Eddington's vitriolic assessment of The Federation

The problem with that argument is that it is a tautology. "If something is already perfect, you don't improve it."

No duh.

All of Star Trek's advancements are because of a desire to improve.

 

But the Federation wasn't involved in the problems between Bajor and Cardassia. When Bajor was occupied the Federation didn't do anything about it (if you want to go by the novelverse, because the recognized Bajoran government at the time accepted Cardassian rule), and in fact that likely spurred on the Maquis.

The Federation didn't get involved at all until the Cardassian withdrawal, when the Bajoran provisional government asked for Federation assistance.

I'm also not sure what you're talking about when you claim the Federation is trying to make everyone the same; can you please cite specific episodes that support your claims?

 

To some, the hope they dream of is magic. However, even if it - against all odds - seems impossible, they will continue to dream until what was once magic is now the reality.

 

During the Korean War, mainland Chinese troops and American troops were fighting each other directly.

I don't see what the Federation does and what the Borg does as even remotely comparable. Membership in the Federation and trade with it is completely voluntary. If you don't think that matters, your country has probably not been invaded recently.

 

That's heavily implied on-screen as well:

 

^I can't recommend the Terok Nor trilogy of novels, especially the first one, highly enough. The process by which Bajor became occupied is outlined in excruciatingly tragic detail. I'd kind of love to know what someone who hadn't seen the series (and who consequently didn't know what was coming) would make of it.

 

Francis Fukuyama -- you probably remember the phrase "the end of history" even if you don't remember him -- said something along those lines:

From a recent interview on Vox.

 

I think you have to distinguish between what Eddington said about the Federation, and Roddenberry’s original premise of a peaceful, prosperous earth. Take away that essential positive vision of our future, and it’s no longer Star Trek. At the same time, DS9 and other series do reveal a darker side of huge institutions like Starfleet and the UFP.

2053 – World War 3 devastation
2063 - Zefram Cochrane invents warp drive (motivated by financial greed, but it works) which attracts the Vulcans, who land on earth to meet us and continue to advise and guide us for years. The Vulcans inspired us to get past our own violent tendencies -- part competition, part envy perhaps.
2156 – Romulans attack earth, resulting in the neutral zone and United Federation of Planets.

It’s true Kirk does say in a few TOS episodes that humanity has to claw our way up, we need obstacles to overcome (Metamorphosis, This side of paradise, etc). but I don’t think that negates GR’s radical optimism: “I think technology will save us. And our own goodness…basic human decency. Our ability to sympathize with others. The wish to help. These things are part of our nature.”

 

Which cuts strongly against Gene's later idea of an "evolved" humanity. The idea that we had to "grow out of our infancy" and ignore our nature. Instead, TOS was the idea that humans had the capacity of great good, cooperation and mutual support. In other words, the capacity for making positive choices and personal growth. But, we equally are capable of great savagery, fear and destruction. "We're killers. But we're not going to kill today!"

 

Sadly, ENT downplayed the role model aspect of the Vulcans; that show basically boiled down to "get off my back, old man" beyond the few "good" Vulcans that were protagonist-friendly.

 

Fortunately, the franchise returned to the original vision.

 

Frankly I thought ENT, at least in S1, made it look as though the bigoted humans who often made insensible decisions deserved to have been held back a bit.

 

Frankly, Gene's idea was stupid on multiple levels. It is stupid, unrealistic, preachy... and worst of all, makes for bad storytelling. Without conflict, you do not have a story, and conflict requires imperfection.

That is why I think TOS (where others basically ignored him) and DS9 (which again ignored his ideas) were the best Star Trek series. First seasons of TNG, where Gene is basically allowed to run rampant, were some of the weakest parts of Star Trek IMO (although I never watched Discovery etc., and don't intend to, so...).

So overall, I think Eddington is not entirely wrong... he is wrong in a lot of things, but there are some seeds in all that chaff.

 

Most important question: worse than the Borg?

 

Well, the Borg at least are honest about what they are doing... on the other hand, they don't exactly give you an option to refuse.

So I'd say no.

 

Sanity prevails.

 

"We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Unless you do not wish to be assimilated. If that is the desire, be aware you are saying 'no' to a quest toward perfection. We will move on to the next group, who might desire to be a part of our goal. No harm, no foul. Enjoy your existence as singular lifeforms, not knowing the purity and belonging of our Collective. Have a pleasant existence."
- New Borg Collective Greeting

 

The Borg assimilated Canada?

 

Or they are the Borg...

 

I respectfully disagree. What you think is unrealistic I think is aspirational. I don't see the [decrease] in conflict due to some writer's magic wand ultimately conjuring bots more than people, but instead loved educated and seasoned reasoning people trying at working together toward greater mutual gain. That takes faith and trust as much as anything, but, uh, so does banking and modern society. It's when people begin to feel the system is rigged that things deteriorate. No moonbase for us. Back to school shootings.

Conflict comes in many forms. We don't by and large settle our disputes with duels, rape, and genocide, etc these days, yet drama persists. It's about finding it in the moment. We all feel it in our lives. An argument can be as harrowing, more so, than the umpteenth murder of a redshirt.

Also the first two seasons of TNG were them trying to find what became Star Trek for the decades after. Watch some other sci-fi of the time and thank TNG for its service. While you're at it, I do recommend giving Strange New Worlds a try. Like every Trek series, it's different in its own way from everything else, but I think it's pretty good. I think Discovery, alas, went downhill fast toward the middle-end of its second season, though some people seem to like it still. You tell me if you do. The first season especially is brilliant for something that happens toward the end of it. Maybe consider Prodigy too – it's a charming uplifting [younger fan] show.