View Single Post
Old September 4 2012, 12:49 AM   #68
Vice Admiral
T'Girl's Avatar
Re: Why Is Diversity Focused Only On Race & Species?

Christopher wrote: View Post
^Also, as we know from Enterprise, the Prime Directive is based on Vulcan principles.
Would that be the PD of the TOS time period, or the PD of TNG? They would seem to be two entirely different directives, different philosophies, that carry the same label. Did both separate philosophies come from Vulcans. Or maybe from two different groups of Vulcans?

commanderkai wrote: View Post
They don't have to be too extreme
Just this. It's too easy to say more diversity than what we've seen mean letting in a mass murderer. But having a wide assortment of Starfleet personnel, who sport an equally wide range of beliefs on various subjects, does not mean traveling to the farthest end of the scale with the first step.

Kegg wrote: View Post
Over the years Star Trek's shown many outsider characters with perspectives on Starfleet's ideals with varying degrees of cynicism or from other cultural perspectives (Kira Nerys ... )
Kira would definitely not fall into the "cynic" category. If Kira were to attempt to join Starfleet, would her different cultural perspectives prevent her entry. Or at the academy, would there be a steady pressure for her to not just conform, but to alter her beliefs at a personal philosophical level to embrace "the one way?"

Kegg wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
Junk Star Trek's "modern secular liberalism" as a standard. Because our characters are a diverse group, only a few of our heroes will embrace this particular philosophy.Their beliefs on economics, religion, politics, government, capitalism, socialism are very different from each other..
Why buy into Starfleet if you don't buy into Starfleet's goals?
Why would "MSL" be Starfleet's goal, or the Federation's? I personally place the Federation's total population in the 800 billion to 1 trillion range. They're all going to just happen to have "MSL" as their goal? Realistically they're going to be across the spectrum. Different species, cultures and home worlds are going to bring different ideas into the Federation when they join.

The Federation's composite ideals isn't going to be the same after gradually admitting 150 new members over the course of two centuries, as it was when there were only a half dozen members. And that's assuming that all the original half dozen wanted "MSL" in the Federation in the first place. These species were forming the Federation, who was going to keep them out? If Earth were the only one of the founding worlds to want "MSL," the other Founders might have said "Sure your representative can bring "MSL" to the Council, just don't try to force it on us."

Despite talk on other threads on the board, I do think the Federation Council is a democracy, but not automatically a liberal democracy.

But if you don't buy into it - why would you apply to join?
If Earth were to (somehow) join the Federation today, our entry would alter the Federation, because of the multi-cultural beliefs we would bring to the existing Federation vast multi-culture society. Would the Federation first say 'This is how you must change your planetary society to get in."


The Federation in the 24th century has 150 (round figure) members. Many of those member would have colonies. So how many cultures would that be? One? More likely many thousands, just look at how many cultures we have just here on Earth today. How many religions, life-styles, motivations, political parties (world wide), belief systems, etc.. Now multiple all those that by say a few hundred..

Everyone in Starfleet embraces "MSL," really? Would Starfleet even be allowed (by law) to practice such a restrictive entry requirement? Again, I not suggesting letting in mass murderers.

T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote