works a lot like Western governments like the US or the UK,
except that, as stated, there is no money and everyone has taken care of.
So... nothing like those governments.
I know it's news to some people, that
Star Trek takes place in the socialist society.
I mean, they have stuff.
How can they have stuff?
They should have had all their stuff,
down to their underwear, seized by the state.
Because as we all know, that's what socialism means!
One kind of socialism is libertarian socialism,
which I've talked about a little before,
and it's mostly known as anarchism.
It isn't even really fair to call this one *one* form of socialism
because there are a bunch of different kinds of anarchism too.
The basic divide in socialist is between anarchists, who don't believe in any hierarchy that can't justify its power,
and therefore typically don't think that any kind of government or state should exist;
and state socialists, who think that a state should exist to provide for everyone.
There are arguments for the different sides,
and I won't go deep into them now.
But I will link people, who discuss the different arguments in the description.
When you become a socialist, you find out that there are plenty of different positions to take within the sphere of..
you know, thinking people deserve things like housing and healthcare.
In TNG, the original series, and so on, Federation are evidently Democratic Socialists.
Right out on the edge of Federation space, on the on the space station Deep Space Nine however,
money in business does exist.
The characters in DS9 are therefore living in a Social Democracy like I discussed before
I don't believe very much in presenting this information
written by me, about this stuff, without telling you where I'm coming at it from.
I think pretending I'm an invisible and objective disembodied voice is a bad move.
So I want to go over all my position is in all of this.
I agree with anarchists that no hierarchy should exist that can't justify its existence.
However I think that a government system can justify its existence
in the efficiency of distributing resources out to a large number of people.
I have suffered from depression quite a bit.
So frankly, the idea of living on a commune,
where I'm expected to contribute continuously,
rather than a system that can pick up the slack for me doesn't appeal.
I like the anonymity of cities and I find comfort in large systems to be perfectly honest.
I think safety nets allow people the space to grow and excel.
Anarchism works better as a model for people who have out of cities
and socialism works better in an urban environment.
I think one solid possibility is that cities could be part of a state operating under a government,
and anarchist communes could exist legally distinct from the state and negotiate trade between the two.
I think that we could make a mix of urban state socialism and agrarian anarchism work
and in case that wasn't enough of a clue, my official position is...
I'm a socialist.
I'm not particularly fussy about what kind of socialism we have,
as long as people's basic needs are provided for,
and individuals aren't victimized and exploited by greed all the time.
What I'd like us to do, at least what I think is the most likely way for us to get to our
"hyper queer future", where machines take care of all the important legwork, and we get to be whoever we want,
is for us to get our governments to start providing the basic things, and get to that Social Democracy stage.
And then, if everyone's into it, we'll just stop bothering with money altogether.
As you can see, we have all the technology we need to take care of everyone.
Address their basic needs, and work together
to build a brighter, better future, in *space*!
Or you know, not in space...
Maybe here... now... please?
Your Elon Musks, your Jeff Bezoses… Bezoes?
Bezi?
These space-race billionaires aren't visionaries, if they can't see the difference
between how things are, and how things ought to be.
Jeffs and Elons are Wilson Fisk.
They know some of the problems are there. They think...
all the problems can be solved, and they all think they're the guy to do it.
In reality though, they're keeping the systems in place, and profiting off them.
If there's a colony in space - on Mars,
whatever, it's not going to have currency.
It's going to have a planned economy.
The efforts and luxuries and so on of the people there,
will have to be governed either by a socialist state,
or the whole group through direct democracy.
If there are only five people there, it wouldn't make sense to elevate any of them above the others.
If there are 5000 people there, why should money exist?
If there were literally 5000 people in the whole planet,
would you like there to be some with more and some with less?
I wouldn't.
What number of people necessitates inequality?
The 2015 film "Tomorrowland" by Brad Bird and Damon Lindelof
is about a very smart young woman, who finds out about a secret project
to engineer the best possible future for all mankind,
which has been recruiting young inventors and taking them to... the future?
Actually, it's not super clear, the film's a bit of a mess.
It's not very good, and it isn't the kind of story I'd usually give much credit.
I mean, it's about a secret city, where all the super geniuses go
to be unrestrained by the petty tyranny of regular life,
and lead the world with their vision and genius.
Well, it's kind of Atlas Shrugged isn’t it?
In the movie, George Clooney used to be a little genius boy, and he got recruited to Tomorrowland
and he made a future predicting machine and everything went bad
and they showed it all down and now he's a bitter old hermit.
Like I said Tomorrowland is a bit of a libertarian screed and I'm not even sure that's the intention.
It's very silly, and it fits right into the libertarian canon,
with stories about a poor oppressed visionary
held back by people lacking in sufficient similar vision.
However... there is something I still really like in that movie.
George Clooney's future predicting machine thinks the future will be totally awful.
Pretty much as soon as it switched on, it went to a 100% certainty of total annihilation for the human race.
When the protagonist looks at it though she makes little change.
She introduces a new variable into its calculations, because she has hope.
Optimism.
So the machine starts to change,
and show a possible good future.
What I'm saying is we get the future we think is going to happen.
My dad used to say "When you ride a bike, you go where you look.
And if you look at the ground,
you will end up on the ground."
I used to spend too much time looking just at the Tories or Trump
and thinking about how awful everything is,
and how we're totally fucked forever.
After a while though, I realized that just isn't a good way to live.
I realized we need optimism, so I started looking at Bernie instead of Trump.
Corbyn instead of the Tories.
And not just at them, because like,
you can't pin all your hopes on one person.
I started looking at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Ash Sarkar, Boots Riley, the DSA, Momentum.
I got more involved with leftists on lefty YouTube,
and here we are now ready to kick some ass!
If capitalism were the guiding ideology of future,
Picard really might make a speech at the start of every episode, not that different from Andrew Ryan's
definitely-not-a-giant-baby speech from the start of Bioshock.
But he doesn't, because ultimately the vision of Star Trek isn't one through the lens of politics.
Instead the the basic assumption that they're just gonna all work together for what's good underpins everything they do.
He doesn't make that Andrew Ryan's speech.
Instead, he talks about discovery.
He talks about life, and adventure, and exploration.
Because as we all know, that's what socialism means.
Instead, he says...
Space. The Final Frontier.
These are the voyages of the Starship: Enterprise.
Her ongoing mission: to explore strange new worlds.
To seek out new life and new civilizations.
To boldly go where no one has gone before!
I'd like to thank Hann the Mann and Eric Taxon, whose music I used for this video.
I'd also like to thank my patrons,
of which I suddenly have... tons.
Natalie, for her indispensable role
in the production of Curio videos,
and you, the viewer, for making it all the way to the end of the video.
Speaking of the end of the video, I'm gonna borrow a trick from my pal Jack Saint
and give you a keyword to use here in the comments.
So if I see anyone, who hasn't used the word "octopus",
I'll know they didn't really watch all the way to the end.
This video was quite an effort to put together, and I think a good amount of it had to be left behind in the text version.
If you want to access the text versions of all my essays,
and some of the essays I haven't made into videos,
of which there's currently... one, I think,
you can become a Patron too.
If you don't have the money to spend on things, like...
long videos, about why Shadow the Hedgehog is the masterpiece,
I understand, and I'll let you off the hook this time,
as long as you go follow me on Twitter.
Alright everyone, I'm quite ill and I have another video to get editing, so I'll see you next time.
