
English: 
Hey Wisecrack, Jared here. Today we’re boldly
going where...lots of people have gone before.
We’re talking about Star Trek.
"Emergency evasive."
And before you all
have a collective shit fit, we’re mostly
focusing on the Star Trek reboot - not because
it’s better, but because there’s just
way too much original Star Trek to cover in
one episode.
Anyway - the original Star Trek and its subsequent
8 billion spin-offs followed the adventures
of the Starship Enterprise as it explored
the depths of the Milky Way galaxy. Set roughly
400 years into future from its 1966 air date,
Star Trek was a radical imagining of the future:
One where humanity's prized starship is
manned by a Russian, a Japanese-American,
a black woman, an interracial alien and this
guy.
"I'm Captain Kirk!"
The original Star Trek was based in humanism,
a philosophy that is characterized by a profound
faith in the innate goodness of humans and
their ability to be rational. For creator

Chinese: 
Wisecrack的觀眾大家好
我是Jared
今天我們要勇敢前進至...
許多人到過的地方
我們來聊聊STAR TREK
『緊急迴避』
在各位抓狂之前 
我們要先解釋一下
本影片大部分論述以重啟電影為主
並不是因為它們比較好
而是因為STAR TREK影集
用一集影片實在講不完
總之呢 初代STAR TREK
與隨之而來的80億部衍生作品
描述星艦企業號在銀河深處的探險航程
大致設定於1966年播出日期的400年後
STAR TREK是對於未來的大膽想像
一艘人類最先進的星艦
上頭有一位俄羅斯人、一位美籍日本人
一位黑人女性、一位混血外星人 
還有這傢伙
『 我 是 寇 克 艦 長 ！ 』
STAR TREK的故事基於人本主義
這個理念的特色
在於相信人類的善良
以及理性的潛能

Chinese: 
對於創作者Gene Roddenberry來說
人類文明很可能有一些成長的煩惱
但最終會成長為一個負責任的
沒有戰爭和貧窮的文明世界
這個烏托邦願景的一部分
是堅定地走向世界主義
在企業號的艦橋上
不但團結了不同種族與國籍
- 例如在冷戰高峰期間
設定了主要成員中有一位俄國人 -
並且在這個太空冒險故事裡
講述各種關於道德與倫理的故事
包括無情的獨斷主義
干涉文明發展以及種族歧視
對文明帶來的危害
甚至在故事中經常指出
20世紀的人類歷史有許多毫無意義的戰爭
以及我們這個種族的發展傾向
表現得像是手持核武器的任性小孩
如果說原來的STAR TREK
是關於擁抱世界主義
『全面開火！』
J·J·亞柏拉罕導演的新版本
可以說是對這個理想世界作出回應
J·J·亞柏拉罕的STAR TREK
發生在一個平行的時間線
這條時間線分歧自
老史巴克阻止在一個超新星
抵達羅慕蘭星系
否則整個銀河都會被毀滅

English: 
Gene Roddenberry, humanity may well have a
few growing pains, but will eventually grow
up to be a responsible civilization without war or poverty.
Part of this utopian vision of the future
was an unapologetic stance towards cosmopolitanism.
Not only did the show unite disparate races
and nationalities on the bridge of the Enterprise
-- like including a Russian as part of the
crew during the height of the Cold War -- but
the wild west of space served as a backdrop
to play out morality tales about
the dangers of ruthless dogmatism, foreign
intervention and racism. Even humanity’s
history is frequently maligned, with constant
reference to the numerous and pointless wars
of the 20th century and the tendency for us,
as a species, to act like a bunch of petulant
children armed with nuclear weapons.
But if the original Star Trek was about embracing
cosmopolitanism,
"Fire everything!"
the new JJ Abrams version
is about reacting to the ramifications of
that world.
The JJ Abrams Star Trek takes place in an
alternate timeline that’s created when an
elder Spock tries to stop a supernova that
threatens to destroy the entire galaxy

English: 
before it reaches the Romulan homeworld. It doesn't really make sense, so don't bother.
Spock fails to save Romulus in time, but does eventually
create a black hole to consume the supernova,
which hurdles him and a revenge-driven Eric Bana back in time.
The old Star Trek used to ask really hard
moral questions like: how can we put aside
personal hatred with an enemy civilization
for the greater good,
"Don't trust them!" "They are dying"
or should we interfere in the natural development of a civilization?
The new Star Trek’s are about interstellar temper tantrums.
And space terrorists -- in
the spirit of our modern political climate.
Nero, who blames the Vulcans for the death
of his planet, gets all genocidal with a weapon
of mass destruction. Khan, in the ultimate
act of friendship, has a guy blow up a research
facility and goes on a killing spree.
"KHAAAAN!"
In other words, if the older Star Treks imagined
the promise of a united humanity and its technological
advancements, the new Star Treks imagine how
scary all of that sounds. Miners who can drill
holes into planets? Fuel sources that can
devour civilizations? Time

Chinese: 
其實沒什麼道理可言
您就別上心了
史巴克沒能及時拯救羅慕蘭
但最後創造了一個黑洞來吸收超新星
使得他與一心復仇的艾瑞克巴納
時空旅行回到了過去
以前的STAR TREK會問一些
很難的道德問題
例如：如何為了更大的利益
拋開個人對於敵方文明的仇恨
『不要信任他們！』
『他們正在死去』
或是：我們該不該干涉
一個文明的自然發展？
然而呢 新的STAR TREK是關於
在外太空發脾氣
還有太空恐怖分子
-這正是我們現代的政治氣候
第一集的反派 尼祿
認為瓦肯人必須為他的星球滅亡負責
怒用大規模毀滅武器 讓瓦肯種族滅絕
第二集的反派 可汗
重情義重朋友的最高境界
叫一個傢伙炸毀研究設施
並且所到之處大殺特殺
『可汗～～～～～！』
換句話說
如果從前的STAR TREK是想像
文明肯定會發展
科技肯定會進步
新的STAR TREK則是在想像：
那樣一來該有多恐怖呀
一群可以在一顆行星上鑽孔的礦工？
一種可以吞噬文明的燃料來源？
都有時空旅行了
卻仍然無法帶回威廉夏特納*？
（原版寇克艦長, 在電影第七集中犧牲）

English: 
travel that still can’t bring back William
Shatner? No thanks, science.
But let’s not get too grumpy. Behind all
the nerd-rage-inducing nonsense, there is
something to be learned.
One carry-over through the original series
is the famous Spock phrase “The needs of
the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
For most, this is a pretty uncontroversial
position. It is also one of the basic premises
of utilitarianism: a philosophy promoted by
English philosopher Jeremy Bentham that promoted
behavior to bring the greatest amount of happiness
to the greatest amount of people. Bentham
turned his back on this principle when he
decided to mummify his own body - thus providing
nightmare-fuel for centuries of humans to
come. Ugh, god! But I digress.
Spock is, more or less, a utilitarian.
"The sentient beings optimal chance at maximizing their utility, is a long and prosperous life."
In fact, in Star Trek: Into Darkness, the
film goes through great lengths to show you
what a dick move the alternative is. A guy
murders a building full of innocent people
to save his daughter, Khan will go to all
sorts of murderous lengths to save his fellow

Chinese: 
真謝謝你噢 科學
但我們不如先冷靜一下
在這些激怒阿宅的無理劇情背後
還是有一些值得學習的東西
在整部原初系列中
有一句史巴克的名言
『多數人的利益，勝過少數人的利益』
這個觀念不算有什麼爭議性
這也是英國哲學家邊沁
提倡的「效益主義」前提之一
主張行為適當與否的標準
在於其結果的「最大幸福」效益程度
邊沁後來可以說是背叛了他自己的主張
因為他決定把自己的遺體做成木乃伊
- 這會讓世人們做好幾百年惡夢
呃 天啊
好了 拉回正題
史巴克可是說是一位效益主義論者
『自主意識生命發揮最大效益
即是生命不息並繁榮昌盛』
事實上
《闇黑無界》用很大的篇幅來告訴你
這個平行時空有多糟糕
有個傢伙殺了一屋子無辜的人
只因為交換條件是救了他的女兒
可汗為了拯救他的超人類夥伴
殺再多人都在所不惜

English: 
superhumans, even Nero in Star Trek will try
to exterminate the entire federation in the
hopes of averting the loss of the Romulan
people. But, despite these cinematic instances
of black and white morality, there are a lot
of arguments that throw this idea into question,
even if Spock claims it’s only logical.
"It is logical."
Philosophers love to argue about the trolley
problem. If you’re unfamiliar, it’s a
thought experiment where you find yourself
about to witness a group of people get mowed
down by a train barreling towards them. Luckily
for the thought experiment, you’re in reach
of a lever that can divert the train to another
track. On that track is just one person. Do
you pull the lever, thus killing one person
to save multiple? Many people would pull the
lever, but it still feels...icky. You’ve
decided that the lives of many outweigh the
needs of the few, but then again, now it’s
DIRECTLY your fault someone is dead. Other
versions of the trolley problem complicate
this decision further, but in a much more
uncomfortable way. Would you push a fat dude
onto the tracks because he’s sufficiently
large to slow down the train, and allow the
group to escape? What if that fatty was a

Chinese: 
第一集的反派 尼祿
試圖要終結整個星際聯邦
因為他希望可以預防羅慕蘭種族滅亡
但儘管是道德觀如此黑白分明的電影橋段
仍然拋出了值得論辯的主題
就算史巴克說
這只是合乎邏輯的選擇
『這是合乎邏輯的。』
哲學家最愛爭論的「電車難題」思想實驗
假設你目擊到一群人
將被一台失控的火車輾過去
幸好在這個實驗中
軌道轉移桿就在你伸手可及之處
而另一條軌道上只有一個人
你會不會拉下桿子
造成一人死亡，救一群人的性命？
很多人會選擇拉下桿子
但仍會覺得⋯⋯心裡毛毛的
你決定了多數人的性命
比少數人的需求重要
但這麼一來
這條人命得直接算在你頭上
還有其他版本的電車難題
讓這個決定更複雜、更令人不快
你會不會將一個胖子推到軌道上
因為他胖到可以緩下列車的速度
讓這群人可以逃跑？
如果這位胖胖是一個癌症研究員呢？
如果你要救的這群人

English: 
cancer researcher? What if the group of people
you’re saving was actually the cast of “The
Big Bang Theory?” The variations, as you
may have guessed, continue ad nauseum. Determining
the good of the many over the few, it turns
out, is really hard. If pulling the lever
is permissible, what about killing someone
to donate their organs to five people in need?
In Star Trek, we see a different
thought experiment: a simulation in which
a captain is forced to die trying to save
a stranded crew of civilians, or give up and
look like an asshole. The Kobayashi Maru,
as it appears to cadets, poses dilemma similar
to the trolley problem - can you justify sacrificing
your crew in the hopes of saving a ship of
civilians? As it’s later revealed, failure
is inevitable in the Kobayashi Maru. It’s
a rigged game. By doing this, the simulation shifts a lesson about ethics into a lesson
about human fallibility, and accepting no-win
scenarios. In other words, it’s a trolley
problem where everyone dies, every time.
Rather than trying to offer a moral solution
to either problem, the film finds its answer
in Captain Kirk, who just cheats.
"I don't believe in no-win scenarios."

Chinese: 
其實是《生活大爆炸》的演員們？
諸如此類的各種版本
在在證明了
讓多數人的利益凌駕少數人的需求
其實是一個很難的決定
如果你覺得拉桿子還好
「殺一人可捐器官給五個需要的人」
這一題呢？
STAR TREK中也有個思想實驗：
一個虛擬的任務測驗
艦長的角色將面臨抉擇
為了拯救艦上的平民 慷慨就義
或是像個混蛋一樣地投降
此即著名的「小林丸測驗」
對受測學員提出類似電車難題的困境
－你願不願意犧牲你的艦員
來拯救艦上的平民？
你事後更會發現
小林丸測驗的失敗不可避免
因為「必死無疑」的設定
使這個測驗變相成為一個道德課程
關於人性的弱點 並接受必敗的局勢
換句話說
這是一個「全軍覆沒」版的電車難題
不管怎麼選都一樣
與其對這個問題提出道德解法
這部電影在寇克艦長身上找到了答案
就是作弊
『我不相信「必敗處境」這種事』

Chinese: 
這正是電影的說故事技巧
寇克的迴避問題
等到他遇到一個真正的必敗處境
他就會輸得屁滾尿流
在《星戰大怒吼》中
他失去了最好的朋友
『我一直是、並始終將為......』
『...你的朋友』
以及在《闇黑無界》中
他犧牲了自己
這其中的教訓是什麼？
如果你覺得是
「多數人的需求勝於少數」
別急著下定論
看看反派可汗的背景故事
也是很符合效益主義的
人類科技培育他
成為一個暴君來終結紛爭
不就是「多數需求」的概念嗎
他是一個搶奪人民自由的獨裁者
但他也在他的統治下消除了戰爭
『我們讓世界有秩序！』
在戰爭中拯救成千上萬的生命
可以合理化地剝奪他人自由嗎？
如果抱怨失去自由的人
其實只有一小群？
STAR TREK 有許多故事 
透過友情與家庭
宣揚「生而為人」的美德與價值

English: 
But in good
storytelling fashion, this avoidance comes
to bite Kirk in the ass when he encounters
a real no-win scenario. In the Wrath of Khan,
he loses his best friend,
"I have been, and always shall be..."
"...your friend."
and in Into Darkness,
he sacrifices himself.
So what’s the lesson here? If your answer
is “the needs of many outweigh the needs
of the few,” well, then hold on a second.
Because the other premise of the Khan storyline
is that utilitarianism, that needs of the
many idea, is kind of what bred tyrannical
Khan in the first place. While Khan was a
dictator who robbed his people of freedom,
he also managed to eliminate war under his
reign.
"We offered the world order!"
Does saving hundreds of thousands of
lives from the devastation of war justify
the loss of freedom, especially when only
a handful of whiners are actually missing it?
Star Trek, in one moment, will preach the
merits of “being human” and all the value
we ascribe to institutions like friendship
and family, and in another moment will show

English: 
us people murdering other people for the sake
of friendship and family. The same could also
be said of the purely logical alternative.
While Spock is celebrated for his cold logic,
"Fascinating."
plenty of Star Trek episodes show just how
stupid cold logic can be. That’s one of
the great thing about Star Trek, instead of
strongly espousing one philosophy, it dives
head first into moral ambiguity.
German philosopher Hannah Arendt warns of
the dangers of pure, utilitarian thought.
As she says, “The crimes against human rights, which
have become a specialty of totalitarian regimes,
can always be justified by the pretext that
right is equivalent to being good or useful
for the whole in distinction to its parts...
And this predicament is by no means solved
if the unit to which the "good for" applies
is as large as mankind itself. For it is quite
conceivable,
that one
fine day a highly organized and mechanized
humanity will conclude quite democratically..."
"The line must be drawn here!"
Despite Spock's assertion that the needs of
the many outweigh the needs of the few, Star
Trek as a series is critical of such easy
answers. Like Arendt, the show often warned

Chinese: 
另一方面 也展示了人們
可以因為友情與家庭殺害他人
這些同樣都是純粹邏輯的選擇
如同史巴克著名的冷酷邏輯
『引人入勝』
也有很多集STAR TREK
展示了邏輯可能很蠢
這正是STAR TREK的偉大之處
深入道德模糊的地帶
而不是強烈支持一種哲學
德國哲學家漢娜·鄂蘭提出警言
「純粹的效益主義思想」是很危險的
正如她所說：
『侵犯人權的罪行』
『總能以「犧牲小我，受益大我」
作為其合理化的託詞』
『但如果要全人類「受益」
這便是個無解困境』
『可以想見有朝一日
高度組織化、機械化的人類文明
會相當民主地走上完結』
『必須在這畫下底線！』
儘管史巴克認為
多數人的需求勝於少數
但 STAR TREK 整個系列
經常批評這個過分簡單的答案
這個電視劇跟鄂蘭一樣
經常提出警言
「純粹的效益主義思想」危險之處

Chinese: 
舉例來說：《銀河飛龍》中
星際聯邦最可怕的敵人
就是「博格人」
集體心智的生化種族
描繪出鄂蘭說的
『高度組織化、機械化的文明』
是多麼可怕的想像
『我們是博格人』
『降下你們的護盾，並且投降』
『我們將同化你們的生命和技術特徵』
『你們的文明將為我們服務』
『反抗是無用的』
博格人如此可怕的原因
正是他們冷酷的效益主義邏輯
只要效率可以最大化、對整體需求有利
博格集合體就會排除少數的需要
如果以純粹的效益主義觀點來看
尼祿就是個正直好人
假設瓦肯從未存在過
羅慕蘭就不會將希望寄託在史巴克身上
羅慕蘭帝國沒有瓦肯干擾 
從而發展強盛的文明
說不定就能夠躲過災難
碰！種族滅絕就很合理了
『創造一個沒有星際聯邦的羅慕蘭』
根據一些STAR TREK資料的數據

English: 
against the dangers of pure utilitarian thought.
In the Next Generation series, for instance,
the most powerful and frightening enemy of
the Federation is the Borg: a cybernetic hivemind
that perfectly illustrates why Arendt was
convinced that a "highly organized and mechanized
humanity" was such a frightening prospect.
What makes the Borg so terrifying is how,
with a cold utilitarian logic, the collective
excludes the needs of the few as it works
out the most efficient way to serve the needs
of all.
According to a purely utilitarian argument,
Nero might have been a standup guy. You could
argue that, had Vulcan never existed, the
Romulans would have never placed their faith
in Spock. A strong Romulan empire without
the interference of Vulcan might have been
able to avert the disaster and boom: genocide
justified.
"To create a Romulus that exists free of the Federation."

English: 
If Romulus is a planet of 18 billion people,
as some Star Trek sources suggest,
and Vulcan is a planet of 6 billion people,
then why not?
Thankfully, Star Trek subtly answers this
question. If you look at Star Trek: Into Darkness,
it opens with two explosions. One to save
a civilization, the other to save a child.
In every utilitarian decision made by Spock
and Kirk in both Into Darkness and the Wrath
of Khan, the sacrificing of one for the many
is always a personal choice. The 2009 Star
Trek even begins with Kirk’s father piloting
his ship on a crash course so that his crew,
wife and child can escape. And this neatly
avoids Hannah Arendt’s warnings of the dangers
of pure, mechanistic utilitarianism. If you
want to sacrifice one life for many: sacrifice
your own fucking life.
That's just one solution given to one thought
experiment in a franchise that includes over
700 episodes of television and a dozen movies.
George Lucas once described his rival franchise
as the "little engine that could" as it survived
for over a decade on fan enthusiasm alone.

Chinese: 
羅慕蘭是一個180億人口的行星
而瓦肯是一個60億人口的行星
犧牲瓦肯有何不妥？
幸好，STAR TREK 巧妙回答了這個問題
看看《闇黑無界》
電影的開場有兩場爆炸
一場拯救了一個文明
另一場拯救了一個小孩
《星戰大怒吼》與《闇黑無界》中
每一個史巴克與寇克
作出的「效益主義」抉擇
為了多數犧牲個體
都是他們個人的選擇
2009的第一集電影
開場就是寇克的父親
將船艦設定自毀軌道 
犧牲自己拯救全艦
讓他的妻子與小孩可以逃離
這俐落地迴避了鄂蘭警告的
「純粹、機械化效益主義的危險」
假如你想要犧牲個體保全多數：
那就犧牲你那條小命吧
以上是故事提到的一個思想實驗
所提出的問題與答案
而這個系列有700集電視劇
以及十幾部電影版
喬治盧卡斯曾描述
他的競爭對手系列
就像「厲害的小火車」
因為曾經十幾年沒有作品
完全只靠著影迷的熱情存活下來

English: 
One of the reasons it has survived, and why
it eventually spawned so many different reboots,
sequels and prequels, is because it tackles
the difficulties of modern life, the problems
that come along with a world that is clearly
more and more cosmopolitan every day, so directly.
We’ve only scratched the surface of philosophical
topics in Star Trek. There’s the prime directive,
space fascists, omnipotent beings, and so
many other angles to cover. So if you want
to hear more, let us know in the comments.
Hey, everyone! Thanks for watching, we hope you enjoyed it.
We literally have hundreds of videos like this on our channel,
so give George Takei a poke to be taken to our channel page where you can find your next video to watch,
and subscribe.
We've got exciting breakdowns of the Joker, Mr. Robot,
Pokemon Go, and South Park around the corner,
so make sure you subscribe to be notified the minute they drop.
Also, if you've got a spare minute, click right here to check out our Patreon page.
Every patron helps us keep making great videos for y'all.
And look, if you're a fan of Wisecrack, you're going to love the videos made by my friend Evan.
A.K.A the nerdwriter.

Chinese: 
之所以能夠存活下來
並且衍生了重啟、續集、前傳
因為它非常直接地正面迎擊
現代生命遇到的困難
以及每一天都越來越
走向世界主義所帶來的問題
我們只搔了STAR TREK哲學的表面癢處
值得一講的還有：
最高指導原則
太空中的法西斯
萬能的存在
還有超級多觀點值得討論
如果你想多聽一些
在底下留言讓我們知道
感謝大家收看
希望你喜歡
我們在這個頻道上有數百部影片
戳一下喬治·武井 連結到我們的頁面
找下一個影片來看看
然後訂閱
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

English: 
Evan creates top-notch video essays each week diving into understanding art, movies, politics, music
and so much more.
Click right here, or use the link in the description below,
to visit thenerdwriter's channel page and subscribe.
And hey, leave a comment on one of his videos and tell him Wisecrack sent ya.
I'm telling ye, it's a great channel and you're gonna want to subscribe.
Alright, I've got a tone of work to get back to. Until next time, peace.

Chinese: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
