Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 2x01 - "The Broken Circle"

[cooleddie74]

The Federation pretends it has clean hands and a fully functional and healthy society but it doesn't. It just has the best P.R. in the known galaxy and amazing advertising. Raffi and the behavior of Section 31 in both the DSC and DS9 eras show that the Federation is hardly the pinnacle of a civilization.

 

[Nerys Myk]

TNG had an episode where most of the crew wound up addicted to a game,

 

[Sci]

Certain drugs should be illegal.

Should they? Portugal has had a lot more success managing drug addiction by legalizing things than through prohibition.

And drug addiction is definitely not a thing of the past in STAR TREK. We've seen drug dealers in VOYAGER ("FAIR TRADE") and TNG ("Symbiosis"). Tasha Yar came from a colony that had drug addictions.

And none of those were Federation planets with access to advanced treatments for addiction.

T'Pol became addicted to trellium.

A new and unfamiliar drug for which no addiction treatments had yet been developed, on a ship stuck far away from the medical industries of Earth or Vulcan.

Raffi is also an addict, who struggled with that throughout PICARD. And she was on Earth.

And we never once saw any indication that the drugs she used were illegal.

 

[cooleddie74]

Legalize or decriminalize everything that we can ingest and put in our bodies but regulate and tax them.

 

[Citiprime]

Hold on. Who said drugs are illegal? Why should drugs be illegal in a post-scarcity world where there is no crime and cures for addiction exist? You're starting from a premise that some drugs are just inherently "bad" and must be illegal without supporting that premise.

So it makes sense that the Federation has a ban on genetic engineering that punishes people criminally for violating, but wouldn't control, regulate, or prohibit drugs that can achieve the same ends?

 

[jackoverfull]

So it makes sense that the Federation has a ban on genetic engineering that punishes people criminally for violating, but wouldn't control, regulate, or prohibit drugs that can achieve the same ends?

the whole blanket ban on genetic engineering is dogmatic and illogical anyway, merely based on fear caused by past issues with the technology (just like the current fear of nuclear power is), so it doesn’t make sense.

 

[Yistaan]

the whole blanket ban on genetic engineering is dogmatic and illogical anyway, merely based on fear caused by past issues with the technology (just like the current fear of nuclear power is), so it doesn’t make sense.

Has Discovery said whether it's still in effect in the 32nd century? We know it's still a thing as of Prodigy

 

[bdub76]

the whole blanket ban on genetic engineering is dogmatic and illogical anyway, merely based on fear caused by past issues with the technology (just like the current fear of nuclear power is), so it doesn’t make sense.

The only reason to ban it is to level the playing field, which feels like cheating in sports. Of course, half the bridge seems to have super powers in SNWs. A lot of this goes back to the genetic engineering controversy in WWII. This shows up in a lot of lit when TOS came out. I don’t think it resonates with modern audiences.

I’d rather we go back to the exploratory episodes like in season one.

 

[Hythlodeus]

If we’ve been told there’s no crime on Earth, but illegal drugs are a thing in the Federation, how do those two story elements fit together?

It's easy to be a saint in paradise

 

[cooleddie74]

"I CAN live with it."

 

[Nerys Myk]

reminds me of star trek into darkness when jj abrams chose to have the enterprise rise from the sea, even if he failed to explain the logical science behind it. However it was visually cool to watch. but made no sense.

Why should the film devote any more time to this than it does to any other thing the Enterprise did? As Gene himself once said Joe Friday doesn’t explain how his revolver works, he just uses it.

Chapal, a nurse should not be doing action scene anymore than Abrams should ever put the enterprise inside the ocean. Also Bush was not all that convincing in it either, maybe it was the obvious body double or her small size or maybe the past star trek standard was too different given Seven of Nine/Uhura/Burnham doing action scenes in the past, both those female characters fitted the role of action heroines, so no excuse there. it works there.

Please tell me more why a nurse shouldn’t be in action scenes. Uhura didn’t become an “action heroine” until the Abrams films. She was a comms officer.

I dont know much about the actors, but when i read their interviews it always feels like they are the ones asking for something or deciding something. which is kind of weird because the jobs of actors is to follow the director and what is written in the script. unless the actor is a producer too like say tom cruise or sarah jessica parker, it is not the job of actos to dictate the direction of a story.

You don’t seem to know much about film making. It’s a collaborative effort in many cases. TV especially where the director is just a “hired gun” there for the episode.

I didn't say it was unbelievable, I said I didn't buy it. There's a difference. Bacon is loved by many but I don't eat it. And I typically just don't like characters that start to feel excellent in every field. Lack of fallibility.

As to the unprofessional I can't rehash that. I can't remember exactly what it was now. But something last season felt off to me.

You did say unbelievable It’s right there in the post I responded to.
Anyway.
Believe it. Buy it. A difference where there is no difference, But if we’re going to play the semantics game, What didn’t you buy in her story? That she has combat skills? That she and M'Benga have shared trauma from their experiences in the Klingon War? That she and M'Benga have experience with a performance enhancing drug developed during that war? That it may be related to her background in bio-research?
Not sure short circuiting a door makes he a expert engineer. What else have we seen her do? Medical stuff and give relationship advice to a friend. Fight while on a performance enhancing drug.

So the series has set her up as the ultimate action it gir that now, even spock is in love with her even if he barely cared about her in tos and also she is been set up to be some kind of alpha female because she now has some of the skills of other past female characters on the show that Majel never displayed in TOS.

There is no character in TOS called Majel. There is one called Chapel. One we know next to nothing about. But as of this writing, we know she has combat skills, served in a war and has experience with a performance enhancing drug.

 

[Citiprime]

the whole blanket ban on genetic engineering is dogmatic and illogical anyway, merely based on fear caused by past issues with the technology (just like the current fear of nuclear power is), so it doesn’t make sense.

It's not exactly a blanket ban, since in DS9 they state it is allowed to correct birth defects. And even that is a controversial idea here in the real world.

How exactly do you define what is "normal" for a human? For example, some in the deaf community have called corrective measures for deafness a "cultural genocide" and argue with the idea that someone who is deaf is disabled or suffering from a medical problem. And that sentiment is mirrored for other issues. There's been op-eds written by parents of children with Down Syndrome arguing that their children aren't "broken."

I always took Star Trek's dislike of genetic engineering and augmentations of what it means to be human being based in the history of eugenics, which was associated with Nazis and government policies for forced sterilization. A big part of Star Trek's message is that people can be better. We can improve. We can learn to be more tolerant, more accepting, more fair-minded. But, to make this message relevant, it had to relate to us ordinary meat-sacks as we are now. If Star Trek depicted a race of genetically engineered humans or technologically enhanced humans, the message would be distorted. It would be a world where we got better as a species because we re-engineered our basic biology or added machines to our bodies to be better, instead of learning anything.

The only reason to ban it is to level the playing field, which feels like cheating in sports. Of course, half the bridge seems to have super powers in SNWs. A lot of this goes back to the genetic engineering controversy in WWII. This shows up in a lot of lit when TOS came out. I don’t think it resonates with modern audiences.

I’d rather we go back to the exploratory episodes like in season one.

The explanation given by Sisko for the ban makes sense, in that the Federation didn't want parents basically in an arms race with their neighbors modifying their children. Beyond the danger of breeding a new Khan, it arguably forces choices onto children who have no agency in the matter. Bashir resented his father for forcing those "superior" attributes onto him and not accepting him for the person he was.

Although... maybe all Bashir's dad needed to do was give Julian some drugs...

 

[fireproof78]

A
big part of Star Trek's message is that people can be better. We can improve. We can learn to be more tolerant, more accepting, more fair-minded. But, to make this message relevant, it had to relate to us ordinary meat-sacks as we are now.

Yes, which is why the bans, and the drugs and such make sense in the Trek world.

 

[Mudd]

Because I think it fundamentally changes the nature of the franchise.

Instead of being about a socially evolved humanity practicing altruism as they explore the galaxy...

That's not what TOS "fundamentally" was. It's nice that some fans saw that in it...I suppose.

Even TNG wasn't particularly altruistic where their Prime Directive was concerned. It was, in fact, frequently an excuse for not getting involved when people needed help.

At least Kirk - and Pike - get involved and try to help.

 

[Sci]

Hold on. Who said drugs are illegal? Why should drugs be illegal in a post-scarcity world where there is no crime and cures for addiction exist? You're starting from a premise that some drugs are just inherently "bad" and must be illegal without supporting that premise.

So it makes sense that the Federation has a ban on genetic engineering that punishes people criminally for violating, but wouldn't control, regulate, or prohibit drugs that can achieve the same ends?

Well, what do you mean by "makes sense?" Do you mean, it is a plausible scenario for the narrative to feature? Or do you mean, it reflects internally consistent logic within the world of the story?

Obviously, it does not reflect internally consistent logic within the world of the story. For the Federation to ban genetic augmentation while legalizing drug use is inconsistent.

But I do think this is a plausible scenario for the narrative to feature. Societies often are inconsistent in their application of their principles. Once again, I point out that the United States calls itself the "land of the free" yet incarcerates more of its people per capita than the vast majority of societies -- and, for that matter, it allows its so-called "law enforcement agencies" to operate above the law and engage in assault and murder of ethnic minorities with virtual impunity. And the U.S. is not alone in that sort of hypocrisy -- most cultures have blind spots! And Strange New Worlds was very explicit in calling out Federation attitudes towards genetic augmentation as a form of bigotry in S1.

It is plausible that the Federation would represent significant, meaningful progress towards the causes of universal liberty, equality, and justice, while also having a noticeable blind spot in its attitudes towards genetic augmentation. To me, Federation having this flaw makes it more believable and therefore more inspiring -- this is a culture that has made major progress, but still has the kinds of flaws that mark it as not being just naturally superior to us. And that means it's a kind of culture I can believe could actually exist, and could continue working on improving itself, rather than being some high ideal real society could never achieve.

 

[Set Harth]

If you put elements like this in, then Star Trek and the Federation are no longer a vision of a future human society exploring space after they got their shit together and moved beyond their problems. It then becomes just 21st century humans, with all of the same issues and problems, transplanted to the 23rd century while serving in a space navy.

This kind of thing is commonplace in sci-fi.

reminds me of star trek into darkness when jj abrams chose to have the enterprise rise from the sea, even if he failed to explain the logical science behind it. However it was visually cool to watch. but made no sense.

ST has had underwater ships before. And no one cared.

 

[Sci]

If you put elements like this in, then Star Trek and the Federation are no longer a vision of a future human society exploring space after they got their shit together and moved beyond their problems. It then becomes just 21st century humans, with all of the same issues and problems, transplanted to the 23rd century while serving in a space navy.

How about a third option?

The Federation is neither a future human society exploring space after they got all their shit together and moved beyond all their problems, nor is it just 21st Century humans with all of their same issues and problems transplanted into the future while serving in a space navy.

Rather, the Federation is a multi-species society -- not a human society; a multi-species society -- which has made major, major, significant progress in solving most of the biggest real-world problems such as a poverty, racism, misogyny, bigotry, war, disease, etc., and which is so far advanced of ours that it is not at all just "21st Century humans with all of their problems transplanted into the future" -- but it also still has meaningful social problems that need to be solved. Real, significant progress of the sort that it might seem a virtual paradise by real-life standards, but still with problems of its own.

 

[Yistaan]

Ok, so what do we know about the augment ban? We know that they're not legally persecuted per se just for being augmented, but are banned from serving in Starfleet.

Ok what? Practically every sci-fi franchise other than Trek has the military actively trying to create super-soldiers! Captain America for one. Hulk in MCU was retconned from his comic book origins of an accident to yet another attempt to recreate Captain America. Wing Commander dabbled in genetically engineered soldiers. FF7's SOLDIER program had augmentation. Witchers are basically genetically enhanced. And so on.

Someone who can resist radiation and has super strength is someone the military would want on their side. Plus, we know Section 31 exists still as of SNW. It'd be more realistic if Una were quietly transferred and covered up, sent into a black ops squad, rather than being kicked out for real.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Ok, so what do we know about the augment ban? We know that they're not legally persecuted per se just for being augmented, but are banned from serving in Starfleet.

Ok what? Practically every sci-fi franchise other than Trek has the military actively trying to create super-soldiers! Captain America for one. Hulk in MCU was retconned from his comic book origins of an accident to yet another attempt to recreate Captain America. Wing Commander dabbled in genetically engineered soldiers. FF7's SOLDIER program had augmentation. Witchers are basically genetically enhanced. And so on.

Someone who can resist radiation and has super strength is someone the military would want on their side. Plus, we know Section 31 exists still as of SNW. It'd be more realistic if Una were quietly transferred and covered up, sent into a black ops squad, rather than being kicked out for real.

all those examples are missing one thing: Eugenic Wars in their past.
Star Trek is a universe were super soldiers already existed and tried to take over the Earth.

 

[Sci]

Ok, so what do we know about the augment ban? We know that they're not legally persecuted per se just for being augmented, but are banned from serving in Starfleet.

I don't think that's clear. "Ghosts of Illyria" certainly implied that Augments are subjected to widespread bigotry and discrimination within Federation society in the 2250s. Perhaps that level of bigotry has mostly ended by 2373 (when "Dr. Bashir, I Presume?" is set), but it does seem that Augments face some level of persecution in the Federation of the 2250s.

Furthermore -- I gotta say, the institute for dysfunctional Augments that the Jack Pack were sent to in the 24th Century? It doesn't strike me as operating in a very enlightened manner. Given what we saw in "Statistical Probabilities" and "Chrysalis," I think there's a distinct possibility that Federation culture even in the 2370s shuns and un-persons Augments if their augmentations went wrong, similar to the way modern U.S. culture often treats the severely mentally ill.

Ok what? Practically every sci-fi franchise other than Trek has the military actively trying to create super-soldiers! <SNIP> It'd be more realistic if Una were quietly transferred and covered up, sent into a black ops squad, rather than being kicked out for real.

That's one storytelling possibility. But Federation bias against Augments seems very pervasive and strong; I'm not convinced the utility of Augment officers like Una would overcome anti-Augment bigotry.