The Utopian Federation: Restart

[Nightdiamond]

I'll admit, it probably only seems like it is getting worse each time, than it actually was.

Especially when you compare the later series to TNG. It's like with each new series or movie, they crank up the dysfunction level.

An admiral tries to take over earth. The Feds want to forcefully remove a peaceful colony while allied with a questionable power.. ..The Fed tricked another power into going to war. Attempted Genocide. Archer torturing aliens.

It's like the only thing about Utopia that remained stable is the prosperity and that's it.

We have to base Trek's advance society on the statements and claims from TOS and TNG as the foundation.

What it boils down to was either Picard full of it, telling the truth, or in denial of what the Fed really is.


Or was Utopia, as desirable as it is, was too boring to do for long, and they had to make Trek more edgier?

 

[Sindatur]

I'll admit, it probably only seems like it is getting worse each time, than it actually was.

Especially when you compare the later series to TNG. It's like with each new series or movie, they crank up the dysfunction level.

An admiral tries to take over earth. The Feds want to forcefully remove a peaceful colony while allied with a questionable power.. ..The Fed tricked another power into going to war. Attempted Genocide. Archer torturing aliens.

It's like the only thing about Utopia that remained stable is the prosperity and that's it.

We have to base Trek's advance society on the statements and claims from TOS and TNG as the foundation.

What it boils down to was either Picard full of it, telling the truth, or in denial of what the Fed really is.


Or was Utopia, as desirable as it is, was too boring to do for long, and they had to make Trek more edgier?

Well, keep in mind also, Utopia was only on Earth, The Maquis are on the fringe of Federation Space against the Cardassian Border (And some of it inside the Cardassian border) and the Cardassians weren't nice about it, so that's definitely excused.
Admiral trying to take over Earth, well he snapped, it happens.
Sisko, he had the fate of the entire Alpha Quadrant (And probably Beta Quadrant next) in his hands, and a defeat was very possibly very close.
Archer, a ship alone, in unexplored space, no Federation Declaration of Principles yet....

 

[Sci]

I'll admit, it probably only seems like it is getting worse each time, than it actually was.

Especially when you compare the later series to TNG. It's like with each new series or movie, they crank up the dysfunction level.

An admiral tries to take over earth.

Well, technically, he was trying to take over the entire Federation, not just Earth. But Admiral Leyton is in essence the same sort of character as Admiral Satie from "The Drumhead;" he just got further in his authoritarianism before being stopped.

But he was stopped, let's remember.

The Feds want to forcefully remove a peaceful colony while allied with a questionable power..

You mean like they did in TNG's "Journey's End?"

..The Fed tricked another power into going to war.

True, this is much darker than anything we ever saw in DS9. By the same token, though, the situation we saw in DS9 was much more dire than anything we ever saw in TNG.

Attempted Genocide.

The Federation did not attempt genocide; Section 31 did, without the Federation government's knowledge or approval. The Federation should no more be blamed for Section 31's genocide attempt than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should be blamed for al Qaeda's actions on 9/11, or than the Italian Republic should be blamed for the crimes of the Sicilian Mafia.

Archer torturing aliens.

While it's true that that's darker than anything we ever saw on TNG, I don't see how that's applicable to the question of how the Federation was depicted. ENT took place before the Federation was founded; you might as well condemn the United States for the Kingdom of England's oppression of the Irish if you want to hold Archer's actions against the Federation.

I would suggest that the most basic reason we saw something so dark in ENT was that ENT's third season was being written in part as a reaction to the incredibly dark times it was written in. When "Broken Bow" first aired, smoke was still rising from Ground Zero in New York City. When "The Expanse" first aired at the end of ENT Season Two, kicking off the Xindi arc, the United States was only two months into an illegal war of aggression against, and brutal occupation of, the Republic of Iraq. I would suggest that it's simply not reasonable to suggest the STAR TREK writers of the 2000s should not have been influenced by the dark history unfolding around them is unreasonable.

And while it's true that Archer does some really awful things during the Xindi arc, it's also true that Archer's ultimate solution to the Xindi crisis is non-militaristic. Instead of seeking blind revenge against all of Xindi society for their attack on Earth--and attack that cost 7 million lives--Archer seeks to make peace. He seeks to persuade the Xindi Council that Earth does not represent a threat to them, and to help them realize they are being manipulated by the Sphere Builders. And he even teams up with some Xindi factions when the Xindi Reptilians refuse to believe that peace is possible with Earth. That's a far cry from the sort of blind militarism that has characterized much of American politics since 9/11.

It's like the only thing about Utopia that remained stable is the prosperity and that's it.

Again, the Federation was never utopia. It's always had bad apples, and it's always had some institutional injustices that require Our Heroes to stand up against. And that's fine, because all governments are and will always be vulnerable to institutional corruption; we can never be delivered from history. STAR TREK does us, the audience, a disservice if it ever implies there will one day be a governmental system that will be immune to the temptations of power; STAR TREK's optimism doesn't come from the idea that there will never be corruption and injustice, but from the idea that a vigilant populace and vanguard will stop it. STAR TREK isn't optimistic if Admiral Leyton never tries to launch a coup, it's optimistic because Captain Sisko stops him.

What it boils down to was either Picard full of it, telling the truth, or in denial of what the Fed really is.

I think it's safe to say that the characters in early TNG tended to overstate the Federation's virtues, and to overestimate their own levels of enlightenment. I think it's also safe t say that the Federation's flaws do not render it some sort of horrible, monstrous regime; it is, by any reasonable measure, a far more free and far more egalitarian and far less oppressive society than any which exists in real life.

Or was Utopia, as desirable as it is, was too boring to do for long, and they had to make Trek more edgier?

It's not that utopia is boring. It's that it's dishonest. It can never and will never exist. It's not optimism to imagine perfection, it's optimism to imagine progress.

 

[The Castellan]

Because writers have hard ons for darker crap, it seems.

 

[The Castellan]

most people believe the root of most of our Social Ills is poverty.

Greed for wealth and power is more likely. Many times it's the mega elite who causes problems.

 

[LobsterAfternoon]

I don't think there's been any indication that there's no crime in the Federation. The Maquis are criminals, nu-Kirk was called an "offender" by nu Pike, Tom Paris was in a penal colony prior to his assignment on Voyager. I'd suspect there's less crime, but it hasn't been eliminated entirely.

 

[Nightdiamond]

My original view was that humans had simply solved a lot of problems, they had changed for the better.
But after looking back at the things said in trek, I had to come to the conclusion that they were describing a Utopian society.

We have to accept them as canon because it came directly out of the character's mouth, no matter how over the top they are;

Here's some examples from the original thread;

BEVERLY: Cryonics. It was a kind of fad in the late twentieth century. People feared dying.It terrified them.

This always seemed uber Utopian to me. Beverly seems to be saying that humans in her time aren't afraid of dying. They're so advanced they don't react to it the way modern humans do.

Uhura: But why should I object to that term, sir? In our century, we've learned not to fear words.

Now, Uhura is claiming that all humans generally aren't bothered by slurs, insults or offensive names. Not in the slightest.

So, if you called Troi a sleazy, sexy looking b#tch, it wouldn't bother her at all! The 24th century is starting to sound like fun! You can say whatever you want!

TROI: Poverty was eliminated on Earth a long time ago, and a lot of other things disappeared with it. Hopelessness, despair, cruelty

SOONG: And what's so important about the past? People needed money, they got sick. Why tie yourself to that?

Sisko: On Earth there's no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet headquarters and you see... paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in paradise. But the Maquis don't live in paradise.

This bears out what Sindatur posted a few posts back.

Now this finally seals the deal--paradise. Not only do humans have this perfect psychology thing going on, but earth is absolutely beautiful with no blemishes at all.

So we have... no crime, people aren't afraid of dying, no poverty, people don't get offended by words anymore, people don't get sick..earth looks like paradise, you don't need money..

No sexism, men wear skirts too, no one judges by the outward appearance, people walk around naked all day
(ok I made that last one up).

This looks way too much like an Utopia society to me, when you add it all up..

 

[Sci]

We have to accept them as canon because it came directly out of the character's mouth, no matter how over the top they are;

No, we don't. There's a wonderful phrase: "unreliable narrator." When a character is obviously being ethnocentric or making ludicrous claims that fly in the face of reality, I see no reason to take them at their word.

Here's some examples from the original thread;

BEVERLY: Cryonics. It was a kind of fad in the late twentieth century. People feared dying.It terrified them.

And then in numerous subsequent TNG, DS9, and VOY eps and films, we saw Federation Humans who feared death. We can safely ignore this nonsense.

This always seemed uber Utopian to me. Beverly seems to be saying that humans in her time aren't afraid of dying. They're so advanced they don't react to it the way modern humans do.

Not being afraid of death isn't "advanced;" it's a sign of mental dysfunction.

Uhura: But why should I object to that term, sir? In our century, we've learned not to fear words.

Now, Uhura is claiming that all humans generally aren't bothered by slurs, insults or offensive names. Not in the slightest.

You're taking a very narrow context -- that of a man famous for freeing the slaves nonetheless demonstrating that he still held some of the racism of his era by using a racial slur without realizing it, and then apologizing, thus demonstrating a willingness to change; and Uhura forgiving him for it by saying that she's not bothered by his words -- and trying to make a very broad assertion about very widespread application in a variety of completely different circumstances. This broad interpretation of the line is not necessarily supported by the actual evidence.

Racial slurs are generally objected to when the speaker uses them as deliberate verbal weapons in order to perpetuate or justify the oppression of the targeted group. Saying "we've learned not to fear words" would ignore the role of language in constructing rhetorical justifications for oppression. I'd say it's far more likely that Uhura is saying that the 24th Century Federation has a strong tradition of freedom of speech and that she's not going to hold a man's ethnocentrism against him when he demonstrates a willingness to grow and change; I don't think she'd be as forgiving if Captain Kirk were to call her the N-word.

We've created a paradise here and we're willing to fight to protect it.

Now this finally seals the deal--paradise. Not only do humans have this perfect psychology thing going on, but earth is absolutely beautiful with no blemishes at all.

That's a ridiculous leap to make. You're taking a character who is speaking in a very figurative, emotive way in order to construct rhetorical justifications for militarism and authoritarianism -- in particular to get his fellow officers in the right emotional frame of mind to support his coup attempt -- and then taking his words at face value and assuming he's both literal and accurate. That's just absurd.

Sisko: On Earth there's no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet headquarters and you see... paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in paradise. But the Maquis don't live in paradise.

Again, it's pretty obvious that Sisko is speaking in generalities and metaphors, not speaking literal truth. In particular, he's comparing Earth to planets that have a great deal of social issues, and speaking figuratively of Earth as a paradise in comparison to those other worlds.

To put it another way: If you're in the mood, you might find yourself comparing New Zealand with Somalia. If you do, you'll find that economic inequality is much lower in New Zealand; that crime is much lower; that unemployment and poverty are much lower; that New Zealand is at peace, while Somalia has been torn apart in terrible civil wars for generations now; that New Zealand is prosperous while Somalia is poor; that New Zealand is free while Somalis live under the tyrannies of both poverty and brutal warlords. In comparison to Somalia, New Zealand is a paradise.

This does not mean that New Zealand is literally paradise.

(And of course there's crime on Earth. If there weren't crime on Earth, there would be no need for the Federation Penal Colony in New Zealand!)

So we have... no crime, people aren't afraid of dying, no poverty, people don't get offended by words anymore, people don't get sick..earth looks like paradise, you don't need money..

No sexism, men wear skirts too, no one judges by the outward appearance, people walk around naked all day
(ok I made that last one up).

This looks way too much like an Utopia society to me, when you add it all up..

You're taking characters way too literally, and putting irrational, non-literal assertions over empirical facts.

 

[DAYoung]

One of the more telling moments of TNG was First Contact, in which Picard speaks of the Federation's "evolved sensibility". No-one watching can take him seriously, and that's the point: Federation citizens, like anyone, can fail to live up to their own ambitions.

What's important is that: they have these ambitions; they seem to have the social and economic conditions to promote them; and, within Starfleet anyway, they seem to educate their members to live up to them, and to help one another do the same.

As has been pointed out, Starfleet and the Federation have some genuinely nasty folk, and some good folk who turn nasty - but someone usually stops them, for good reasons.

 

[sonak]

this brings to mind a Socialist writer who was asked if there will still be psychological problems in a Socialist society.

He or she responded that there would be of course, but that the problems would be far more interesting than they would be in a capitalist one.

I think the point is that just because everyone's basic needs are taken care of doesn't mean the citizens all become perfect. But that they're freed from the much more mundane and artificial problems of a society where you're forced to struggle for your survival.

They'd be elevated but still flawed.

 

[Nightdiamond]

One of the more telling moments of TNG was First Contact, in which Picard speaks of the Federation's "evolved sensibility". No-one watching can take him seriously, and that's the point:

I just listened to a clip of it-- he does seem to contradict himself while saying all of this. Yet at the same time, he really does seem to believe it.

One thing is, is 'we don't stoop to revenge" an Utopian type statement or just a creed?

I think the point is that just because everyone's basic needs are taken care of doesn't mean the citizens all become perfect.

True, Trek has never really explained the behavior part. It always described humans changing for the better by referring to the elimination of poverty.

Maybe that's a basic assumption.

But how do you get from poverty is eliminated to 'we judge no one by outward appearances anymore?'

That's a ridiculous leap to make. You're taking a character who is speaking in a very figurative, emotive way in order to construct rhetorical justifications for militarism and authoritarianism

A number of different characters has referred to earth as a paradise, in different contexts. It's not too much of a stretch at all.

Consider that earth has weather modification systems, (and other things) it would probably be easy to create lush landscapes-to the point of shaping the environment around them.

We pretty much see it whenever they show a landscape scene on earth. It's beautiful. So we've got the visual aspect.

Combine it with the little or no crime aspect, no money needed, food is free, everyone is basically happy, no sexism, no racism, no bigotry, there's freedom, virtually no illnesses, and all the technological goodies, that's a good argument that humans at least think they live in Utopia.

They call it paradise, because it looks and feels like paradise to them. Probably for us too.

 

[The Castellan]

Picard might have been contradictory in his first contact speech, but he later realized he was acting against what he holds dear. Not many people can realize something like that.

Not being afraid of death isn't "advanced;" it's a sign of mental dysfunction.

No, it's more like death is just but a journey, many cultures think the same, as well.


But regardless, I still view the world seen in Trek far more superior to what we have, now.

 

[DAYoung]

I just listened to a clip of it-- he does seem to contradict himself while saying all of this. Yet at the same time, he really does seem to believe it.

One thing is, is 'we don't stoop to revenge" an Utopian type statement or just a creed?

From what I can tell, Picard genuinely believes it, and it is an accurate reflection of his mindset most of the time, and that of most of his colleagues.

My point is that, however utopian the Federation seems, the writers have (on occasion) let us glimpse at less savoury psychological and sociological parts.

 

[sonak]

Picard might have been contradictory in his first contact speech, but he later realized he was acting against what he holds dear. Not many people can realize something like that.

Not being afraid of death isn't "advanced;" it's a sign of mental dysfunction.

No, it's more like death is just but a journey, many cultures think the same, as well.


But regardless, I still view the world seen in Trek far more superior to what we have, now.

um, death is probably not a "journey" to anywhere. It's just death. Doesn't mean you have to be afraid of it, but it doesn't help to be in denial about what it is either.

 

[The Castellan]

Picard might have been contradictory in his first contact speech, but he later realized he was acting against what he holds dear. Not many people can realize something like that.

Not being afraid of death isn't "advanced;" it's a sign of mental dysfunction.

No, it's more like death is just but a journey, many cultures think the same, as well.


But regardless, I still view the world seen in Trek far more superior to what we have, now.

um, death is probably not a "journey" to anywhere. It's just death. Doesn't mean you have to be afraid of it, but it doesn't help to be in denial about what it is either.

I might not be able to prove there's something after death, but equally, you can not prove one just winks into total oblivion upon death, no, you can't.

Some see it as a journey to another state of existence, me being one of them.

 

[sonak]

Picard might have been contradictory in his first contact speech, but he later realized he was acting against what he holds dear. Not many people can realize something like that.

No, it's more like death is just but a journey, many cultures think the same, as well.


But regardless, I still view the world seen in Trek far more superior to what we have, now.

um, death is probably not a "journey" to anywhere. It's just death. Doesn't mean you have to be afraid of it, but it doesn't help to be in denial about what it is either.

I might not be able to prove there's something after death, but equally, you can not prove one just winks into total oblivion upon death, no, you can't.

Some see it as a journey to another state of existence, me being one of them.

It doesn't work that way. Making the claim that personal existence lasts beyond one's death is an extraordinary thing to claim, and it contradicts our current understanding of the way that the brain and consciousness works. So the burden is on those who claim such a thing to provide evidence that it would be plausible, and to theorize a way for how it would come about.(is there a machine out there that reincarnates us, for example?)


I can't disprove a claim you might make that an invisible six foot rabbit made entirely of peanut butter that tells great knock-knock jokes lives in your place of residence, either.

I'm not trying to offend here, just to clarify. If your beliefs give you comfort, then that's your business.

 

[T'Girl]

Some see it as a journey to another state of existence, me being one of them.

Picard's reveals in Where Silence Has Lease that he possesses the belief that Humans do not "blinking into nothingness, with all our experiences, hopes and dreams" upon our deaths. Picard might not be a member of a organized religion, but he too embraces some personal spiritual beliefs about the self continuing after death.

Making the claim that personal existence lasts beyond one's death is an extraordinary thing to claim ...

Extraordinary? I disagree, if anything the claim of survival subsequent to death is quite common amongst Humans, and is hardly either uncommon or unusual.

 

[sonak]

Some see it as a journey to another state of existence, me being one of them.

Picard's reveals in Where Silence Has Lease that he possesses the belief that Humans do not "blinking into nothingness, with all our experiences, hopes and dreams" upon our deaths. Picard might not be a member of a organized religion, but he too embraces some personal spiritual beliefs about the self continuing after death.

Making the claim that personal existence lasts beyond one's death is an extraordinary thing to claim ...

Extraordinary? I disagree, if anything the claim of survival subsequent to death is quite common amongst Humans, and is hardly either uncommon or unusual.

Really?!?! Not uncommon or unusual? Encountered a lot of dead people, have you?

(NDEs don't count for obvious reasons. I'm talking about those that are actually dead)

 

[Nightdiamond]

NDE may be able to least strongly suggest there might be something else. "Suggest" is the keyword.

A person who had been born blind had an NDE, and could vividly describe the ceilings she floated through, her own body, the doctor and the nurse working on her, and the objects they used.

I think I was wearing the plain gold band on my right ring finger and my father's wedding ring next to it. But my wedding ring I definitely saw ... That was the one I noticed the most because it's most unusual. It has orange blossoms on the corners of it.

Not undeniable proof, but interesting enough to look into further. Sometimes it's the silly excuses that skeptics use to explain the phenomena that can be described as extrodinary -- and I tend to be skeptical myself.

What I get from Beverly's statement is she is implying that 24th century humans are so much more advanced, well, that they don't fear death, the way modern, primitive 20th century humans do.

Some of TNG's claims about what humans are or how 'evolved' they are are fascinating.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Hell, the very second episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before," establishes widespread Human prejudice against telepaths.

I think it was a desire not to end up like the Valiant that was motivating everyone there instead of a prejudice against telepaths

An admiral tries to take over earth.

Well, technically, he was trying to take over the entire Federation, not just Earth. But Admiral Leyton is in essence the same sort of character as Admiral Satie from "The Drumhead;" he just got further in his authoritarianism before being stopped.

That and he was more subtle about it.

The Feds want to forcefully remove a peaceful colony while allied with a questionable power..

You mean like they did in TNG's "Journey's End?"

To be fair in "Journey's End' it was a federation colony not a planet populated by non-federation members, and the feds left the colonists alone for the most part when they ultimately decided to stay.