Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
I tought genetic experiments were banned in the Federation yet we had seen them doing it in that episode. Was this ever retconned?
Was the experiment in Unnatural Selection ever explained in Trek lit?
- Thread starter Drago-Kazov
- Start date
Re: Was the experiment in Unnatural Selection ever explained in Trek l
I touched on it in The Buried Age. I mentioned that it was a test case, that the laws on genetic engineering were "starting to bend." I assume, though I didn't clearly spell it out, that the political mood was starting to shift away from the ban (as political moods do from generation to generation), that there were efforts to loosen it and that Darwin Research Station was a result, and that the events of "Unnatural Selection" presumably led to a reaffirmation of the ban.
Of course, the ban itself was a retcon, not being introduced "Dr. Bashir, I Presume." At the time "Unnatural Selection" was written, there was no such concept -- and really, the idea is kind of anathema to the Trek universe, which has usually been about embracing the positive potential of scientific progress. I figure the reason the DS9 writers introduced such an incongruous notion was that it was becoming increasingly obvious by then that medical science would give us the ability to enhance human genetics long before the 24th century, so they figured they needed to justify why Trek-universe humanity was so unaltered from its present form.
I touched on it in The Buried Age. I mentioned that it was a test case, that the laws on genetic engineering were "starting to bend." I assume, though I didn't clearly spell it out, that the political mood was starting to shift away from the ban (as political moods do from generation to generation), that there were efforts to loosen it and that Darwin Research Station was a result, and that the events of "Unnatural Selection" presumably led to a reaffirmation of the ban.
Of course, the ban itself was a retcon, not being introduced "Dr. Bashir, I Presume." At the time "Unnatural Selection" was written, there was no such concept -- and really, the idea is kind of anathema to the Trek universe, which has usually been about embracing the positive potential of scientific progress. I figure the reason the DS9 writers introduced such an incongruous notion was that it was becoming increasingly obvious by then that medical science would give us the ability to enhance human genetics long before the 24th century, so they figured they needed to justify why Trek-universe humanity was so unaltered from its present form.
Re: Was the experiment in Unnatural Selection ever explained in Trek l
I'm reading the new Voyager book and there was a mention about how they will repair bad DNA but they won't enhance anything. Which kind of makes sense for the world. They'll make it so you won't get a disease, but they frown on unnatural changes like super strength. Kind of explains why baldness still happens in the 24th century.
I'm reading the new Voyager book and there was a mention about how they will repair bad DNA but they won't enhance anything. Which kind of makes sense for the world. They'll make it so you won't get a disease, but they frown on unnatural changes like super strength. Kind of explains why baldness still happens in the 24th century.
Re: Was the experiment in Unnatural Selection ever explained in Trek l
I think the ban makes perfect sense. They don't want more Augments to arise. No more Khan or his ilk. Why take that chance?
I think the ban makes perfect sense. They don't want more Augments to arise. No more Khan or his ilk. Why take that chance?
Re: Was the experiment in Unnatural Selection ever explained in Trek l
By that argument, our ancestors should've outlawed using fire because of all the people who've died in fires. Never mind that it makes food safe to eat and scares off predators and lets us see at night and smelts metal and powers steam engines and makes civilization possible -- it's pure evil because it sometimes burns houses down and kills people, so we should ban it altogether. Why take the chance? Let's all just huddle in the dark and hope the wolves don't get us.
Any technology can be used for good or harm. The greater the capacity it has for harm, the greater its capacity for good as well. It's all in how it's used. Denying the potential good because you're afraid of the harm is grossly irresponsible, and usually does more harm in the long run.
And really, take a look at humanity relative to the other species in the Trek universe. Compared to so many other humanoids, we're physically weak and fragile, we're short-lived, we have limited senses, our abilities are commonplace, our intelligence is average -- and we have such weak foreheads. Even if restricting human augmentation to avoid creating a super-race made sense in the 21st century, it's kind of a silly argument to make in the 24th when there already are so many other species that are genetically superior to humans. And the fact that humans have managed to achieve a politically and culturally dominant role in the galaxy despite being so genetically limited argues against the assumption that the genetically superior will inevitably be conquerors.
The problem with Khan's Augments wasn't that they were genetically enhanced, it was how they were enhanced. As Arik Soong recognized, their design was flawed, giving them too much aggression and too little empathy. Just because it failed that time, that doesn't mean it can never work. Look at "First Flight." The first experimental test of a second-generation warp drive almost led to disaster. If they'd given up on the technology altogether because of one early mistake, there'd be no Federation, and the Romulans would probably have conquered the quadrant by now.
By that argument, our ancestors should've outlawed using fire because of all the people who've died in fires. Never mind that it makes food safe to eat and scares off predators and lets us see at night and smelts metal and powers steam engines and makes civilization possible -- it's pure evil because it sometimes burns houses down and kills people, so we should ban it altogether. Why take the chance? Let's all just huddle in the dark and hope the wolves don't get us.
Any technology can be used for good or harm. The greater the capacity it has for harm, the greater its capacity for good as well. It's all in how it's used. Denying the potential good because you're afraid of the harm is grossly irresponsible, and usually does more harm in the long run.
And really, take a look at humanity relative to the other species in the Trek universe. Compared to so many other humanoids, we're physically weak and fragile, we're short-lived, we have limited senses, our abilities are commonplace, our intelligence is average -- and we have such weak foreheads. Even if restricting human augmentation to avoid creating a super-race made sense in the 21st century, it's kind of a silly argument to make in the 24th when there already are so many other species that are genetically superior to humans. And the fact that humans have managed to achieve a politically and culturally dominant role in the galaxy despite being so genetically limited argues against the assumption that the genetically superior will inevitably be conquerors.
The problem with Khan's Augments wasn't that they were genetically enhanced, it was how they were enhanced. As Arik Soong recognized, their design was flawed, giving them too much aggression and too little empathy. Just because it failed that time, that doesn't mean it can never work. Look at "First Flight." The first experimental test of a second-generation warp drive almost led to disaster. If they'd given up on the technology altogether because of one early mistake, there'd be no Federation, and the Romulans would probably have conquered the quadrant by now.
Re: Was the experiment in Unnatural Selection ever explained in Trek l
Just like Arik's own little brood.
Just like Arik's own little brood.
Re: Was the experiment in Unnatural Selection ever explained in Trek l
While I know the Federation is supposed to be a far-sighted, open-minded and confident society - and thus it's certainly out of character for such a culture to issue blanket bans on whole branches of science out of fear - I actually find the incongruity interesting. I like that humans in the Trek 'verse have recognisable hang-ups and blind spots. Okay, the fact that the attitude towards genetic enhancement is at odds with the supposed character of the Federation is only truly interesting if it's acknowledged and addressed - otherwise it's just a weakness in the story-telling - but I think overall it makes for a richer tapestry, something to get our teeth into. I like Prime Directive stories for the same reason, actually - I agree with the fans and viewers (yourself prominant among them, of course) who take issue with how the Directive is interpreted in Picard's era, but it's for that very reason that I find the Prime Directive interesting. Maybe I'm just not comfortable with the idea of a people fully at grips with themselves (I find it too unrealistic, maybe?), but to see the Federation get "the wrong idea", get too bogged down in its assumptions and prejudices - too comfortable, perhaps - is part of the charm for me, so long as it isn't taken too far. Again, though, that depends on Trek works actually taking note of the incongruities in Federation thinking.
The genetic enhancement issue is also interesting, I think, because it's one of those welcome areas where the potential to divide "the UFP" from "humans" becomes evident. I quite like the idea that not only do the humans refuse to deal with genetic enhancement out of lingering fear, but that presumably the UFP as a whole goes along with it because humans are such a powerful part of their government/nation/movement. Humans as the reactionary voice on this particular issue is an interesting idea that I think could use some exploring. Do the Denobulan representatives mutter about humans shouting them down every time they try to push for greater study into genetic engineering? Was one of the very conditions for Earth's co-founding the UFP that its allies would refrain from pursuing that line of study? One of my favourite moments in Section 31: Abyss, actually, is when Bashir and Dax find Locken's Neo-Khanate symbol on the Romulan ship, and Dax mutters "the humans will go mad". I loved how that acknowledged (or contained the seed of an acknowledgement, anyway) that humans are not the centre of the universe and the UFP's problems aren't about quirky "aliens" challenging a human norm, but instead that other Federation races are potentially rolling their eyes at humanity's silly ways, too. For every time a human mutters about Trill secretiveness, a Trill presumably mutters something about human augment-paranoia.
I have a soft spot for the Federation's flaws, I think. Not because I want to "discredit" the Federation, but (I guess) because I want them to have problems left to overcome, or issues that they still can't face yet.
While I know the Federation is supposed to be a far-sighted, open-minded and confident society - and thus it's certainly out of character for such a culture to issue blanket bans on whole branches of science out of fear - I actually find the incongruity interesting. I like that humans in the Trek 'verse have recognisable hang-ups and blind spots. Okay, the fact that the attitude towards genetic enhancement is at odds with the supposed character of the Federation is only truly interesting if it's acknowledged and addressed - otherwise it's just a weakness in the story-telling - but I think overall it makes for a richer tapestry, something to get our teeth into. I like Prime Directive stories for the same reason, actually - I agree with the fans and viewers (yourself prominant among them, of course) who take issue with how the Directive is interpreted in Picard's era, but it's for that very reason that I find the Prime Directive interesting. Maybe I'm just not comfortable with the idea of a people fully at grips with themselves (I find it too unrealistic, maybe?), but to see the Federation get "the wrong idea", get too bogged down in its assumptions and prejudices - too comfortable, perhaps - is part of the charm for me, so long as it isn't taken too far. Again, though, that depends on Trek works actually taking note of the incongruities in Federation thinking.
The genetic enhancement issue is also interesting, I think, because it's one of those welcome areas where the potential to divide "the UFP" from "humans" becomes evident. I quite like the idea that not only do the humans refuse to deal with genetic enhancement out of lingering fear, but that presumably the UFP as a whole goes along with it because humans are such a powerful part of their government/nation/movement. Humans as the reactionary voice on this particular issue is an interesting idea that I think could use some exploring. Do the Denobulan representatives mutter about humans shouting them down every time they try to push for greater study into genetic engineering? Was one of the very conditions for Earth's co-founding the UFP that its allies would refrain from pursuing that line of study? One of my favourite moments in Section 31: Abyss, actually, is when Bashir and Dax find Locken's Neo-Khanate symbol on the Romulan ship, and Dax mutters "the humans will go mad". I loved how that acknowledged (or contained the seed of an acknowledgement, anyway) that humans are not the centre of the universe and the UFP's problems aren't about quirky "aliens" challenging a human norm, but instead that other Federation races are potentially rolling their eyes at humanity's silly ways, too. For every time a human mutters about Trill secretiveness, a Trill presumably mutters something about human augment-paranoia.
I have a soft spot for the Federation's flaws, I think. Not because I want to "discredit" the Federation, but (I guess) because I want them to have problems left to overcome, or issues that they still can't face yet.
Re: Was the experiment in Unnatural Selection ever explained in Trek l
^That's an interesting perspective, but what I have trouble getting past is the idea that the UFP's ban on genetic engineering is because of something that happened 400 years earlier. That doesn't make sense. There's no way that kind of fear or hangup would last that long, so much time after the grandchildren of the last people who would've experienced the crisis firsthand would've died. No culture remains rigid in its attitudes for that length of time.
The events of the ENT Augments arc actually help a bit in that respect, since it could be that those incidents, almost leading to war with the Klingons, could've provoked a renewed fear reaction toward genetic engineering. Two centuries is still rather an implausibly long time for that kind of Luddite fear of new technology to endure, but it's better than four.
^That's an interesting perspective, but what I have trouble getting past is the idea that the UFP's ban on genetic engineering is because of something that happened 400 years earlier. That doesn't make sense. There's no way that kind of fear or hangup would last that long, so much time after the grandchildren of the last people who would've experienced the crisis firsthand would've died. No culture remains rigid in its attitudes for that length of time.
The events of the ENT Augments arc actually help a bit in that respect, since it could be that those incidents, almost leading to war with the Klingons, could've provoked a renewed fear reaction toward genetic engineering. Two centuries is still rather an implausibly long time for that kind of Luddite fear of new technology to endure, but it's better than four.
Re: Was the experiment in Unnatural Selection ever explained in Trek l
Hmmm. Okay, I can't think of anything to challenge that, and every angle I try to take on a possible answer leads me to new implausibilities, so I suppose I'll have to concede that, indeed, it doesn't make sense. I suppose all I can say now is that I apparently have to accept that for the purposes of Trek fiction, humanity has somehow sunk its collective undermind into the trauma of the Eugenics Wars and gotten it stuck there, even long after the Wars should remain a factor in their decision making, conscious or otherwise. As unrealistic as that is, that's apparently what's happened.
So, the conclusion is: Trek humanity, for whatever reason, is largely committed to remaining in the shadow of something that happened 400 years beforehand, and that doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense, but it explains and justifies something else that doesn't really make sense, which is the UFP's general attitude toward genetic enhancement. Actually think about it, and it becomes a situation of "but that just raises further questions!" The lesson here is never think. Okay, only joking
, but more seriously I guess this is one of those points where I have to surrender and just accept that the universal translator is magic and that aliens with toxic blood chemistries can produce human hybrid babies.
PS: I guess there's also something potentially amusing about augment-fearing Trek humans having, apparently, superhuman capacity for cultural angst. I wish I could work that into something resembling a coherent or logical joke; as it is, it'll have to remain a random observation.
Hmmm. Okay, I can't think of anything to challenge that, and every angle I try to take on a possible answer leads me to new implausibilities, so I suppose I'll have to concede that, indeed, it doesn't make sense. I suppose all I can say now is that I apparently have to accept that for the purposes of Trek fiction, humanity has somehow sunk its collective undermind into the trauma of the Eugenics Wars and gotten it stuck there, even long after the Wars should remain a factor in their decision making, conscious or otherwise. As unrealistic as that is, that's apparently what's happened.
So, the conclusion is: Trek humanity, for whatever reason, is largely committed to remaining in the shadow of something that happened 400 years beforehand, and that doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense, but it explains and justifies something else that doesn't really make sense, which is the UFP's general attitude toward genetic enhancement. Actually think about it, and it becomes a situation of "but that just raises further questions!" The lesson here is never think. Okay, only joking
, but more seriously I guess this is one of those points where I have to surrender and just accept that the universal translator is magic and that aliens with toxic blood chemistries can produce human hybrid babies.PS: I guess there's also something potentially amusing about augment-fearing Trek humans having, apparently, superhuman capacity for cultural angst. I wish I could work that into something resembling a coherent or logical joke; as it is, it'll have to remain a random observation.
Re: Was the experiment in Unnatural Selection ever explained in Trek l
I wonder, is the existence of Julian Bashir (who is genetically engineered yet is not a Khan-style Augment) some part of the reason why so many believe the ban should be overturned? He's really the only thing even remotely resembling "proof" that genetic engineering does not always lead to arrogance and megalomania.
In any case, while such engineering may not always produce overt despotism and aggressiveness, it will certainly result in a Gattaca-like situation where those with enhancements have all the power and advantages over those who do not.
I wonder, is the existence of Julian Bashir (who is genetically engineered yet is not a Khan-style Augment) some part of the reason why so many believe the ban should be overturned? He's really the only thing even remotely resembling "proof" that genetic engineering does not always lead to arrogance and megalomania.
In any case, while such engineering may not always produce overt despotism and aggressiveness, it will certainly result in a Gattaca-like situation where those with enhancements have all the power and advantages over those who do not.
Re: Was the experiment in Unnatural Selection ever explained in Trek l
Except for the entire Denobulan species. They employ genetic engineering, and never had anything like the Augments.
And that's an odd way of defining the burden of proof, really. Why would megalomania be the default assumption? That doesn't even make sense. If you have the capacity to define the traits of an individual, then clearly you have options in terms of what their inclinations of personality will be. The Augments' "superior ambition" and aggression were either the deliberate choice of their creators or a mistake due to inadequate safeguards in the process. When a technology goes wrong, you don't assume that's the default outcome and ban it altogether; you design better safeguards. Instead of enhanced ambition and aggression, you could engineer for enhanced wisdom, emotional stability, and empathy.
"Certainly?" There are far too many variables shaping the course of history for any projection of the future to be legitimately prefaced with the word "certainly."
You could just as easily say that we currently live in a world where people with access to good health care, or access to basic sanitation and a reliable food source, or access to electricity and telecommunications, have all the advantages over those who don't. But that doesn't mean you ban health care or sanitation or electricity. It means you work to distribute them more fairly so that everyone can share in their benefits. It means that the people who have those advantages, if they have a basic sense of decency and fairness, work to spread and share those advantages to others. That's the Federation way with everything else, so why wouldn't it be with this? It doesn't make sense to embrace a cynical "power inevitably corrupts" mentality when talking about Star Trek, because the Federation is easily the most powerful civilization in the quadrant (aside from the various superbeings that tend to remove themselves from galactic society and politics on our level) and simultaneously the most benevolent. I see no reason to assume it would be any different with the power of genetic enhancement than it is with the power of warp drive or replicators or holodecks or magic blinky-salt-shaker medicine.
Except for the entire Denobulan species. They employ genetic engineering, and never had anything like the Augments.
And that's an odd way of defining the burden of proof, really. Why would megalomania be the default assumption? That doesn't even make sense. If you have the capacity to define the traits of an individual, then clearly you have options in terms of what their inclinations of personality will be. The Augments' "superior ambition" and aggression were either the deliberate choice of their creators or a mistake due to inadequate safeguards in the process. When a technology goes wrong, you don't assume that's the default outcome and ban it altogether; you design better safeguards. Instead of enhanced ambition and aggression, you could engineer for enhanced wisdom, emotional stability, and empathy.
"Certainly?" There are far too many variables shaping the course of history for any projection of the future to be legitimately prefaced with the word "certainly."
You could just as easily say that we currently live in a world where people with access to good health care, or access to basic sanitation and a reliable food source, or access to electricity and telecommunications, have all the advantages over those who don't. But that doesn't mean you ban health care or sanitation or electricity. It means you work to distribute them more fairly so that everyone can share in their benefits. It means that the people who have those advantages, if they have a basic sense of decency and fairness, work to spread and share those advantages to others. That's the Federation way with everything else, so why wouldn't it be with this? It doesn't make sense to embrace a cynical "power inevitably corrupts" mentality when talking about Star Trek, because the Federation is easily the most powerful civilization in the quadrant (aside from the various superbeings that tend to remove themselves from galactic society and politics on our level) and simultaneously the most benevolent. I see no reason to assume it would be any different with the power of genetic enhancement than it is with the power of warp drive or replicators or holodecks or magic blinky-salt-shaker medicine.
