Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Are you contending that the Federated States of Micronesia is not a sovereign state? The Republic of Palau? The Republic of Indonesia? The Republic of the Marshall Islands? The Republic of Maldives? The Republic of Seychelles?
But they're all not the same sovereign state. The island nations of the Pacific Ocean would be a good analogy for the Federation, if those nations were to join into some form of cooperative defense and trade organization.
With the various islands of say Micronesia being a species home world and their many star-colonies and resource worlds. Seperately, the Philiphines with it's many outlaying islands being colonies. Seperate again, the Marshall Islands with it's own collection of islands being colonies. All are internally sovereign, but who come together for limited purposes (trade, defense, etc.) the oceans between their territories they would exercize collective control over ... maybe even have a speed limit there, but not inside their sovereign areas. They would contribute their navys to collective action, but also use them for national purposes too.
Like how sometimes in TOS, Kirk was on missions directly for Earth, and other times on missions for the Federation.
Maybe one day, they'll even have a group "Flagship.'
Well, "ENT: United" established that the ushaan ritual was already rare and dying out. We don't even know if it still exists as a provision of 24th Century Andorian law.
But if it does? That doesn't necessarily violate anyone's rights. Federation law may allow for mutual consensual homicide if both parties consent to such fights to the death. A strong argument can be made that consenting adults should be able to kill one-another, if they both agree to accept the possibility of the other combatant winning.
We forbid usury, organ trade as well as mutually consensual slaughter for the same reason.
Over here we had a case of cannibalism some years ago. A guy wanted to be eaten, another wanted to eat him. He was convicted for murder and rightly so.
So yeah, don't tell me that you really claim that such things should not be punished while forbidding the not-so-blue folks from going to school requires the muscle of half of Starfleet.
1. We don't know that. We don't know how large Starfleet is, and we don't know how large the Federation's population is.
2. It's also irrelevant. A single phaser can vaporize huge edifices (as seen in TNG's "The Ensigns of Command"). A single starship can wipe out all life on a planet. The ability of the state to use force is thus vastly increased for much smaller numbers of agents of the state.
You don't seriously suggest orbital bombardments and phaser strikes, do you? We talk about the UFP invading a planet with billions of inhabitants.
Are you contending that the Federated States of Micronesia is not a sovereign state? The Republic of Palau? The Republic of Indonesia? The Republic of the Marshall Islands? The Republic of Maldives? The Republic of Seychelles?
They're all sovereign states that are geographically composed of small islands spread far apart. Doesn't mean they're not sovereign states -- or federal states.
There is a large difference between sending the US military to a place a few hours away and having a major part of your fleet transport troops over weeks to a member planet.
I mean, seriously. You're jumping to the most ridiculously extreme scenario here.
We talk about the UFP invading a member planet who changes into a direction incompatible with Federation principles. In such a situation the local police and military forces will not stand idly by while your force yourself in.
This is an "extreme scenario", whether you wanna see it or not. Now if the local government asks for Federation assistance that's one thing but to start a war with the locals or interfere unasked in a brewing civil war is totally different ... and bloody.
The problem with that assertion is that Kirk's logs make it very clear that "Journey to Babel"'s plot hinges on the Federation being in the midst of a major political crisis over the issue of the admission of Coridan, with Federation Members who have financial interests in illegally mining Coridanite dilithium because of the weakness of the Coridanite government being at the throats of Federation Members who favor admission in order to strengthen the Coridanite government and ensure that Coridanite wealth is distributed fairly amongst the Coridanite populace. The episode makes it very clear that the situation it depicts is a major, major deviation from the norm.
Yeah, and the other 364 days of the year the Federation is a big happy family. What utter nonsense. The behaviour of the ambassadors makes it evident that such conflicts occur regularly. The Federation is not a big happy family and the differencse between Andoria and Tellar are far larger than those between Massachusetts and Vermont.
As I said, I am all for good, centralized, progressive rule but totally against Roman rule. If somebody wants to quit the club you allow him to go and don't force him at gunpoint to something he does not really want anymore.
I know that this is not how democracy works in our world, the zero level of violence of any democracy is that you cannot decide about the democratic framework itself. But interspecies issues are not so simple.
Yeah, and the other 364 days of the year the Federation is a big happy family. What utter nonsense. The behaviour of the ambassadors makes it evident that such conflicts occur regularly.
Quite the opposite, really...the first time we ever SEE Vulcan in TOS, it's established that a Vulcan is perfectly capable of refusing - by choosing the "kalifee" (challenge).
Are you contending that the Federated States of Micronesia is not a sovereign state? The Republic of Palau? The Republic of Indonesia? The Republic of the Marshall Islands? The Republic of Maldives? The Republic of Seychelles?
Well, "ENT: United" established that the ushaan ritual was already rare and dying out. We don't even know if it still exists as a provision of 24th Century Andorian law.
But if it does? That doesn't necessarily violate anyone's rights. Federation law may allow for mutual consensual homicide if both parties consent to such fights to the death. A strong argument can be made that consenting adults should be able to kill one-another, if they both agree to accept the possibility of the other combatant winning.
I'm not even saying that that's necessarily invalid, but you didn't actually say what that same reason is.
Over here we had a case of cannibalism some years ago. A guy wanted to be eaten, another wanted to eat him. He was convicted for murder and rightly so.
I heard about that a few years ago. My general answer would be this:
Among Humans, it's pretty clear that in the overwhelming majority of cases, a physically healthy person wanting to die is a sign of mental illness, and thus of an inability to truly consent. Especially in, say, the case of a young man who wants to be killed and eaten.
Other species, however, may have a different evolutionary psychology. Maybe, for instance, competition for resources was fierce earlier in Andorians' evolution, and thus the possibility of mutual homicide became seen as a viable form of conflict resolution -- since its most negative possible outcome, the death of both participants, would actually benefit the rest of the group. So it's possible that with an alien species, a willingness to die is not automatically a sign of mental illness and thus an inability to truly consent.
And the Federation, being a union of divergent sentient species, would need to device a legal system that protects the rights of both, for universally applicable reasons.
So I would argue that the Federation passing a law that says, "We recognize the validity of consensual violent conflict resolution rituals involving the possibility of homicide, but we also recognize that among some species, a willingness to die is a sign of mental illness and therefore an inability to consent. It depends upon the ability to consent of the relevant parties."
So yeah, don't tell me that you really claim that such things should not be punished
Are you asking me if I think the Meiwes example should be illegal?
Well, my general principle is that if two consenting adults are of sound mind, they should be able to do to one-another whatever they like, and the state should not be able to interfere. If Jim and Bob want to have sex, the state should not be able to say, "No, you may not, because you are both men and that's icky."
My other general principle is that one's life belongs to one's self, not the state, which is why I object to the death penalty. I don't think the state has the right to take anyone's life except in instances of agents of the state engaging in immediate self-defense, because the state does not own its citizens' lives. In consequence, I tend to favor, for instance, legalizing assisted suicide -- there's no reason someone facing terminal cancer or a lifetime of constant physical pain should not be legally empowered to end their own lives on their own terms.
But, I would also argue that, as I said above, the suicidal urge is in the overwhelming majority of cases a sign of severe mental illness, and thus of an inability to consent. Especially if the person with the suicidal urge is physically healthy.
So, no, I don't think that Armin Meiwes should have been legally allowed to kill Bernd Jürgen Brandes, even if Bandes consented, because I don't accept the legitimacy of his consent. By the same token, however, I don't think that Dr. Jack Kevorkian should have been imprisoned for killing Thomas Youk, a man in the final stages of Lou Gehrig's disease who consented to his own death. So, personally, I do think there should be a role for consensual homicide in a free society, yes -- a very tightly regulated one where the burden is on the person wishing to die to prove that he or she is of sound mind and judgment, but still a place for it.
1. We don't know that. We don't know how large Starfleet is, and we don't know how large the Federation's population is.
2. It's also irrelevant. A single phaser can vaporize huge edifices (as seen in TNG's "The Ensigns of Command"). A single starship can wipe out all life on a planet. The ability of the state to use force is thus vastly increased for much smaller numbers of agents of the state.
No, I do not. I was talking about that to demonstrate why the size of Starfleet compared to the rest of society isn't important, not to advocate for the harshest possible form of violent retaliation.
We talk about the UFP invading a planet with billions of inhabitants.
Oh? Was the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army "invading" the State of Arkansas, with its population of 1.9 million people, when it deployed to the City of Little Rock in order to ensure the safety of Untied States citizens whose rights the Governor of the State of Arkansas was trying to violate? Are you under the impression that this required putting troops on every street corner and declaring martial law throughout all of Arkansas?
There is a large difference between sending the US military to a place a few hours away and having a major part of your fleet transport troops over weeks to a member planet.
Well, that depends on the situation, now doesn't it? I mean, let's use the Little Rock Nine example. Let's say that the year is 2195, and nine Aenar are attempting to enter Shran University as students because the Federation Supreme Court ruled that that's segregation and is now illegal throughout the UFP.
Let's say that the Andorian head of government -- I'm going to follow the novels' lead and call him the Presider -- is an anti-Aenar bigot, and has ordered a division of the Andorian Imperial Guard to be stationed at Shran University and prevent the Aenar from entering.
Now, if I'm Federation President, my proposal would be to parallel what President Eisenhower did. President Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to enter the State of Arkansas to protect the Little Rock Nine and federalized the entire Arkansas National Guard, pulling them out of the Governor's control. The Arkansas National Guard then assumed responsibility for protecting the same Little Rock Nine that they had been ordered to prevent from entering the school when under the Governor's command. When ordered to protect the Little Rock Nine, those Arkansas National Guard soldiers were told, "Our mission is to enforce the orders of the Federal Courts with respect to the attendance at the public schools of Little Rock of all those who are properly enrolled, and to maintain law and order while doing so... Our individual feelings towards those court orders should have no influence on our execution of the mission."
So, if I'm Federation President, my proposal is this: That I call the Andorian Imperial Guard into Federation service, taking them out of the command of the Andorian Presider, and then order the Starfleet Admiral in command of Starbase 3, in orbit of Andor, to beam a contingent of Starfleet troops down to Shran University to enforce the law: To protect those Aenar Federates wishing to enter Shran University as students, and to make sure that no riots take place and protect everyone's safety. After a while, I would then order a contingent of Imperial Guardsmen to beam down and work alongside the Starfleet contingent with the same mission.
This would not necessitate an invasion -- especially since there would already be numerous Starfleet officers stationed at Andor, both on the surface and in Starfleet starbases, shipyards, and starships in orbit and within the Andorian system simply by virtue of Andor being a Federation Member. In fact, it's improbable that it would even necessitate deploying troops anywhere outside of Shran University. And if violence breaks out, this should have the potential to be significantly less violent than the Little Rock Nine example, since phasers have a "stun" option that rifles do not.
I mean, seriously. You're jumping to the most ridiculously extreme scenario here.
We talk about the UFP invading a member planet who changes into a direction incompatible with Federation principles. In such a situation the local police and military forces will not stand idly by while your force yourself in.
In fact, what makes you think that there would be any unanimity of opinion on whatever the issue is? If we look, again, at the Little Rock Nine example, the school board and the Mayor of the City of Little Rock wanted to integrate, and it was the Governor, alongside numerous private citizens, who was trying to stop it. There was plenty of division within Little Rock's white community.
There's no particular reason to assume unanimity on the part of a Federation Member whose government has decided to do something that violates Federation law. It's just as likely that there'd be a huge contingent of locals who take the Federation's side.
And let's get very specific here: If something like that were to happen, that wouldn't be a Federation Member choosing to violate Federation principles. That would be a group within that Member's society choosing to dominate and oppress another group -- another group of Federation citizens, who would be entitled to Federation protection of their rights under Federation law. You're not talking about some foreign country, you're talking about the Federation turning its back on its own citizens while others oppress them.
The problem with that assertion is that Kirk's logs make it very clear that "Journey to Babel"'s plot hinges on the Federation being in the midst of a major political crisis over the issue of the admission of Coridan, with Federation Members who have financial interests in illegally mining Coridanite dilithium because of the weakness of the Coridanite government being at the throats of Federation Members who favor admission in order to strengthen the Coridanite government and ensure that Coridanite wealth is distributed fairly amongst the Coridanite populace. The episode makes it very clear that the situation it depicts is a major, major deviation from the norm.
Actually, the Andorians and Tellarites were on the same side over Coridan's admission. Both had profitable mining operations going on since they didn't have to invest any of the money they made mining Coridanite dilithium in Coridanite society, because the Coridanite government was so weak. In fact, Tellar was apparently even trying to claim Coridan as its own territory. It was Vulcan that favored Coridan's admission -- a major change from 22nd Century Vulcan foreign policy, which had used Coridan as a puppet government -- and redistributing Coridan's wealth amongst Coridanites.
As I said, I am all for good, centralized, progressive rule but totally against Roman rule. If somebody wants to quit the club you allow him to go and don't force him at gunpoint to something he does not really want anymore.
Well, that's sort of the question of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries, isn't it -- should a sovereign state facing a secessionist movement allow that movement to leave? Taking the examples of countries like the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro or South Sudan for an example, we might come up with some general ideas.
My general sense would be that a sovereign state has a duty to allow its divisions with active secessionist movements the opportunity to hold a democratic referendum on secession, and to respect a pro-secessionist result. My general sense is that a sovereign state need not respect secessionist sentiment if the area that wishes to secede is doing so in order to preserve, revive, or otherwise perpetuate systems of oppression against minorities, however, or if they secede without a referendum.
In the case of the Federation, my preferred rule would be: That any Federation Member that wishes to secede is required to hold a peaceful, democratic referendum on secession in which every adult Member citizen is allowed a vote. If 3/4ths majority favor secession -- and I think requiring 3/4ths is reasonable, simple majorities can be small and can reflect momentary emotions, and secession is a permanent change -- favor secession, then the Federation would be obliged to respect it. I would also like to think that the Federation offers to every citizen on that seceding world the opportunity to retain their Federation citizenship under Federation law if they so chose, and that if there are minority groups on that Member planet who fear oppression or retaliation, the Federation would be legally obliged to offer them sanctuary. This all, of course, just my speculation.
For the record, the novels have established that the Federation's general policy is to respect the wishes of Federation Members who hold democratic referenda to secede. Cait, for instance, is apparently somewhat notorious for seceding and then rejoining. (Because, of course, cats can never decide if they want in or out...) And the recent novel Paths of Disharmony ends with
Andor holding a referendum on secession, with a bare majority of Andorians choosing to secede.
Do I really have to point it out? As an economist I love liberal thinking but here we really reach its limits. Generally liberal logic implies that two people only trade something if they are both better off afterwards. So if somebody sells his liver for money he values the latter more than the former.
Yet he is clearly in a situation in which he gets exploited, just like the fellow who is in dire need of credit and pays high interest rates. I know that this is a paternalistic argument and I totally stand behind it. We gotta protect people from harming themselves via selling their organs respectively entering a potentially feudal relationship with a credit shark.
Let me show the limits of liberal logic via an obscene example, necrophilia. What if somebody who does not care what happens to his body after he dies now sells a "future" on his body to a necrophiliac? Seems perfectly fine in terms of liberal logic but the general notion of corpses being left in peace is clearly more important than what some individuals want.
I totally agree with you about the need to legalize and tightly regulate assisted suicide.
Back to your example, a bunch of savages who kill each other for fun do not sound like people who value life and thus seems to be unlikely candidates for Federation membership.
About your other arguments, we perceive the Federation differently. You basically view it like the US whereas I view it like the EU.
I totally agree with you that the Federation should assist the local authorities in protecting Federation citizens and in crushing criminals. But if there were a severe split in the culture of a Federation member (notice the very word member, there are US states but EU member states; member implies that you can quit your membership) the Federation would be more of an external intruder.
Do I really have to point it out? As an economist I love liberal thinking but here we really reach its limits. Generally liberal logic implies that two people only trade something if they are both better off afterwards. So if somebody sells his liver for money he values the latter more than the former.
Yet he is clearly in a situation in which he gets exploited, just like the fellow who is in dire need of credit and pays high interest rates. I know that this is a paternalistic argument and I totally stand behind it. We gotta protect people from harming themselves via selling their organs respectively entering a potentially feudal relationship with a credit shark.
I don't disagree, but, to me, that's an argument for regulating those sorts of trades, not banning them. You regulate financial institutions so they're not charging exorbitant interest rates or making irresponsible loans; you don't ban all credit cards and loans. You regulate the organ trade, you don't ban it outright. Etc.
Let me show the limits of liberal logic via an obscene example, necrophilia. What if somebody who does not care what happens to his body after he dies now sells a "future" on his body to a necrophiliac?
Then he should have the right to determine the treatment of his body postmortem, provided that the body's final disposition does not endanger others by being in some manner unsanitary.
Seems perfectly fine in terms of liberal logic but the general notion of corpses being left in peace is clearly more important than what some individuals want.
Oh? Is it? I mean, by that logic, you'd have to ban the donation of a corpse for medical research.
Back to your example, a bunch of savages who kill each other for fun do not sound like people who value life and thus seems to be unlikely candidates for Federation membership.
"For fun?" Probably not, though I'd say that widespread consensual homicide for fun would probably be a symptom of deeper social problems that would disqualify their society from Federation Membership, not the actual cause of disqualification.
About your other arguments, we perceive the Federation differently. You basically view it like the US whereas I view it like the EU.
Yes, for reasons I've outlined. The Federation clearly has some EU-like traits, but that is in addition to possessing all of the traits of a sovereign state.
I totally agree with you that the Federation should assist the local authorities in protecting Federation citizens and in crushing criminals. But if there were a severe split in the culture of a Federation member
Well, frankly, I doubt the Federation, in most cases, would have accepted them in the first place if there were the potential for such a major split. But I utterly reject the idea that if the government of a Federation Member starts violating the rights of some of its residents, that the Federation would lack the authority to act to stop that Member government. Those people are Federation citizens, too.
(notice the very word member, there are US states but EU member states; member implies that you can quit your membership)
Well, frankly, I prefer to use the term "Federation Member State," because it encompasses something that's often left ambiguous when we only talk about "Members" or "Member world." People have a habit of thinking of it as a planet that joins the UFP -- but it's not, when you think about it, it's a state that joins the UFP. After all, it's not very likely that Luna didn't join along with Earth when the UFP was formed, now is it? And "Journey to Babel" explicitly referred to "the Coridan planets" wanting to join as one entity. So it seems clear that we can't just call them "Member worlds" -- and "Member State" makes it clear that what has joined is a political entity, not a geographic feature. But "Member State" has never been used in the canon or novels, so I settle for "Member" for convenience.
But either way, I don't think the word "Member" really tells us anything about whether or not polities that join the Federation yield their sovereignty.
the Federation would be more of an external intruder.
Well, you're proceeding from the assumption that there's something fundamentally "foreign" about the Federation vs. one of its Members. I would argue that the very act of joining the Federation means they're no longer foreign -- a Vulcan is not foreign to an Andorian anymore; a Human is not foreign to a Betazoid anymore; etc. And just as the U.S. Army troops that were deployed to Little Rock were not "external intruders" just because they may have come from Ohio or Colorado or California or Massachusetts, a Starfleet division that lands on Andor isn't an "external intruder" just because its members may be from Earth or Vulcan or Rigel or Bre'el.
Let me show the limits of liberal logic via an obscene example, necrophilia. What if somebody who does not care what happens to his body after he dies now sells a "future" on his body to a necrophiliac?
Then he should have the right to determine the treatment of his body postmortem, provided that the body's final disposition does not endanger others by being in some manner unsanitary.
Tell me this is not real, tell me you don't seriously wanna legalize necrophilia. I tried to use it as a sick example that is meant to show the limits of liberal logic and you embrace it. As I already said, what has to be protected are not individual issues but the collective idea of the sanctity of the dead. This is not meant to be religious, we cover our dead in clothes (hey, why not undress them and give the clothes to a homeless guy, he has far more use for them than this dead fellow) in order to maintain the image of their humanity, to cover up the vulgar biological facts.
You live in Washington so it is not foreign to you but as far as I know many people in the US desire more federalism and view Washington as foreign. Same over here with Brussels. Of course Federation citizens will be more enlightened but don't forget that there are two more government layers. In addition to what we have, communal, state and national level, these folks have a planetary (which may encompass, as you pointed out several planets; United Earth probably governs everything in the Sol system as well) and the Federation level.
For ordinary citizens the Federation is far away and many of them might care little or nothing about interstellar issues unless there is a war that threatens them. They have no dealings with the Feds except on Federation councilor election day ... and when the Feds invade their place during a time of great upheaval they might very well view them as intruders.
Let me show the limits of liberal logic via an obscene example, necrophilia. What if somebody who does not care what happens to his body after he dies now sells a "future" on his body to a necrophiliac?
Then he should have the right to determine the treatment of his body postmortem, provided that the body's final disposition does not endanger others by being in some manner unsanitary.
Listen: I think it's sick and disgusting, and I'd prefer to live in a world where no one does that. But I do not think that the argument can be made that it should be banned just because it's disgusting. If you're going to ban something, you need to demonstrate that it is harmful in some way, that it violates someone's rights.
So, after giving some more thought to this rather disturbing topic, a few potential arguments come to mind:
1. Someone who is economically distressed cannot truly consent to the selling of such a "future" on his corpse, just as he cannot truly consent to usury. This is fair as far as it goes -- goodness knows I tend to find capitalism to be deeply oppressive and built on a sense of false consent. But it doesn't address the question of whether or not consensual necrophiliac futures should be banned if these "futures" are being sold by someone who is not financially distressed or otherwise impaired from consenting.
2. The desire to engage in necrophilia may be regarded as a sign of serious mental illness, thus marking the person so engaging in necrophilia as not truly consenting to the act from a legal standpoint.
3. A corpse may be regarded as the legal property of the deceased's estate or family, with the deceased being regarded as having no authority to transfer ownership of his corpse after death to anyone other than the family or estate, and, thus, no ability to sell "futures" on his eventual corpse. This does not address the question of whether or not the family or estate would themselves have the right to authorize such an act.
Of these arguments, I'd say the strongest one we can make for banning necrophilia in a free society is number 2. If a potential necrophiliac is mentally ill and his consent is invalidated, then obviously the selling of necrophiliac futures would have to be banned as an act of exploitation against a mentally ill person. Necrophilia itself could be banned as an act of irrational self-harm.
You live in Washington so it is not foreign to you but as far as I know many people in the US desire more federalism and view Washington as foreign.
1. I've only lived in Washington since last year. I grew up in Ohio; believe me, Washington is still pretty "foreign" to me, in a metaphorical sense.
2. Yes, many Americans favor a distribution of power between the federal and state governments that puts more power in the hands of the states and less in the hands of the feds. But very few actually want their states to become sovereign states again, or to dissolve the Union, or for the Union to cease to be a sovereign state. Most Americans aren't Rick Perry.
3. Don't confuse Washington with the federal government. We here in Washington resent our federal overlords as much as anyone else. Moreso, in fact, because, unlike the states, the District of Columbia does not have any rights over itself. All District laws, programs, and budgets require Congressional authorization, and can be overriden by Congress, even if it's an area that's reserved to the states in standard constitutional practice. Washingtonians have no representation in the Senate, and only a non-voting Delegate in the House, yet we're subject to all federal laws and have to pay federal taxes. Just FYI.
Of course Federation citizens will be more enlightened but don't forget that there are two more government layers. In addition to what we have, communal, state and national level, these folks have a planetary (which may encompass, as you pointed out several planets; United Earth probably governs everything in the Sol system as well) and the Federation level.
For ordinary citizens the Federation is far away and many of them might care little or nothing about interstellar issues unless there is a war that threatens them. They have no dealings with the Feds except on Federation councilor election day ... and when the Feds invade their place during a time of great upheaval they might very well view them as intruders.
Maybe. Or maybe there's so much cultural syncretism, so much intra-Federation immigration, and so much trade and immigration with foreign (that is, non-UFP) states, and such a strong commitment to the Federation amongst the populaces, that most Federation worlds' peoples regard themselves as being Federates just as much as they do Vulcans or Andorians or Sulamid or Gnalish or Bolian.
And how does the idea of cremating a body fit in here? It's the most horrid vandalization of the corpse imaginable - the humiliating and macabre destruction is total!
Sanctity in that case is supposedly preserved by somebody saying holy words while the vandalization proceeds. Necrophilia could be similarly sanctified, then.
Really, the idea of "sanctity of the dead" is among the most narrow-minded one could pick for the forward-looking scifi genre. Klingon dead are sacred enough without needing to worry about the "empty" carcass. "Vulcan burial" sounds like an oxymoron. We have TNG characters explicitly declaring that 20th century notions about death are silly and outdated. And when did recycling become unfashionable?
Before cremation our dead brother or sister is put into a coffin such that their human face is preserved. The last imagine is important, not whether the corpse is cremated, put into the earth to rot or put into the replicator system to be recycled.
Appearances matter, you cannot say that our burial rituals are hypocritical just like you cannot say that the greeting words "how do you do?" are hypocritical. Or think about a slightly different example, what if a naked fellow appears at your door. You give him clothes against the cold, against the shame but also to re-establish his dignity. Being naked is totally natural ... and that's precisely what has to be overcome, you give him clothes such that he is back in civilization.
I would not want to live among people who just put their corpses into biowaste bins, without maintaining their human face. If such people existed they would have lost their humanity.
Then you'd probably be kicked out of the Federation, at the rate things are going.
The nudity taboo seems to be upheld in Star Trek (although it's hardly likely to survive to the real 24th century), but it's one of the very few irrational limitations from the 20th century or before that the show seems to promote. Issues that incite people to murderous rage today, such as abortion, are explicit non-issues for Star Trek. I find it very difficult to believe that narrow views on burial customs would persist - and given the diversity of ideas already presented in Trek, I find it at least borderline plausible that a "bodies as playthings" culture or subculture will be tolerated or approved of as well. Hell, it's a major thing in certain Caribbean or Meso-American cultures today, and used to be quite popular in the Old World earlier on as well.
No need to kick me out, I'd not join your federation of necrophiliacs in the first place.
As I implied with my last sentence it's not a narrow but a universal view. Every burial ritual serves the purpose I sketched out above.
We don't talk about stupid cultural idiosyncracies like the Brits east toast and the French croissants in the morning, we talk about civilizational fundamentals.
The first liberal thinkers have been very well aware of these fundamentals, only contemporary people apply liberal logic on issues that cannot be analyzed with it like organ trade or burial rituals.
By your hyper-liberal logic the welfare of everybody would rise if we forced corpses to be naked. The corpse doesn't care about it and the homeless guy is better off with some clothes.
I am used to quite some postmodern travesties but to encounter somebody who defends necrophilia and thinks it is perfectly OK to play with corpses is quite a shock. Whether you like it or not, there are universal truths. Maintaining the dignity of the dead is one of them.
Maintaining the dignity of the dead can be done in many ways. Carrying them around on display is one of those; putting them on a shelf and occasionally asking them for advice is another. Turning them into a carnival centerpiece is often the ultimate in respect.
Don't try and pretend that your ideas on such practices are the only ones recognized, or even among the top twenty. And don't put too much faith on the idea that sex equals sin, either...
Where have I said that sex is sin? You assume that I am a Neoplatonistic Christian who has issues with sex just because I use the word sanctity? You obviously missed my that I explicitly said that it is not meant to be religious. Reading skills are essential. By the way, I am a hardcore materialist.
Mummification is an ordinary burial ritual and totally unrelated to your sick defense of necrophilia. My ideas are not my stupid ideas, to maintain the dignity of the dead is a universal human concept. As you rightly pointed out, the precise fashion in which this happens varies. But you won't find any culture which just throws its corpses into the biowaste bin, without any ritual, without any effort to maintain their human face.
Gee, this feels like having to explain to an illiterate why rape and murder is wrong.
When Worf suddenly insisted that Deanna's child be aborted (in The Child), his view point wasn't met with enthusiastic approval, or even a casual "sure, it not like he really a person." Others in the conference lounge stopped that idea in it's tracks.
Ending the life of a kid sound like something of a issue in the future.
I suspect that abortion is one of those perennial issues that will never truly be resolved, because society's members will never broadly agree on when a group of cells becomes a person.
That obvious untruth? Nope, didn't miss it. Sanctity is a purely religious concept, as it hinges on irrationality aimed at satisfying supernatural demands. Your religion may vary, of course.
But you won't find any culture which just throws its corpses into the biowaste bin, without any ritual, without any effort to maintain their human face.
Another excellent point: there's nothing wrong with murder. According to mankind, that is. No culture known to current research has ever categorically condemned murder, and no known culture has failed to explicitly encourage it on all levels of society. It's just that various cultures have various standards and names for the sorts of murder that are fine and desirable and for those that are not.
Really, it's an utterly futile effort to try and define "common morals" for mankind. We have nothing but an illogical and contradictory collection of special cases. Which is exactly what we have use for...
When Worf suddenly insisted that Deanna's child be aborted (in The Child), his view point wasn't met with enthusiastic approval, or even a casual "sure, it not like he really a person." Others in the conference lounge stopped that idea in it's tracks.
Ending the life of a kid sound like something of a issue in the future.
Naah. Nobody "stopped" the idea - Troi herself told what she wanted, and that was it. Had she told "I want it killed right now", there's no sign that anybody would have objected. Absolutely no passion either way was displayed by any of the "involved outsiders" at any point. Which is very different from what would have happened today, or in some other scifi show portraying a different future for mankind.
You assume that I am a Neoplatonistic Christian who has issues with sex just because I use the word sanctity? You obviously missed my that I explicitly said that it is not meant to be religious.
Where have I said that sex is sin? You assume that I am a Neoplatonistic Christian who has issues with sex just because I use the word sanctity? You obviously missed my that I explicitly said that it is not meant to be religious. Reading skills are essential. By the way, I am a hardcore materialist.
Mummification is an ordinary burial ritual and totally unrelated to your sick defense of necrophilia. My ideas are not my stupid ideas, to maintain the dignity of the dead is a universal human concept. As you rightly pointed out, the precise fashion in which this happens varies. But you won't find any culture which just throws its corpses into the biowaste bin, without any ritual, without any effort to maintain their human face.
Gee, this feels like having to explain to an illiterate why rape and murder is wrong.
Keep in mind that some cultures such as the Zoroastrians or certain Tibetan cultures just leave their dead out in the open to rot or be devoured by dogs they consider to be holy. Does this mean they have lost their humanity? You think your personal beliefs are universal moral concepts, they are not. There is simply no such thing as a universal morality. Also, you are trying to apply human values to non-humans(!), I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are in that area...
What utter nonsense. The behaviour of the ambassadors makes it evident that such conflicts occur regularly. The Federation is not a big happy family and the differencse between Andoria and Tellar are far larger than those between Massachusetts and Vermont.
Moreso, in fact, because, unlike the states, the District of Columbia does not have any rights over itself. All District laws, programs, and budgets require Congressional authorization, and can be overriden by Congress, even if it's an area that's reserved to the states in standard constitutional practice. Washingtonians have no representation in the Senate, and only a non-voting Delegate in the House, yet we're subject to all federal laws and have to pay federal taxes. Just FYI. 
