Would Picard be Xavier?
What if Augmentation was accepted in the Federation?
- Thread starter dswynne1
- Start date
Would Picard be Xavier?
The Federation would become even more of a priority assimilation target for the Borg.
We do demand universal compliance with some societal demands in the real world though. Taxation. I mean I'd love to opt out. Laws prohibiting all the different types of criminality--are criminals just people who want to do their own thing, then? And now in the US we have a law that requires us to buy a third-party product, health insurance. The list of what we may command the citizenry to do for decided policy is expanding all the time.
We do demand universal compliance with some societal demands in the real world though. Taxation. I mean I'd love to opt out. Laws prohibiting all the different types of criminality--are criminals just people who want to do their own thing, then? And now in the US we have a law that requires us to buy a third-party product, health insurance. The list of what we may command the citizenry to do for decided policy is expanding all the time.
Last edited:
Taxation is different. Everyone pays, and everyone benefits from the services it makes possible. And as easy as it is to make fun of government and want to "opt out" of it, that cannot be possible, because then you'd have anarchy, chaos and mob rule.
And if those kind of people managed to take power, it would be even worse. It'd be an empire ruled by monsters like Darryl Revok (Scanners) or Alfred Bester (B5).
And if those kind of people managed to take power, it would be even worse. It'd be an empire ruled by monsters like Darryl Revok (Scanners) or Alfred Bester (B5).
I think ST writers put themselves into a comfortable position of banning a practice which everyone in society is compliant, except maybe one. In reality, if it can be done, it will be done, legality being no deterrent. When too many break the law, it can't be enforced, and eventual the augmented come to power (culturally, or politically) and change the law, like a few states have with marijuana. Will all the augmented be arrogant? I don't know, is it part of a literary plot? Will those that opt-out be targeted with prejudice and oppression. Augmentation is supposed to make you smarter, right? Is unethical treatment an intellectual pursuit? There are going to be bad augments whose behavior is going to be detrimental to their society. Either that society collapses, or other members remove the bad members from the gene pool. Humanity will normalize as if evolution made us stronger and smarter.
And they would have transwarp sooner.
And they would have transwarp sooner.
How would everyone not benefit from augmentation if everyone participated? And why wouldn't the same anarchist argument against opting out apply to this? With enforced universal participation, in one generation everyone would be a beneficiary of it. I assume those who don't want to participate would be sterilized, rather than, say, simply killed. That doesn't seem so awful a requirement to me to move forward with such a grand, societal shift. Maybe the goals of civilization should not be simply to maintain the civilization and haphazardly evolve, but to take control of destiny and seek greatness. A civilization that does no more than perpetuate itself through the random acts of its citizens might, in fact, be a mediocrity.
Oooooooo...Revok and Bester together can you imagine the possibilities? I just binged Jessica Jones and feel like I want to add in Kilgrave now, but he never thought big. There's Gary Mitchell, but he's too powerful.
Last edited:
It's what I keep saying: Not everyone will want to be augmented or engineered, and obviously must not be forced to (would you, for example, object if the government forced you to undergo a Steve Austin-like operation to replace your limbs & eyes, if you didn't want to?) So logically speaking, there can never be a world where everyone is augmented.
And are you seriously advocating a world where those who don't wish to be augmented should be forcibly sterilized? Do you have any idea how dangerous that is? Of course it's what Khan would want. As would real world dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, NK's "Dear Leaders", etc. I'm sure they had their own ideas about "destiny" and "greatness"...
It's as undemocratic as you could possibly get.
And are you seriously advocating a world where those who don't wish to be augmented should be forcibly sterilized? Do you have any idea how dangerous that is? Of course it's what Khan would want. As would real world dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, NK's "Dear Leaders", etc. I'm sure they had their own ideas about "destiny" and "greatness"...
It's as undemocratic as you could possibly get.
Last edited:
It's what I keep saying: Not everyone will want to be augmented or engineered, and obviously must not be forced to (would you, for example, object if the government forced you to undergo a Steve Austin-like operation to replace your limbs & eyes, if you didn't want to?) So logically speaking, there can never be a world where everyone is augmented.
And are you seriously advocating a world where those who don't wish to be augmented should be forcibly sterilized? Do you have any idea how dangerous that is? Of course it's what Khan would want. As would real world dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, NK's "Dear Leaders", etc. I'm sure they had their own ideas about "destiny" and "greatness"...
It's as undemocratic as you could possibly get.
Doesn't have to be undemocratic.
Hell man, I am not sure but I may be infertile. Not only do I not care, but my girlfriend would consider it a plus if she knew for sure, as would I. So being sterilized doesn't seem so awful to me. But, again, the universe is huge. People who don't want to augment could leave. Paying for migration of non-augments could even be part of the statute that carries it forward. And presumably such a grand decision would be arrived at democratically. Are you familiar with the Arthur Clarke novel The City and the Stars? The decision to experiment with creating a mind whose stuff is spacetime itself was made by all the citizen participants in a fully galactic civilization. The Mad Mind was a disaster, but there is Vanamonde, and the results don't mean the experiment wasn't a noble one. Everyone suffered tremendously because of the results of this decision, but it was arrived at democratically.
Creating such a being/mind required the full effort and resources of an entire galaxy. They were doing it so they could at least have a translation of direct perception of existence--I would say a truly philosophically uplifting and ennobling aim. Imagine the progress, the development of a civilization that could get a line on what the cosmos really looks like! But one of Clarke's points is that the full commitment of the entire (multispecies) civilization was required.
I don't see why it is necessarily logical that the world would be one where not everyone is augmented if universal participation is required by a majoritarian decision, if those who opt out must choose to either resettle far away from the Federation or sterilization should they choose to remain. Either way in short order you have a civilization of augments.
Finally, I must re-emphasize that we DO command people to do things "for the good of society." All the time. See eminent domain, Obamacare, building code requirements, EPA requirements for businesses, and yes, taxation. Many people feel that they don't get much benefit from what they are taxed and vehemently argue that they should be allowed to opt out of most of it--why is that not tyrannical, that they cannot? Because you think taxes are of course justified somehow? Many people disagree with you and feel quite passionately about this. And about other government commands. So I really don't see how this is any different. It's BIG, but not different in principle.
Frankly, if I must submit to a government command--democratically arrived at--I'd rather if be for an exciting, civilization-changing, big-ticket item than piddling little small stuff, like taxes. That, of course, is just me, my preference, and doesn't factor into the reasoning for it though.
I am a little confused--I thought augmentation was for your children, not yourself.
Edited to add: I still think the Revok/Bester idea is freaking brilliant Mr. LB. President and veep?
Last edited:
It's what I keep saying: Not everyone will want to be augmented or engineered, and obviously must not be forced to (would you, for example, object if the government forced you to undergo a Steve Austin-like operation to replace your limbs & eyes, if you didn't want to?) So logically speaking, there can never be a world where everyone is augmented.
And are you seriously advocating a world where those who don't wish to be augmented should be forcibly sterilized? Do you have any idea how dangerous that is? Of course it's what Khan would want. As would real world dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, NK's "Dear Leaders", etc. I'm sure they had their own ideas about "destiny" and "greatness"...
It's as undemocratic as you could possibly get.
Why would you assume there would be anyone with the desire to "opt-out" on a chance to be augmented? In fact, it seems that you would not be in favor of even having the option of being augmented. Do you fear that having such an option mean, at the very least, create a de facto class system where society would become discriminatory in favor of augmentation, even if there are not any mandates or legal discrimination?
Because there's no reason not to.
Whatever one's viewpoint on augmentation/transhumanism might be, there are always going to be those who disagree with it. There's very little in life that absolutely everyone agrees on.
The Amish would opt out, at the least.
Also, you can't decide to exile people from their homeland by a vote, unless you're evil. The principle is majority rule with minority rights. If you have 100 people and one of them is Bob, then it isn't a proper democratically reached outcome if 99 of them vote that Bob should be their slave and Bob votes against. It may not even be a properly reached outcome if Bob himself votes for it. Some rights transcend allowing a society to negate them by any means - that's why they're RIGHTS.
Also, you can't decide to exile people from their homeland by a vote, unless you're evil. The principle is majority rule with minority rights. If you have 100 people and one of them is Bob, then it isn't a proper democratically reached outcome if 99 of them vote that Bob should be their slave and Bob votes against. It may not even be a properly reached outcome if Bob himself votes for it. Some rights transcend allowing a society to negate them by any means - that's why they're RIGHTS.
Hmm. Looks like the mad eugenicists came out since the last time I read this one. Forced sterilization? Forced augmentation? Mass exile? Do these people not understand how monstrous that sounds? At least they're not suggesting death camps, but that's coming soon after, when the psychopaths hijack their ideas.
Sorry, what?
Everyone would have the right to choose and if they opted out the government would generously foot the bill to deport them?
Not exactly the sort of future I see ST portraying
Nearest real life example I can think of is anabolic steroid use. Legality varies around the world but uptake is pretty consistently a significant minority with clear cut demographics. Anyone can get them, most opt out.
We don't really know much about the side efects of augmentation but you can bet your bottom dollar they'll be there and many would simply not care to meddle with the fundamentals of who and what they or their pffspring are.
now that you mention it...
What you have described IS a properly reached democratic outcome. "Rights" are not part of democracy's base definition; you've expanded it.
Rights inhere in the minority, but policy is decided by the majority. Rights are frequently abrogated in major policy shifts, especially property rights. When, in the name of the people who duly elected them, the governing individuals of a polity decide to expand the polity in such a way that seizure of property of any kind is required, it is done. That is NO different from telling people who won't get with the democratically enacted program that they must relocate.
As for augmentation itself, I am not suggesting forcing the unwilling. I am suggesting they resettle or be sterilized if they wish to remain.
There don't have to be death camps. It can be done just as I suggested--there is no reason at all to go to such an extreme. Only the very lazy and, yes, very inhumane would create death camps. A bootstrap evolution of mankind does not have to be a violent or thuggish one.
Why do it at all? For greatness. To dare--and share--a destiny that is beyond the mundane administration of empire.
Last edited:
Wow. I didn't realize that Khan Noonien Singh was actually a member here....
I think even Khan might have been slightly creeped out by that one.
I'm pretty sure even he was willing to let non augments co exist with augments in his version of the world, not forcibly relocate them just...because.
Dear God....
You're right. The Federation IS about perpetuating itself--the mundane administration of empire. It provides a safe shelter for fruitful scientific inquiry, but attempts nothing bold, nothing large scale. nothing that requires the commitment of an entire civilization to accomplish.
Oh for the love of Pete--and do you think people who DON'T augment their children--I still think of this as for offspring, not yourself--would be happy living among a majority of augments? I doubt they would. It wouldn't be "just because" and they would be well compensated in any statute I imagine.
Look guys, how many of you have read the Well World series by Jack Chalker? Remember what the Markovians accomplished? It was a grand experiment that exalted--for a while--the civilization that attempted it (Chalker's judgment was the ultimate materialist utopia was so lacking and sterile that the Markovians would commit species suicide over it, but it was still a grand endeavor...and...isn't the Federation already the ultimate materialist utopia? There's more to reach for, and they might vitally need to dream big.). That's really what I am getting at here: a controlled evolution of all of mankind could be a good thing, but unless you try you'll never know. Who knows what vistas would be opened up? We DON'T know what great things such intellects as many Bashirs would accomplish. We wouldn't all be Kahns. Most of us wouldn't be.
Why do so many of you assume that the worst case scenario must happen? Why can't it be a peaceful transition? Because people are inherently shitty and always let the worst choices rule them when acting in large numbers? I don't accept that, I won't be so cynical about us. Instead of acting as our homo sapiens ancestors finishing off the last Neanderthals (if indeed that happened), we let the people mankind has evolutionarily superseded find their destiny in some distant but equally comfortable part of the galaxy. In my imagination, we choose a grand achievement but also choose to be just and kind.
Why would we have to be monsters? The universe is HUGE, space for all, why not? Resettlement isn't that monstrous. Was the resettlement of the Maquis justified? Or the Native American planet in Journey's End? Don't tell me that it was also about the Cardassians. The Federation should have gone to war with the Sheliak in the Ensigns of Command to defend its citizens if this is something tantamount to a death camp! If resettlement is SO monstrous, so hideous, it should have been unacceptable, period. So let's not pretend that resettlement is even remotely as monstrous as death camps!
Last edited:
Similar threads
