I mean, it's really little different from other argument-from-destiny stuff we've seen in Trek before. Isn't it cruel to assume that the Nazis wouldn't have improved after winning the war if Edith Keeler hadn't died? What's inevitable about "destiny" that makes it okay to connive at someone's death just because it leads to a different historical outcome for our planet?
That's not the point, whether the Nazis would have continued to be cruel and barbaric, or whether they would have turned into cute, fluffy whatevers that wouldn't swat a mosquito. The point is, something about that new history led to the nonexistence of the Federation and Starfleet - the possibilities are myriad as to exactly which action or non-action was responsible. The fact, though, was that what made it all possible was Edith's survival. If she lives, these other variables come into play and lead to the nonexistence of the history and life that Kirk knows. If she dies, all remains as it was because those variables never exist.
Does America still have slavery?
Technically, yes, actually, it's called the prison-industrial complex. (And yes, felons are still fair game for actual slavery and what happens in the prison system is actual slave labour.) It's just targeted at a slightly broader range of people, but its primary targets are still the same people who were targeted by plantation slavery, and then convict leasing, forced sharecropping and debt peonage.
No. Most of the people in prisons are there for a reason: They broke the law and the penalty is prison. While life there is one variation of hell on Earth, the fact is that the prisoners do have basic rights and access to lawyers. The American slaves had neither rights nor lawyers, nor did they do anything wrong to deserve what happened to them.
For a modern SF example of what you've described as happening in the prison system, I recommend F.M. Busby's novels
Young Rissa,
Rissa and Tregare,
The Long View, and
Zelde M'Tana. These are near-future novels in which the protagonists are children thrown into a repressive system called Total Welfare.
In the case of Rissa and her brother Ivan, they were "Welfared" because the state (the U.S. and most of the world, controlled by a multinational conglomerate called United Energy and Transport - UET) framed their parents (news reporters) for starting the Welfare Center riot they'd been covering. The parents were killed in the riot and the kids - ages 5 and 8 - were taken from their home the next day and sent to a Welfare Center, presumably for the rest of their lives. They had no rights, and what little legal help they did have was arranged by their uncle, who was himself Welfared. That help wasn't what eventually, after 11 years for Rissa and 12 years for Ivan, freed them.
In the case of Zelde M'Tana, she was an orphan who joined a gang for survival, was caught, and Welfared. But since she attacked a Committee Police agent, she was deemed too dangerous for life in a Welfare Center and was instead sent off-planet to a mining colony, as one of a cargo of sex slaves for the miners. Zelde had even less rights or access to legal help than Rissa and Ivan.
Total Welfare is what our modern, RL system could morph into if the populace isn't vigilant about which politicians get elected, which policies get enacted, which laws get passed. In the books, Total Welfare started out as a kind of Dickensian workhouse for the people who couldn't pay their debts; in theory the people there could work off those debts. In actuality, it changed into a prison not only for debtors, but also political prisoners, the disabled, the homeless, orphaned children, or anyone else without the money or power to keep out of it. All of the Welfared people were forced to work at largely menial tasks, essentially without pay and very little choice over how they lived their lives, or if they were allowed to live at all. Some were used for medical experiments, some as sex slaves, and the children were given no education whatsoever except for what they needed to know to do the work they were assigned. There were no "sentences" to serve; unless they somehow were able to buy themselves out, they were there for life.
The modern North American systems aren't
that bad, at least not yet.
The posts that got my brain juices flowing the most though were the Keiko/Kai Winn bits. I really enjoyed the posting of the dialogue especially. While I do agree with Kira when she suggested that pure science could also be seen as a philosophy of its own, I absolutely do not think that this puts it in the same category as
any religion. The rule of science is to constantly adjust itself whenever new information is discovered. The edict of most religions seems to be to
resist the very same thing - because proof isn't necessary. It's all about faith.
The only religion I really know enough about to speak on is Christianity and I know from experience that its teachers espouse the idea that because of "False Prophets" and "Satan" and the like... there will be many things to come along to test your faith and as a good Christian, you must resist them.
How do you really combat that kinda thing? Tell some folks that
learned people have actual
proof that the earth is not 4,000 years old and they will hold fast to their claim that it
is - as if they believe God is watching and they want to show him they will not be tricked...
There absolutely is no room for arbitration between science and religion. This is not because science has ruled out God (it cannot), but simply because there is no evidentiary reason to include the concept in scientific texts. Science is fact-based. Religion is faith-based. Science is not
against religion any more than Sodoku is against Gin Rummy.
Quickly...
I believe in divine creation.
I believe the point of the entire universe is life.
I believe the point of life is evolution - and
I believe that the righteous evolve somewhere in to some
thing because they have improved existence with their being... What lies after this is (in my opinion) unknowable.
That being said, if this were being taught in any public school, I would be positively horrified.
Is "2 + 2 = 4" philosophy? Of course not. It's simply a fact.
Other than this I agree with you up until the part about "
I believe that the righteous evolve somewhere in to some
thing because they have improved existence with their being..."
Nature is truly neutral. Nature doesn't care which species evolves and which species dies and which species remains constant over hundreds of million years. Nature has no preference whatsoever, other than those lifeforms that are able to adapt to their environments will live and procreate. Those that are unable to do so will die. There are some pretty nasty lifeforms that have been around for many millions of years, yet they survive. "Righteousness" has nothing to do with it.
There was one scene where Kai Winn has a meeting with everyone and offers a compromise. (some of the compromise is a little silly) Kieko completely refuses.
Another is when Kira and Kieko And Sisko are having a discussion about what just happened, and after Kieko repeatedly refuses to compromise, watch Kira's reaction.
She has a "there's no point in trying to talk to her" expression.
I think the show's real intention to show Kieko as being right, but it comes out making her look like a stubborn atheist-- especially if you watched this for the first time. ironic.
Of course Keiko is stubborn. That's part of her "I'm always right" character. I don't like Keiko overall, but in this episode she stood up for her integrity as a scientist and the goals she set out for her school. She was right: Leave the science to the school and the religion to whatever Bajoran institution takes care of that.
