TNG vs DS9?

[ananta]

TNG is what got me into Trek and it will always have a special place in my heart, but DS9 is my #1.

+1!

I love TNG as it was my introduction to Trek, but DS9 took what made TNG great and pushed it, refined it and twisted it to create a series that was nothing short of brilliant.

As much as I like TNG, DS9 almost objectively feels like the better series — in terms of the writing and the writers’ willingness to push the boundaries of content, narrative and storytelling... to probe deeper into issues without simply resetting the ending, but exploring the cost of consequences...

An extended cast of three-dimensional characters, who seemed much more human due to their flaws, conflicting values and hidden subtext—characters with clear and cohesive arcs, who actually change and grow as the series develops. A stellar cast! Better and bigger sets, stories with much greater scope and sense of unpredictability and danger... better special effects, more sense of alienness and visual ambition. I could go on and on, but it’s bedtime and I’m tired.

 

[NCC-73515]

It's the milk or dark chocolate question.

Milk chocolate is baby food...

Hazelnut nougat!

 

[Nightdiamond]

I tend to like DS9 a little more, not only because of its grittier approach, but even simple things like the dialog. The dialog seems more natural, down to earth. They cracked jokes about sex or the toilet, made silly small talk, remembered or repeated things from days, weeks or months ago, whether it important or even trivial.

It made the characters seem more alive and 3 dimensional, than just people encountering a plot, using some technobabble to solve it, and the next week they're on to a new adventure and never mention the previous one again.

It then experimented with shades of grey characters, and were bold enough to talk about common topics without always using alien analogies. And when they did use them, they were pretty intense examples.

The formula keeps it fresh and re-watchable today. It didn't get as much appreciation for a good while .But now it's something of a cult classic.

 

[Mysterion]

And the best piece of evidence... many of the characters were outcasts of their own society. Garak, Worf, Nog, Odo, Quark for a time... DS9 basically said "Your own society may not welcome you, but you are welcome here."

Yup, DSN was indeed the island of Misfit Toys.

 

[Vger23]

TOS


DS9
DSC









TNG

ENT





VOY

 

[Xhiandra]

TNG, easily.

I think all aspects are hard to generalise over either series, though. It's more on an episode-per-episode basis.

For instance, dialogue: DS9 has some nice bits of dialogue, but it also had a lot more clichés. I cringed everytime someone (usually Kira) threatened to "throw you out of the nearest airlock!". It's closer to bullying than to banter, and everyone knows you have no intention of carrying out the threat.
Other cliché dialogue: the repeated use of "I was hoping you'd say that". Once or twice, fine, but after a recent rewatch, I started noticing how frequent they made use of that. Character A offers an olive branch to B. B refuses. A states he/she's glad of it. Violence ensues.

Ethics: usually, DS9 didn't delve that hard into ethics. There were exceptions (Inter Arma, In the Pale Moonlight, Duet, ...), and those exceptions are the best the show has to offer, but usually it's just saying "Federation bad!". It's not deep, it's just farting in an elevator before leaving.
TNG delves into it more frequently, and, at times, takes the risk of choosing an answer to a controversial question, which even the above DS9 episodes don't.

Characters: DS9 has better side-characters, easily. Garak and Quark, in particular. Main characters, though, that goes to TNG.
Kira was a Ro ersatz. They both lived very similar situations and got out of it angry and bitter, except Ro was angry because she wanted to be left alone; Kira was angry because she wanted everything to always go her way.
Sisko was both bland and inconsistent.
Both Sisko and Kira seemed to have been written to inspire "he/she's so badass!" as a reaction (to some extent, Garak as well, but he had other facets that made the character work). I don't care about "badass", I'm neither eight nor American, give me Picard pondering the ethics of the situation.
Bashir was retconned more than once. They initially didn't know what they wanted to do with him, clearly.
Whereas Picard is a legendary character, LaForge is extremely likable, Beverly delightfully mischevious at times. Riker is bland and Troi underused, that's certain.
I do admit, DS9 tended use Worf better.

And then there was all the religious preaching in DS9. It's easy to have episodes where a character's prayer comes true (Sacrifice of Angels) or with a "I should have listened to the gods!" moral (Tears of the Prophets). That's not thought-provoking, it's just thinly-veiled abrahamic preaching. Culminating in the blood-curdingly awful "The Reckoning" and Winn/Dukat part of the ending saga (the firecaves part was the worst writing I've seen in all of Trek - VOY:Threshold included!).

I don't mean to hate on DS9, I like much of it, I just think its positive aspects are overemphasised these days, and the negatives underemphasised. The Klingon episodes are often strong on DS9. The Jem'Hadar have been superbly established and revealed over the series.

Now, it's late so I'll so typing nonsense.

 

[Zod]

Wanted to get everyone's thoughts on TNG vs DS9. I love both shows, but I'd have to give the nod to DS9 -- the serialized nature of the show was great, character development was superb and the gritty realism of both the DS9 station as well as the broader universe (esp. the Dominion War) were just awesome.

My two fav shows of all time. Number one and two.

DS9 though is the one I love the most.

Its serialized nature just floored me back then. Now? It was ahead of its time with so many shows like that.

I loved the rich characters from various races. It had the best villain in Dukat. I think that he is the best villain ever created for any show. What an actor! It had the best side characters of any show in history in my view. My fav was Garek.

It was at times funny, at times dark and sad but overall hopeful just like all trek was (until these days but that's another matter) . It had some of the best episodes of TV ever written in my opinion.

DS9 was Star Trek at its peak in my opinion and in every way possible. It started off a little weak in season one but man o man did this show take off....

 

[at Quark's]

Ethics: usually, DS9 didn't delve that hard into ethics. There were exceptions (Inter Arma, In the Pale Moonlight, Duet, ...), and those exceptions are the best the show has to offer, but usually it's just saying "Federation bad!". It's not deep, it's just farting in an elevator before leaving.
TNG delves into it more frequently, and, at times, takes the risk of choosing an answer to a controversial question, which even the above DS9 episodes don't.

Can you give an example of such 'farting in the elevator, Federation bad!' episodes that were usual? I'm honestly curious as to the type of episodes you are referring to now.

Kira was angry because she wanted everything to always go her way.

Never quite saw it that way. I just saw it as a combination of a fiery temper and being very damaged, the latter only logical given her background. And she would share that with millions of other Bajorans, given what the planet just went through.

Sisko was both bland and inconsistent.
Both Sisko and Kira seemed to have been written to inspire "he/she's so badass!" as a reaction (to some extent, Garak as well, but he had other facets that made the character work). I don't care about "badass", I'm neither eight nor American, give me Picard pondering the ethics of the situation.

I agree that to some extent I couldn't always get the 'feel' of the Sisko character, connect less to him than I could to Picard, too. Picard could be easily placed, you could almost always count on him doing 'the moral thing', for example. Not that that made him boring. Sisko is less predictable. It never occurred to me to connect that to a 'badass' vibe though. It's not as if Picard is indecisive or timid by comparison, though he does ponder (and pontificate!) more.

And then there was all the religious preaching in DS9. It's easy to have episodes where a character's prayer comes true (Sacrifice of Angels) or with a "I should have listened to the gods!" moral (Tears of the Prophets). That's not thought-provoking, it's just thinly-veiled abrahamic preaching. Culminating in the blood-curdingly awful "The Reckoning" and Winn/Dukat part of the ending saga (the firecaves part was the worst writing I've seen in all of Trek - VOY:Threshold included!).

I don't see that as preaching of religion as such. I see it more as a kind of postmodern subversion of the humanist trope that until then always had run so strongly through Trek. You know, in which 'gods' almost always turned out to be either impostors or in the best case, benevolent aliens with a higher civilization. But in almost all cases they were 'unmasked' at the end, and it was left unambiguous and spoon-fed as to what the 'right' attitude to beings such as Q should be. Such episodes can be equally easy and grating especially after the 17th time such a trope is used.

What's new in DS9 (from my point of view) is not the fact that the aliens are 'gods' that actually real or "serve their purpose" - we had seen that before , and neither the fact that Sisko is revered within that pantheon - we saw that before too (Who watches the watchers, for example) , but that Sisko is cast in a situation where trying to defuse the situation in a way that was common in Trek till then (by showing the primitive natives the enlightened ways of the Federation) simply won't work. On the one hand, here's a civilization with religion so ingrained in their culture that not even Kirk could have talked them out of it, had he tried to do so. And on the other hand, Sisko can't do so in the first place, since he has the assignment to do everything to get them ready for the Federation -a command that only got more important after the wormhole was discovered-, so he can't risk an alienation. So, he has to live with it. At first reluctantly acknowledging them only as 'wormhole aliens', then over the years gradually coming over to the Bajoran point of view.

If there is preaching there, I'd see it mainly as the expression of the idea that the viewpoint of others (or other cultures) isn't necessarily invalid simply because it doesn't fit in our framework. In fact, TNG moved already in that direction. I can't see early Picard for example showing the amount of appreciation for Klingon culture like he would in later seasons even if he didn't subscribe to it himself. DS9 applies it to the intersection between science and religion instead. I think it is a very 'nineties' cultural idea and as such fitted in the times the series was written. Of course you can like or dislike that stance.

I absolutely agree that it degenerated in some episodes. "The reckoning" was just plain silly. Just as Dukat becoming the Anti-Emissary of Evulz was, or the final fight in the firecaves. But that doesn't take away that there was an intriguing triangle for much of the series (secular Federation values / the genuine faith of many Bajorans / the hypocritical and self-serving faith of some Vedeks, such as Winn).

I don't mean to hate on DS9, I like much of it, I just think its positive aspects are overemphasised these days, and the negatives underemphasised.

Agree to that, it was by no means perfect. I for example thought late DS9 did go too much toward 'soap opera' aspects ('oh look! will Ezri choose Worf or Bashir!?'). Also I think that if I would see it now for the very first time (as someone nearing 50 years of age), I wouldn't be as nearly captivated by it as back when I was an impressionable 23-year-old, because I've gotten a good deal more cynical and down-to-earth over the years and less impressed by things that sound dramatic but simply don't work that way in real life. (In fact, I had that exact experience watching Babylon 5 for the first time a few years back). Then again, perhaps that's also because 2020 is quite different from 1990.

(I need to practice writing more concisely, my apologies).

 

[JonnyQuest037]

For instance, dialogue: DS9 has some nice bits of dialogue, but it also had a lot more clichés. I cringed everytime someone (usually Kira) threatened to "throw you out of the nearest airlock!".

Seven instances in seven years doesn't strike me as all that many.

Other cliché dialogue: the repeated use of "I was hoping you'd say that". Once or twice, fine, but after a recent rewatch, I started noticing how frequent they made use of that.

Four instances in seven years.

Ethics: usually, DS9 didn't delve that hard into ethics.

 

[Lord Garth]

TNG, easily.

I think all aspects are hard to generalise over either series, though. It's more on an episode-per-episode basis.

For instance, dialogue: DS9 has some nice bits of dialogue, but it also had a lot more clichés. I cringed everytime someone (usually Kira) threatened to "throw you out of the nearest airlock!". It's closer to bullying than to banter, and everyone knows you have no intention of carrying out the threat.
Other cliché dialogue: the repeated use of "I was hoping you'd say that". Once or twice, fine, but after a recent rewatch, I started noticing how frequent they made use of that. Character A offers an olive branch to B. B refuses. A states he/she's glad of it. Violence ensues.

Ethics: usually, DS9 didn't delve that hard into ethics. There were exceptions (Inter Arma, In the Pale Moonlight, Duet, ...), and those exceptions are the best the show has to offer, but usually it's just saying "Federation bad!". It's not deep, it's just farting in an elevator before leaving.
TNG delves into it more frequently, and, at times, takes the risk of choosing an answer to a controversial question, which even the above DS9 episodes don't.

Characters: DS9 has better side-characters, easily. Garak and Quark, in particular. Main characters, though, that goes to TNG.
Kira was a Ro ersatz. They both lived very similar situations and got out of it angry and bitter, except Ro was angry because she wanted to be left alone; Kira was angry because she wanted everything to always go her way.
Sisko was both bland and inconsistent.
Both Sisko and Kira seemed to have been written to inspire "he/she's so badass!" as a reaction (to some extent, Garak as well, but he had other facets that made the character work). I don't care about "badass", I'm neither eight nor American, give me Picard pondering the ethics of the situation.
Bashir was retconned more than once. They initially didn't know what they wanted to do with him, clearly.
Whereas Picard is a legendary character, LaForge is extremely likable, Beverly delightfully mischevious at times. Riker is bland and Troi underused, that's certain.
I do admit, DS9 tended use Worf better.

And then there was all the religious preaching in DS9. It's easy to have episodes where a character's prayer comes true (Sacrifice of Angels) or with a "I should have listened to the gods!" moral (Tears of the Prophets). That's not thought-provoking, it's just thinly-veiled abrahamic preaching. Culminating in the blood-curdingly awful "The Reckoning" and Winn/Dukat part of the ending saga (the firecaves part was the worst writing I've seen in all of Trek - VOY:Threshold included!).

I don't mean to hate on DS9, I like much of it, I just think its positive aspects are overemphasised these days, and the negatives underemphasised. The Klingon episodes are often strong on DS9. The Jem'Hadar have been superbly established and revealed over the series.

Now, it's late so I'll so typing nonsense.

I like DS9, and the amount I like it hasn't changed, but I think it's very gradually gone from under-rated to over-rated. So gradual that you wouldn't notice it until you stop to think, "Wait a minute... "

 

[Xhiandra]

Seven instances in seven years doesn't strike me as all that many.

Four instances in seven years.

It's quite a bit, and there are plenty of variations.

I like DS9, and the amount I like it hasn't changed, but I think it's very gradually gone from under-rated to over-rated. So gradual that you wouldn't notice it until you stop to think, "Wait a minute... "

Exactly.

Can you give an example of such 'farting in the elevator, Federation bad!' episodes that were usual? I'm honestly curious as to the type of episodes you are referring to now.

Not episodes, and not necessarily usual. I mean the much-vaunted "showing that the Federation isn't that utopic" side of DS9: it's not always handled in much of a deep fashion. It's a quick comment by a character or another that amounts to little.

Never quite saw it that way. I just saw it as a combination of a fiery temper and being very damaged, the latter only logical given her background. And she would share that with millions of other Bajorans, given what the planet just went through.

Until a recent rewatch, I wasn't sure what grated me about Kira, but now I know: she throws her weight around whenever she doesn't get her way.
And yes, it makes sense that she's damaged, like most other Bajorans, as I said. Which why I compared her with Ro: they both lived the same trauma and both became angry, but Ro's anger comes from depression, from feeling she doesn't belong anywhere, whereas Kira's comes from xenophobia.

It's partly deliberate, I think: there's a clear arc for Kira where she learns to both be more tolerant and open and to be less xenophobic, starting with "Duet" and culminating around S5, where this exchange occurs between Worf and Jadzia:

"Major Kira – friends with a Cardassian. It seems wrong."
"You should have known her five years ago. Back then, I never thought she'd be friends with anyone."

As Jadzia says: early on, she doesn't get along with anyone. She's mistrustful of Sisko initially, until the whole "emissary" thing occurs, she threatens Quark at the drop of a hat, she rages at the provisional government, at the Cardassians, snaps at Bashir the rare times he doesn't agree with her, ...
She has her reasons, but at times, it just makes the character annoying. Imagine working alongside someone like that, prone to either snapping at you or boasting about how tough she's had it. Someone you need to walk on eggshells around. It's exhausting.

I agree that to some extent I couldn't always get the 'feel' of the Sisko character, connect less to him than I could to Picard, too. Picard could be easily placed, you could almost always count on him doing 'the moral thing', for example. Not that that made him boring. Sisko is less predictable. It never occurred to me to connect that to a 'badass' vibe though. It's not as if Picard is indecisive or timid by comparison, though he does ponder (and pontificate!) more.

Sisko has much more of a "ends justify the means" attitude, and it's sometimes the tone of DS9 as a whole.
It starts small, by accepting the whole "emissary" thing to help in accomplishing his mission (Picard would've made it very clear he was no god nor an envoy of the gods - he gets outraged at being seen as a religious figure), ends with poisoning a planet and the events of In the Pale Moonlight.

I don't see that as preaching of religion as such. I see it more as a kind of postmodern subversion of the humanist trope that until then always had run so strongly through Trek. You know, in which 'gods' almost always turned out to be either impostors or in the best case, benevolent aliens with a higher civilization.

So, like in real life (well, the impostors, not benevolent aliens)?
Again, if you trace the points, there's an arc for Sisko: he's initially reluctat to be the emissary, only going along to not upset the Bajorans, that changes with the events of "Rapture" then in "Sacrifice of Angels", he directly asks them to interfere and they do; then in "Tears of the Prophets" he gets some prophecy that he should stay on the station, Ross tells him he has to choose between Starfleet captain and emissary, he chooses the former and is "punished" by Jadzia's death and the prophets being locked out by Dukat/pah-wraiths.

The events of Tears of the Prophets is a bit like Melisandre saying "I could've saved your men at the Blackwater" to Stannis, and Stannis falling deeper into her grasp as a result.
By the end, he's fully into the Bajoran religion, and it's shown on screen that resisting it leads to negative outcomes (Jadzia's death), whereas embracing it leads to positive ones (dominion reinforcements being swept away).

But in almost all cases they were 'unmasked' at the end, and it was left unambiguous and spoon-fed as to what the 'right' attitude to beings such as Q should be. Such episodes can be equally easy and grating especially after the 17th time such a trope is used.

I think it's important to teach skepticism. The lesson wasn't "the gods are fake" so much as "look out for those who would deceive you" as well as "favour the most parsimonious explanation" and "question everything, especially authority".

What's new in DS9 (from my point of view) is not the fact that the aliens are 'gods' that actually real or "serve their purpose" - we had seen that before , and neither the fact that Sisko is revered within that pantheon - we saw that before too (Who watches the watchers, for example) , but that Sisko is cast in a situation where trying to defuse the situation in a way that was common in Trek till then (by showing the primitive natives the enlightened ways of the Federation) simply won't work.

On the one hand, here's a civilization with religion so ingrained in their culture that not even Kirk could have talked them out of it, had he tried to do so. And on the other hand, Sisko can't do so in the first place, since he has the assignment to do everything to get them ready for the Federation -a command that only got more important after the wormhole was discovered-, so he can't risk an alienation. So, he has to live with it. At first reluctantly acknowledging them only as 'wormhole aliens', then over the years gradually coming over to the Bajoran point of view.

There's a third option, though: "you're welcome to your religion and I won't try to talk you out of it, but don't force it on me. I am no deity nor their envoy. I will not participate in your religion."
I know the Bajorans wouldn't have liked that approach and Sisko had his mission, but that's the "ends justify the means" approach I mentionned above. Picard was much more about deontology (with some exceptions, as in "Justice"): I won't commit a morally reprehensible act, damn the consequences!

If there is preaching there, I'd see it mainly as the expression of the idea that the viewpoint of others (or other cultures) isn't necessarily invalid simply because it doesn't fit in our framework.

As just above: you can let others have their viewpoint without adopting it/participating in it. If they require your participation, well, the problem of tolerance is firmly on their stide.

Also I think that if I would see it now for the very first time (as someone nearing 50 years of age), I wouldn't be as nearly captivated by it as back when I was an impressionable 23-year-old, because I've gotten a good deal more cynical and down-to-earth over the years and less impressed by things that sound dramatic but simply don't work that way in real life.

Our age does influence our experience with the series a lot, that's certain. I must've been in my 20s when I first watched all of DS9, too (I'm 36 now). Though I'd seen some episodes as a teenager. A TV channel (Club RTL) started showing TNG, abruptly replaced it after a decently long (but not complete) run with DS9, then a handful of episodes later with VOY. It was weird. Next, I caught TOS then TNG on the BBC in my early 20s (late timeslot, always 2 episodes, I really looked forward to that time of the week).
All that to say: I'm probably quite biased in TNG's favour.

 

[Mage]

TNG is very well made show that worked its best to break molds when people didn't want them broken and kinda really didn't break them but showed that molds could be broken.

A few episodes in, Sisko said I'm not Picard and Niners knew..... We're home.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Star Trek: The Next Generation was a trend setter and is one of the most highly successful science fiction series in Television history; it spawned several spin-offs, and it was beloved by Star Trek fans and people who never liked SF or Star Trek. The series was so successful it spawned 4 movies, and the new head honchos for Trek has even dragged Patrick Stewart himself from the nursing home to produce a new series. TNG was a phenomenon and was part of pop culture, DS9 wished it could achieve a quarter of that.

 

[Arpy]

I like DS9, and the amount I like it hasn't changed, but I think it's very gradually gone from under-rated to over-rated. So gradual that you wouldn't notice it until you stop to think, "Wait a minute... "

I think it’s over-rated among its fans — especially on this board — but it remains under-rated generally.

 

[at Quark's]

Not episodes, and not necessarily usual. I mean the much-vaunted "showing that the Federation isn't that utopic" side of DS9: it's not always handled in much of a deep fashion. It's a quick comment by a character or another that amounts to little.

OK, clear. But neither is the idea that Trek humans are somehow 'better' or 'more evolved' than humans of our time always handled that well in TNG- there are some great episodes exploring that, but there are also many passing remarks that don't really amount to much more than 'I'm glad we're superior to those primitives back then'.

I think it's important to teach skepticism. The lesson wasn't "the gods are fake" so much as "look out for those who would deceive you" as well as "favour the most parsimonious explanation" and "question everything, especially authority".

Well, let's apply those to DS9. It seems the wormhole aliens have a distinct own agenda that isn't always clear to us, and they may sometimes be somewhat condescending, but deceit doesn't seem to be a part of their behaviour. As for the most parsimonious explanation, it seems the wormhole aliens really do have insights in time we 'linears' don't, and hence it is wise to at least consider their words, whether we act on them or not.

Putting all that into a "religion" package isn't necessary, and it's not what those wormhole aliens themselves ask at all; - it's simply what the Bajorans have done with it. So ultimately DS9 simply shows that religion is a human way of coming to terms with events

There's a third option, though: "you're welcome to your religion and I won't try to talk you out of it, but don't force it on me. I am no deity nor their envoy. I will not participate in your religion."
I know the Bajorans wouldn't have liked that approach and Sisko had his mission, but that's the "ends justify the means" approach I mentionned above. Picard was much more about deontology (with some exceptions, as in "Justice"): I won't commit a morally reprehensible act, damn the consequences!

I don't have the feeling that Bajorans in general go around proselytizing and that they're generally perfectly happy with the 'you have your religion and I have mine' attitude. I don't think Kira is ever shown trying to convince others such as Dax or Worf of the Only True Bajoran Faith, for example. She is shown explaining what her faith means to her when asked. The only one who actually is shown trying to push her convictions onto others is Kai Winn when she tries to impose her view of the wormhole upon Keiko.

Of course, for Sisko - being the perceived Emissary of the prophesies- the situation is slightly different. But Sisko accepts his Emissary-hood in the very beginning of the series (even if hesitantly at first), and of course, after he has done that it's only natural that Bajorans would have expectations from him. That's no different than expecting a church minister to do certain things simply because he has made that commitment.
The only Bajoran seeing acting with him on that level before he does is Kai Opaka. And she simply treats it as a given he is the emissary, much like the wormhole aliens themselves do. I'm not sure you can say she's pushing him in that direction.

Both Picard and Janeway would have refused that role, yes. What would have happened next? There would have been no Federation presence near Bajor. Bajor itself is told to be "left without a means of being self-sustaining" according to Picard and according to Kira, Sisko would be gone within a week, and civil war would ensue after that. Having no means to feed your people and civil war on top of that is a recipe for disaster. Sisko being the emissary changed all that because now they had universal symbol they could all unite under -- much like the role Kira hoped Kai Opaka would pick up at the very beginning. So, why are you so sure that not accepting Emissary-hood and hence causing millions or billions of extra deaths would have been the ethical thing to do?

In a way that's exactly the same question as asked in in the pale moonlight: is having a clean conscience really worth millions or billions of lives ?

 

[Xhiandra]

OK, clear. But neither is the idea that Trek humans are somehow 'better' or 'more evolved' than humans of our time always handled that well in TNG- there are some great episodes exploring that, but there are also many passing remarks that don't really amount to much more than 'I'm glad we're superior to those primitives back then'.

Oh, sure. Especially early on, with episodes like "The Neutral Zone", with this really unjustified line from Riker: "Well, from what I've seen of our guests, there's not much to redeem them. Makes one wonder how our species survived the 21st century."

The investment banker was a narcissistic sociopath, yes, but the other two? What did they do wrong?

I don't have the feeling that Bajorans in general go around proselytizing and that they're generally perfectly happy with the 'you have your religion and I have mine' attitude. I don't think Kira is ever shown trying to convince others such as Dax or Worf of the Only True Bajoran Faith, for example. She is shown explaining what her faith means to her when asked. The only one who actually is shown trying to push her convictions onto others is Kai Winn when she tries to impose her view of the wormhole upon Keiko.

But the Bajorans in general force the emissary role on Sisko.

Both Picard and Janeway would have refused that role, yes. What would have happened next? There would have been no Federation presence near Bajor. Bajor itself is told to be "left without a means of being self-sustaining" according to Picard and according to Kira, Sisko would be gone within a week, and civil war would ensue after that. Having no means to feed your people and civil war on top of that is a recipe for disaster. Sisko being the emissary changed all that because now they had universal symbol they could all unite under -- much like the role Kira hoped Kai Opaka would pick up at the very beginning. So, why are you so sure that not accepting Emissary-hood and hence causing millions or billions of extra deaths would have been the ethical thing to do?

We're getting into consequentialism vs deontology territory, there. That's been explored in Trek quite a bit before, like the dilemna to infect Hugh or not: infected him was the consequentialist thing to do (if you don't care about Borg lives), not doing so the deontological thing to do. Or infecting the founders or not, for that matter.

Though much of that is quite speculative, I would say. I'm not at all convinced the lack of "the Sisko" would've inevitably lead to civil war.

In a way that's exactly the same question as asked in in the pale moonlight: is having a clean conscience really worth millions or billions of lives ?

That's what I was getting at, yes: ends justifying means. Note, it's not just a clear conscience: it's the lives of Vreenak (and his guards - Garak forgets to mention them) and the faussaire as well as the lives of Romulans lost in the war.
It's also a question of numbers vs choice: do we have the right to decide the death of a million people to save 3 million? If the mliion is a strict subset of the 3 million, that's one thing, but if the overlap is incomplete... well, I'll stop here before one of us mentions trolleys.

 

[Arpy]

Oh, sure. Especially early on, with episodes like "The Neutral Zone", with this really unjustified line from Riker: "Well, from what I've seen of our guests, there's not much to redeem them. Makes one wonder how our species survived the 21st century."

The investment banker was a narcissistic sociopath, yes, but the other two? What did they do wrong?

I’d have to watch the episode again, but wasn’t the cowboy an alcoholic who died of liver failure, then first thing he does is have a drink? He learned nothing, and maybe today would be a “conservative” in favor of those ghoulish concentration camps at the border where people overpacked in foul-smelling cages die due to lack of proper medical care.

I don’t remember anything that could cast the woman in a bad light. Your quote says “of what he’s seen,” so it’s not an official assessment, if that’s any better.

 

[fireproof78]

Oh, sure. Especially early on, with episodes like "The Neutral Zone", with this really unjustified line from Riker: "Well, from what I've seen of our guests, there's not much to redeem them. Makes one wonder how our species survived the 21st century."

The investment banker was a narcissistic sociopath, yes, but the other two? What did they do wrong?

The comment always grates at me. Riker sees three examples of 21st century living and immediately concludes that humanity sucked back then but at least we are way better.

I get that people want humans to be portrayed as better in the future but making them arrogant jerks who don't see anything redeemable in past humanity doesn't convey optimism in my view.

 

[Orphalesion]

.

I get that people want humans to be portrayed as better in the future but making them arrogant jerks who don't see anything redeemable in past humanity doesn't convey optimism in my view.

My problem with that episode, and with early TNG in general, was that they tried to make their 24th century humans look better by accentuating the negative aspects of the 20th century in hopes that their "evolved" people look better in comparison.

 

[Takeru]

I like both a lot but TNG is the better show and has way more memorable episodes that I can rewatch over and over again.