Prisons in Star Trek.

[Timo]

...In some ways, the Trek environment makes genocide a fairly mundane event, and rather unavoidable in conventional warfare. With Trek weaponry, it's similar to "policide" today - the killing of a city in pursuit of a limited tactical goal. Any single starship, if allowed to go unchecked, can extinguish a planet, and oftentimes that means extinguishing a genus of sentient beings as well.

I wonder whether Starfleet really is opposed to genocide. Or merely to "genocide on a large scale"? Amazingly enough, the issue never really arises in the episodes! A few opponents perform strikes that either comprise genocide or aim at it, but that's not really discussed much; it's just warfare (or crime), and is not labeled a particularly heinous or condemnable variant of it. When Garak in turn wants to do some genocide in the name of UFP interests, he's accused of "trying to incite a war" - the charge of "genocide" never surfaces, nobody declares the idea of eradicating the Founder species undesirable. It's just the timing that is considered wrong.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Sci]

So what? Popularity should not determine eligibility for discussion.

<SNIP>

Yeah, but that's because in the context of Star Trek, "canon" just means "stuff the books have to stay consistent with." It's a corporate distinction that's only meaningful if you're writing Trek Lit.

I'm sure you are more than willing to demonstrate your devotion to trek lit by writing page after page of hair-splitting and rhetoric, Sci - but you see, it's not up to you.

On a forum such as this one, popularity among the posters - ALL posters, not only a minority - and what they consider canon (most often, what is officially considered canon) matters.

Dude, there's no rule against talking about Trek Lit in the Gen Trek forum. If anyone doesn't like someone else talking about it, that's just too bad; we're all free to discuss it.

Fine, Sci.

S31 is as legitimate - or illegitimate - as USA's intelligence agencies and Pentagon.
This means that, as per the majoritary (by a large margin) opinion of your countrymen, S31 is fully legitimate.

No, it means that most people are wrong.

So - you're right and most people are wrong - in USA and on this forum.
And your opinion should matter and the majority's, not - in USA and on this forum.

For someone who claims to be such an admirer/protector of democracy and its principles, you have quite an anti-democratic mind-set, Sci.

You have a very strange definition of "democracy" if you think it means that holders of minority opinions should never think the majority is wrong and that people who hold unpopular opinions should stay quiet.

 

[jayrath]

...In some ways, the Trek environment makes genocide a fairly mundane event [ . . . ] I wonder whether Starfleet really is opposed to genocide.

I am sincerely amazed that this question even has to be asked. It is a sign of the later writers' paucity of imagination that the brighter, better future suggested by TOS has been so betrayed by subsequent spin-offs, merely for the episode du jour.

But let me get my Oujia board out and go straight to the source. Hold on. Checking with Gene right now . . . Yes, he tells me that "Starfleet really is opposed to genocide. Very much so."

He also tells me that if ever I ask him this again, his ghost will terrorize me forever, as punishment, and that he's greatly enjoying Christina Hendricks' appearances on "Mad Men."

 

[Pavonis]

What part of TOS suggested the future was better and brighter than our own time? They still had wars and bigotry and hatred. They weren't any better than us. They were us, with better technology and a desire to be better, but not always successful at being better.

 

[jayrath]

What part of TOS suggested the future was better and brighter than our own time?

I'm just speechless.

 

[Timo]

Well, as said, they brainwashed their criminals instead of punitively jailing them. Better and brighter, certainly.

Oh, and they fought their wars on stun, when they weren't turning entire planets to cinder.

Anything else?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[The Overlord]

Well, as said, they brainwashed their criminals instead of punitively jailing them. Better and brighter, certainly.

Oh, and they fought their wars on stun, when they weren't turning entire planets to cinder.

Anything else?

Timo Saloniemi

Except Brainwashing could be considered a fundamental breach of an individual's rights, taking away their right to choose and could easily be seen as moral ambiguous at best and draconian at worst. That's at least a morally gray area. Something similar to this was brought up in Babylon 5 , where criminals were brain washed through the "death of personality" procedure, which that episode presented as either an immoral act or necessary evil, but is not treated as enlightened act. This Brainwashing can be seen as morally ambiguous, rather then a sign of enlightenment, as argued here:

http://sfdebris.com/babylon5/s3e04.asp


The State brainwashing individuals is a central theme in 1984, which is the major dystopian fictional piece. Look at the Maquis, the basis for their illegal acts is not malice, but opposing the treaty that the Federation signed with the Cardassian Union, that put the Federation settlers there at the mercy of the Cardassians who were trying to drive them out. The Maquis do have legitimate grievances with the Federation's policy towards the DMZ. They felt fighting the Cardassians was the only way to protect their homes and that the Federation was doing nothing to help them. So they broke Federation law out of desperation more then anything else. So couldn't brainwashing them be seen as removing the Federation council's critics through mental manipulation?

 

[Yevetha]

What part of TOS suggested the future was better and brighter than our own time? They still had wars and bigotry and hatred. They weren't any better than us. They were us, with better technology and a desire to be better, but not always successful at being better.

They had replicators and they had to work less.

 

[Timo]

So couldn't brainwashing them be seen as removing the Federation council's critics through mental manipulation?

Sure. But even the most benign of today's governments remove their critics by criminalizing their actions in part or in whole. The UFP might brainwash a Maquis member into being incapable of sabotaging Starfleet cruisers again; a nation of today might throw a person in jail and/or impose a hefty fine so that he wouldn't stone police cruisers again. The difference isn't all that significant - we never hear of Star Trek criminals becoming docile and subservient through brainwashing, merely unlikely to commit the specific crime again.

Although we do see an example of a treatment that probably went wrong, with the "Lethe" character in "Dagger of the Mind". That seems to be balanced against a number of success stories, though. Generally, the standard cure gets the full approval of our heroes. (Both in the sense of "We have high hopes he will get better thanks to this" and "Yes, we're completely satisfied with her getting this treatment and no, we don't want to see her suffer for her crimes - we're not vindictive any more at this time and age".)

Benign and efficient - that's two counts against today's ways of dealing with crime!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[jayrath]

Jesus, has this become a thread praising the Mirror Universe? Because everything that everyone is saying is just completely contrary to my view of "Star Trek." Brainwashing? Genocide? Next you'll say that the Agony Booth was a fine and good thing, and that the handheld Agonizer device was entirely humane; merely the future version of water-boarding.

You're all saying much more about yourselves than about a hopeful 1960s series that premiered just before we landed on the moon.

 

[The Overlord]

So couldn't brainwashing them be seen as removing the Federation council's critics through mental manipulation?

Sure. But even the most benign of today's governments remove their critics by criminalizing their actions in part or in whole. The UFP might brainwash a Maquis member into being incapable of sabotaging Starfleet cruisers again; a nation of today might throw a person in jail and/or impose a hefty fine so that he wouldn't stone police cruisers again. The difference isn't all that significant - we never hear of Star Trek criminals becoming docile and subservient through brainwashing, merely unlikely to commit the specific crime again.

Although we do see an example of a treatment that probably went wrong, with the "Lethe" character in "Dagger of the Mind". That seems to be balanced against a number of success stories, though. Generally, the standard cure gets the full approval of our heroes. (Both in the sense of "We have high hopes he will get better thanks to this" and "Yes, we're completely satisfied with her getting this treatment and no, we don't want to see her suffer for her crimes - we're not vindictive any more at this time and age".)

Benign and efficient - that's two counts against today's ways of dealing with crime!

Timo Saloniemi

Except doesn't that seem like absolute power that could be abused and we have seen several questionable authority figures in the Federation (like all those insane admirals we have seen over the years) this technology creates absolute power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What's stop the Federation council from making any support of the Maquis illegal and brainwashing even non violent supporters of this cause. What's stop one the insane admirals we have seen to use this technology for more nefarious purposes, perhaps creating brainwashed sleeper agents out of innocent people? The possibilities for abuse are astounding and not everyone in the Federation has been shown to be trust worthy.

I think why this technology is never mentioned again in the 24 the century is because gives the Federation seem morally ambiguous rather then enlightened.

 

[Pavonis]

Jesus, has this become a thread praising the Mirror Universe? Because everything that everyone is saying is just completely contrary to my view of "Star Trek." Brainwashing? Genocide? Next you'll say that the Agony Booth was a fine and good thing, and that the handheld Agonizer device was entirely humane; merely the future version of water-boarding.

You're all saying much more about yourselves than about a hopeful 1960s series that premiered just before we landed on the moon.

TNG was the hopeful and optimistic show, featuring enlightened, morally-superior characters.

TOS was a show that had flawed characters more like us, but these characters were at least trying to be better, which is the best we can really do, I think.

 

[Timo]

What's stop the Federation council from making any support of the Maquis illegal and brainwashing even non violent supporters of this cause.

I really don't see the difference. What's to stop today's governments from making any support of the Nice Party illegal and jailing, roughing up or executing even non-violent supporters of this cause? At least brainwashing doesn't hurt, apparently.

Technology is still sort of neutral in this respect. A transporter is a nice tool in capturing fugitives; starship-grade sensors help a lot, too. But you can just as easily use dogs and bounty hunters. Stun guns can be considered evil, too - they're so much worse than water guns if you're a rioter. Except that they are not. A water cannon can easily kill you, or maim you for life. A phaser on stun won't.

Timo Saloniemi