Well, the ban is stupid anyway.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
The Denobulans probably didn't vote for it and I don't blame them if they didn't support the ban.
I don’t mind Neelix
Faith of the Heart is a great song and fits the theme and tone of a Trek prequel
Janeway is a good captain
Faith of the Heart is a great song and fits the theme and tone of a Trek prequel
Janeway is a good captain
Indeed. Making a human-Vulcan hybrid, two species with completely different blood chemistry, would have required a major feat of genetic engineering.
I think the ban is largely a "we never considered genetic modification when setting up the Trek universe" mea culpa.
Maybe?
I think the ban was "Hey, we need drama for a character in Bashir?"
"Genetic engineering?"
"Brilliant!"
And then they created the ban, even though we see the Federation experiment with it (TNG with Darwin Station) and used for therapies (VOY and Tom and B'Elanna's child). It's untenable in it's general execution. It's there for drama.
And now there are two ways of going about it. One, you ignore it, and treat it as a character misspoke, retcon, or whatever. Two, you work within it and continue on with the dramatic potential even though it makes no sense.
I'm pretty sure Ira Steven Behr or someone admitted that was exactly why they created the ban, since genetic engineering hadn't really been tackled in Trek. As I recall, the ban wasn't mentioned until DS9: "Doctor Bashir, I Presume", well into its fifth season, despite a Federation genetic engineering lab previously having been seen in TNG: "Unnatural Selection".
Edit: Ninja'd.
The ban didn't really start until DS9's 5th season "DOCTOR BASHIR, I PRESUME?".
Though it doesn't explain Darwin Station in TNG's "Unnatural Selection".
Tom and B'Elanna's baby can be explained by it being used to correct a curvature of the spine... a birth defect. The DS9 episode explained genetic engineering can be used to stop birth defects, which Bashir himself said. (Though it doesn't really explain Geordi... unless his parents were strongly against its use regardless of birth defects or the caveat for such a thing wasn't written in law until after he was born.)
Genetic engineering on the level of creating people like Khan, I can understand why it's banned. Worf's point in "STATISTICAL PROBABILITIES" is just one good reason why it shouldn't be done.
If you want to look at a society outside of STAR TREK where they do such things and it makes almost all of them look like selfish dicks that pillage and are generally bad guys, look at the Nietzscheans from ANDROMEDA.
Though it doesn't explain Darwin Station in TNG's "Unnatural Selection".
Tom and B'Elanna's baby can be explained by it being used to correct a curvature of the spine... a birth defect. The DS9 episode explained genetic engineering can be used to stop birth defects, which Bashir himself said. (Though it doesn't really explain Geordi... unless his parents were strongly against its use regardless of birth defects or the caveat for such a thing wasn't written in law until after he was born.)
Genetic engineering on the level of creating people like Khan, I can understand why it's banned. Worf's point in "STATISTICAL PROBABILITIES" is just one good reason why it shouldn't be done.
If you want to look at a society outside of STAR TREK where they do such things and it makes almost all of them look like selfish dicks that pillage and are generally bad guys, look at the Nietzscheans from ANDROMEDA.
Wouldn't a severe learning disability be considered a birth defect? Or was it the channel (Adigeon Prime, vs a Federation hospital) Richard used, or the treatment he procured (DNA resequencing, as opposed to special education, or medication, or surgery) to seek Julian's treatment that was the issue?
A learning disability considered a birth defect in the Federation? That I don't know, but the resequencing did greatly improve his hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and agility in addition to his brain.
Strictly speaking, those additions were not needed, even if the argument can be made about a learning disability.
What could be achieved elsewise need not be done via that method - it's not life-threatening, like he'll bleed out if you don't give him superbrains.
Yeah, the superhero mods weren't needed.
Yeah, the superhero mods weren't needed.
I actually think the ban makes sense for a progressive society like the Federation, since Worf's explanation in "Statistical Probabilities" is indeed a damn good reason for why allowing parents to play with their children's genome is a bad idea.
Just think about what that technology would mean if it existed in our world. How many parents would choose to change their gay or trans child if it could be controlled for? Every evangelical parent would force a "conversion" on their child and that child would have no choice in it. Or how many might make their child a different shade of skin color because of colorism/racism concerns? That's even before the arms race of trying to control for genetic factors in intelligence and strength. And moreover, some would be doing it to both living and unborn children with no agency in how aspects of their lives were being chosen for them.
Just think about what that technology would mean if it existed in our world. How many parents would choose to change their gay or trans child if it could be controlled for? Every evangelical parent would force a "conversion" on their child and that child would have no choice in it. Or how many might make their child a different shade of skin color because of colorism/racism concerns? That's even before the arms race of trying to control for genetic factors in intelligence and strength. And moreover, some would be doing it to both living and unborn children with no agency in how aspects of their lives were being chosen for them.
This was my biggest issue with how Strange New Worlds tried to tie the issue to an LGBTQ allegory, since I think the comparison falls apart when you take into account the issues raised with Dr. Bashir in Deep Space Nine.
Regarding giving Bashir that storyline...
Retroactively, the pieces do fit, if you look at certain things in other episodes previous to it.
"DISTANT VOICES" - Lethean telepathic attacks are 'almost always fatal'. Was he really lucky, or was this a clue to his highly sequenced brain?
"OUR MAN BASHIR" - Bashir shoots Garak with his shoe-gun on the very tip of his neck ridge. Was it really a near-miss, or was Bashir that precise with his aim, hinting at his hand-eye coordination?
There's other little things, but those are two things that really stand out to me.
Retroactively, the pieces do fit, if you look at certain things in other episodes previous to it.
"DISTANT VOICES" - Lethean telepathic attacks are 'almost always fatal'. Was he really lucky, or was this a clue to his highly sequenced brain?
"OUR MAN BASHIR" - Bashir shoots Garak with his shoe-gun on the very tip of his neck ridge. Was it really a near-miss, or was Bashir that precise with his aim, hinting at his hand-eye coordination?
There's other little things, but those are two things that really stand out to me.
So is the "no more Khans" argument just an excuse? We have enough people with advantages, real or imagined, lording it over the have-nots and are-nots.
The difference, I suppose, is that unlike advantages of ability, birth, class, talent, etc, the advantages afforded by creating supermen are those of skill, strength, survivability, intelligence lightyears beyond what's achievable by natural genetics people. They are on a level we can't compete with - the genetic equivalent of Gary Mitchell's galactic barrier-imparted powers. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The difference, I suppose, is that unlike advantages of ability, birth, class, talent, etc, the advantages afforded by creating supermen are those of skill, strength, survivability, intelligence lightyears beyond what's achievable by natural genetics people. They are on a level we can't compete with - the genetic equivalent of Gary Mitchell's galactic barrier-imparted powers. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
In that same episode, it's also mentioned that he deliberately got a question wrong in his exam so that he wouldn't be top of his class. That could also be retroactively interpreted as not wanting to seem too intelligent.
As I have said before (but I'm not going to look up) it starts out great and then goes downhill with every act. The teaser was my favorite Star Trek episode in 40+ years. (Now I have SNW, so I'm good.) I actually like the whole Kirk, Spock, and Uhura excursion. "Let me speak Klingon" is one of the most Star Trek-ky scenes ever. Then Khan shows up. Bleh.
I'm not saying Star Trek can't do action (I liked Beyond) but that ending chase with Spock and Kha--- Sorry, I fell asleep just thinking about it.
If I wanted to watch a "The war on terror was totally made up for someone else's gain" movie then I had just seen Iron Man III a week or two before.
Not vastly superior to '09. But probably better than '09. It has some blemishes. Going back to "Starfleet makes it's own villains" AGAIN. I liked the motorcycle scenes WAY more than whatever it was that they were doing on Yorktown.
Where? I mean, that's how STID (no colon, so ST is part of the abbreviation) treats it. Old Spock's reaction of "Oh no! It's KHAN! I must tell them EVERYTHING I said I would never tell them!" was because they assumed that the audience had never seen any Star Trek outside of TWOK.
He was in the movie that everyone liked. And he was played by the guy from Fantasy Island. But before TWOK Space Seed wasn't considered one of the most memorable TOS episodes and certainly not the most memorable antagonist.
Hear, hear!
That seems to be the message these days - it isn't the "other" we're to fear and fight, it's the corruption within.
Perhaps due to my participating in multiple forums at the time (I was crazy. What was I thinking), but Khan repeatedly was on the top villian lists, in Star Trek magazine articles, and people going about the next villain "Oh, is this the new Khan?"
And then you had TWOK become the formula by which Trek films are measured, with First Contact being more successful and Nemesis less so. Into Darkness was the final nail from my point of view as Khan as "the greatest Trek villain."
Oh, hell no. I couldn't stand that movie and the beginning of my Marvel walking away.
If you reverse that (ID being worst, ST09 being second worst), you would be accurate.
Similar threads
- Locked
