What are some dystopian elements in Star Trek?
- Thread starter HansentheSwede
- Start date
didn't the episode state that the Federation Council had come to that decision? Isn't that a representative body of a democratic society?
Funny thing is I looked up the legal definition of imminent domain during one of the Insurrection threads and it does not work the way the TV tells us it does, turns out that the government can't just show up out of the blue and take someone's property they have to go through some sort of legal proceeding first that from the sounds of it they can be overruled in by the courts if they don't agree with them.
^ But in the episode Journey's End, according to Admiral Blonde Hair, there was a proceeding, a long discusion and the settlers had a representative present and had a opportunity to express their views. Starfleet didn't just show up out of no-where, the settlers through their representative should have known that a relocation was coming.
When Picard did show up to begin the relocation of the settlers, his appearence didn't appear to a surprise, the leadership of the settlers was ready with the communities refusial to leave.
.
When Picard did show up to begin the relocation of the settlers, his appearence didn't appear to a surprise, the leadership of the settlers was ready with the communities refusial to leave.
.
precisely. This was the opposite of imperialism-this was a democratic government coming to a decision with the input of those affected considered and represented in the process.
Fandom says that Kirk was a pain in Starfleet's rear. We don't ever see that in the movies, but we could easily see that they might have wanted to get rid of him because he just didn't fit in - he was too idealistic. Kirk, too idealistic! (That, and his loyalties are obviously not to Starfleet (not the Federation) first). Picard will never make admiral, at least not before he's too old to make any waves. Sisko might be let into the club, as he seems to have the same level of pragmatism as Ross (who wasn't bad, as far as Trek Admirals go). Janeway obviously is evil enough to be promoted way up the chain of command
Archer is too important (like Kirk) to not be made admiral, and his competency-level fits the other sort of Trek Admiral 
It appears that Starfleet command knows all this, and keeps the Lawful Good idealistic guys as Forever Captains, out away from the levers of power, but also where they can do the most good. A starship captain is the one who generally deals first with any crisis, and a good one can prevent them before they blow up, while the admirals are sitting in their office on a starbase.
Picard in First Contact: "You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th Century"
Yeah, right.
Waitress: "What'll it be?"
Picard: "I'd like a Denebian Diva, with an umbrella."
Waitress: "That'll be 2 quatloos."
Picard: "Would you accept this combadge as currency? Or how about these rank pips on my collar? Those would look very fetching on you."
Waitress pulls out a Klingon disruptor: "Get out of our club and don't come back!"
The Federation wouldn't get very far without some exchange rate for labor and produce.
You're using the word "dystopia" incorrectly, then. A dystopia is by definition a system that is wholly oppressive and awful, an inversion of the concept of utopia. What you're describing are simply moral flaws, of the sort that even a positive society may possess.
In other words: For "dystopia," think Hitler's Germany, not Attlee's Britain.
Well, the title of the thread is "What are some dystopian elements in Star Trek?" While not a complete dystopian, neither is the future depicted in Star Trek really a utopia. I think Hanson the Swede is correct that people can't alway see the problems of the society they live in.
One problem area that (of all peoples) was pointed out by the Borg is that the Federation's cultures are authority driven, some of the problems pointed out by posters so far in this thread can be traced to placing too much power and authority in the hands of a individual "at the top."
I point out one individual ordering a state of emergency over Earth as a individual decision. There wasn't a need for a lightning fast decision, a vey brief line of dialog added to the episode could have establish something like "Get started, while I run this passed the Council," or "I'll have to get the approvial of Earthgov, but I'm sure they'll green light the deployment of troops."
Presidents and admirals and ambassadors, lots of power, seemingly little oversight.
Normal part of the Federation culture?
One problem area that (of all peoples) was pointed out by the Borg is that the Federation's cultures are authority driven, some of the problems pointed out by posters so far in this thread can be traced to placing too much power and authority in the hands of a individual "at the top."
I point out one individual ordering a state of emergency over Earth as a individual decision. There wasn't a need for a lightning fast decision, a vey brief line of dialog added to the episode could have establish something like "Get started, while I run this passed the Council," or "I'll have to get the approvial of Earthgov, but I'm sure they'll green light the deployment of troops."
Presidents and admirals and ambassadors, lots of power, seemingly little oversight.
Normal part of the Federation culture?
Well, here's a big one: the Federation is the only interstellar scale democracy that we know of in canon, surrounded on all sides by antagonistic powers. Starfleet Command and the Federation Council tend to enforce draconian rules that allow billions to die, while ignoring obvious threats until they are forced to act.
To be fair, this is essentially the same power that numerous executive officials have in real life over their polities, both at the sovereign state level and at the local polity level. U.S. Governors over their states, the U.S. President over the United States, Canadian premiers over their provinces, the Canadian Prime Minister over Canada, etc. (E.g., Pierre Trudeau's "Just Watch Me.")
It's questionable whether the executive possessing the authority to declare a state of emergency is necessarily "dystopian" (that is to say, oppressive) or if is perhaps more accurate to say that the abuse of this authority is oppressive.
If we help these iron age people survive, our interaction with them might result in a societal change they never would have made by themselves, Much better that they cease to exist to the last person. How else are they going to learn?
There are aspects of the prime directive (especially in the 24th century) that depicts the cultures of the Federation as unfeeling and secretive, even contemptuous toward less advance civilizations.
General Order Seven would be a excellent example of a Draconian law/rule. A death penalty law that carries no explanation what-so ever. An example of a culture of secrecy. While perhaps not going into full detail, there was no reason not to inform the Federation populace (who have warp travel) why Talos Four isn't to be contacted. Efforts to generally control what a population is allowed to know, likely is a characteristic of a dystopian future.
If a civilian ship's captain were to come into contact with the Talosians and later be arrested, do you think the Federation would allow them a lawyer and access to the press?
The plague in the ]Cor Caroli system was classified by Starfleet a secret, maybe something a society with warp drive should know about? Warn ships away, explain why ship shouldn't visit, but make it a secret?
Similar threads
