Why the Star Trek Universe is secretly horrifying

[Shawnster]

RE: Little to no cultural references in Star Trek post 20th century.

I can't remember where I read it but Trek's powers that be point of view was that any attempt to make a "futuristic" culture in terms of music, entertainment, etc... generally comes off as hokey and becomes very anachronistic in a short period of time. Or something like that. It's been years since I read the comment. Basically the point is that the classics don't stick out like a sore thumb the way that attempting to predict future culture does.

So that is why they stick with the classics. Everyone understands them. No explanation required.

I believe the humanity should gather into tribal family communities of no more than about 200 people.

How does this work once the 200 population limit is reached? How many people are forced out of the tribe? Who is forced out of the tribe? What if they don't want to leave? Where do they go? How far away must they move before they can form their own tribe? What is the smallest number of people that can keep a tribe viable?

 

[fireproof78]

Do you know that quote by I think Abraham Lincoln about how "you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"? I think that that's only true when people can have differing views from each other. It's not always the same people disagreeing with the same others in the same ways, but there's maybe never 100% agreement on anything the larger a group is. Perhaps in this way we constantly keep each other in check, forcing us to be accurate when we do come to consensuses, and helping us to be able to attack different problems from wildly different vectors.

If this is the case, a government in which everybody completely agrees on something should be of some concern.

Where does that put the Federation?

 

[Arpy]

Where does that put the Federation?

Weren't they having peace rallies or war protests on Earth during the Dominion War? Wasn't Admiral Dougherty concerned about Federation opinion polls and discussion in the Federation Council? I think the Federation if anything is more diverse and free than we are.

Although we like to trumpet our cultural values I think it's often little more than PR. If you like M*A*S*H, you are old enough to remember the popular culture being fearful and stifled in the years post 9/11...commercials promoting cultural unity against the new terrorist threat playing before movies and even more flags and renditions of the national anthem. Our government lead us into a "war of choice" in Iraq knowing that 70% of the American people thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, and knowingly misrepresenting the WMD threat. Today working full time gets you indentured servitude, and a congress in which a 5% majority is considered a mandate can't pass common-sense gun laws with 90% popular approval. I'm not afraid of the Federation being less free than that; I'm afraid of us not working toward a freer Federation, thinking we're better off.

 

[fireproof78]

Weren't they having peace rallies or war protests on Earth during the Dominion War? Wasn't Admiral Dougherty concerned about Federation opinion polls and discussion in the Federation Council? I think the Federation if anything is more diverse and free than we are.

I am curious to what you base this on, largely because the implication is that the Federation has more planned societies, and structured roles, though that might vary. There is evidence for some other types too.

Although we like to trumpet our cultural values I think it's often little more than PR. If you like M*A*S*H, you are old enough to remember the popular culture being fearful and stifled in the years post 9/11...commercials promoting cultural unity against the new terrorist threat playing before movies and even more flags and renditions of the national anthem. Our government lead us into a "war of choice" in Iraq knowing that 70% of the American people thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, and knowingly misrepresenting the WMD threat. Today working full time gets you indentured servitude, and a congress in which a 5% majority is considered a mandate can't pass common-sense gun laws with 90% popular approval. I'm not afraid of the Federation being less free than that; I'm afraid of us not working toward a freer Federation, thinking we're better off.

Those are rather large issues to toss in to this discussion, and certainly do not take in to account the complexity of those issues in this context. I certainly don't think the US is as culturally united as was once believed, nor do I think we ever had that unity under the best of circumstances.

I'm not going to sit here and stack the US against the Federation because I think that's a no-win situation. I'm just wondering what about the Federation inspires the idea of freedom? More curious to see more positive examples.

 

[Arpy]

I am curious to what you base this on, largely because the implication is that the Federation has more planned societies, and structured roles, though that might vary. There is evidence for some other types too.

They're more planned because they've learned a lot between now and then. But note Picard's disapproval of the genetically-engineered colony from "Masterpiece Society." The Federation tries to figure social problems out, not get rid of them by getting rid of people.

What do you mean by structured roles? Not Starfleet; they're a military/civilian hybrid organization, so they're bound to be more organized than the average Vash.

I'm just wondering what about the Federation inspires the idea of freedom? More curious to see more positive examples.

I'm not sure what you're asking. To me, everything about the Federation speaks to freedom, truth, justice, progress, etc - all our classic cultural ideals. Its premise is basically an idyllic future USA, only with a lot more stars on the flag. It's a liberal representative democracy of countless diverse peoples. It's a more sophisticated society in the way we are from ancient Rome. I'm sure we might seem less "free" to them as well, with our child-labor laws and whatnot, but, sarcasm aside, I don't understand your apprehensiveness.

 

[fireproof78]

They're more planned because they've learned a lot between now and then. But note Picard's disapproval of the genetically-engineered colony from "Masterpiece Society." The Federation tries to figure social problems out, not get rid of them by getting rid of people.

What do you mean by structured roles? Not Starfleet; they're a military/civilian hybrid organization, so they're bound to be more organized than the average Vash.

Well, obviously. I would expect more structure from a military organization like Starfleet.

And, I take my concept from Spock's comment in "A Way to Eden" so that might be a little bit narrow.

I'm not sure what you're asking. To me, everything about the Federation speaks to freedom, truth, justice, progress, etc - all our classic cultural ideals. Its premise is basically an idyllic future USA, only with a lot more stars on the flag. It's a liberal representative democracy of countless diverse peoples. It's a more sophisticated society in the way we are from ancient Rome. I'm sure we might seem less "free" to them as well, with our child-labor laws and whatnot, but, sarcasm aside, I don't understand your apprehensiveness.

I'm asking for examples of what is appealing to the Federation to you. I thought that was fairly straight forward. I understand that the idea is to be a utopian ideal, perhaps classically liberally so.
I'm asking for more examples of that freedom in action in the show itself.

Also, there have been some interesting articles of late discussing some of Star Trek's future.

"Why Star Trek's Vision...is out of Date."

But, for every example on one side, there are examples of the positive side.

Economics of Star Trek

I'm just curious about your point of view.

 

[TwoJakes]

Not Starfleet; they're a military/civilian hybrid organization

Remove the slash and the words "civilian" and "hybrid" and you are correct.

 

[Solariabsg25]

That's an interesting point, because Joss Whedon himself admitted that the Alliance is not wholly evil. I believe his analogy was that at some times, the Alliance is capable of promoting peace, freedom and democracy (like the USA in World War II), and at other times it engages in very shady black ops and power-grabbing (like the USA in Vietnam).

To take the Firefly analogy to another level, I would be very interested in seeing existing episodes of that show...but retold from the point of view of the Alliance. I think we'd get a VERY different result. I mean, most of what we see of the Alliance - and of course the entire show - is told from the POV of Mal and his gang. And of course they're fair, impartial and objective at all times, aren't they?




.

Commander Harken in Bushwacked did suspect that the mutilations carried out by the Reaver may have been done by Mal and his crew as it was the kind of thing done by Browncoats during the war, who the audience recognised as the "good guys." Of course, the Alliance weren't totally innocent as explained in the tale of the booby-trapped apples.

As to Cracked they are a hoot, but to be taken rather tongue in cheek.

 

[Arpy]

I'm asking for examples of what is appealing to the Federation to you. I thought that was fairly straight forward. I understand that the idea is to be a utopian ideal, perhaps classically liberally so.
I'm asking for more examples of that freedom in action in the show itself.

I think the entire franchise is replete with examples of the Federation being free and benign. When they're not, it's usually an unusual situation or a curious twist to explore. I don't feel like trying to make this argument further. Are there specifically things that disturb you about it that you'd like to discuss? Again, I see the Federation being a place where our real world ideals are actually practiced, not, as I mentioned earlier, secondary to whatever lobbies and interests actually rule the day. The history of America and the world is a bittersweet mess aspiring toward such an organization, IMHO.

Also, there have been some interesting articles of late discussing some of Star Trek's future.

"Why Star Trek's Vision...is out of Date."

I really love this article. There is a lot about Star Trek that is out of date. The Abrams movies alas are not only less thoughtful that traditional Trek, but they're also too retro, ceding even an attempt at verisimilitude to a more nostalgic representation of the future. Trek's always been a bit unrealistic with its Horatio Hornblower ships in space, but they've usually given the sci-fi a good effort. I hoped DS9/VOY/ENT would have addressed some of the points in the article already, and wasn't too heartbroken when the Berman Trek era came to a close, but Abrams also not is disappointing.

I thought it was silly making Bashir illegal for being genetically-engineered. Hell, you could have make the argument part of there reason why everyone in the future is so handsome and intelligent and well-adjusted is in part due to a bit of that. It's certainly going to be a very real and ultimately very beneficial aspect of real life, I think.

The Borg should have been one example of the internet gone crazy, but it's silly to think mind-uploading isn't going to happen. And it's going to date Trek a lot when it's watched by folks 50-100 years from now.

Same with the way the TNG crew seemed to react to the nanites in TNG's "Evolution." You'd think they use nanotech all the time in the future. As a kid, I explained it away as the Feds being beyond nanotech and that's why they found it unusual. That replicator and various beam technologies made it rarer.

What about the singularity? I'd love to see an episode in which they come across a planet that didn't get through it as well as the Federation may have. Certainly Kirk came across plenty of supercomputers with agendas in TOS.

Starships aren't going anywhere just because they may send unmanned-probes ahead of their arrival.

What do you think about some of the points brought up in the article?

 

[BillJ]

I really love this article. There is a lot about Star Trek that is out of date.

I think its non-sense...

Instead, the future will be far different — and much weirder — than Roddenberry and other ST writers could have ever imagined. The challenge now is to admit that humanity is headed into a very different kind of future. It's time to set aside Star Trek's outdated vision of the future and focus on real possibilities.

That is deep. Or it isn't. It really isn't. Our future and Trek's future were never going to be the same. Star Trek is entertainment. People really need to wrap their minds around that.

 

[fireproof78]

I think the entire franchise is replete with examples of the Federation being free and benign. When they're not, it's usually an unusual situation or a curious twist to explore. I don't feel like trying to make this argument further. Are there specifically things that disturb you about it that you'd like to discuss? Again, I see the Federation being a place where our real world ideals are actually practiced, not, as I mentioned earlier, secondary to whatever lobbies and interests actually rule the day. The history of America and the world is a bittersweet mess aspiring toward such an organization, IMHO.

Sure, there specific things that bother me.

First of all, even if it is slightly older concept of the Federation is that they are very planned societies and balanced environments, as Spock described it (Way to Eden). That doesn't strike me as very free, though this may have been a limited time in the Federation's development when colonial needs mandated strict controls in order to survive. Obviously, we see the exception with Governor Kodos and his culling ("Conscience of the King").

Secondly, membership in the Federation is apparently a one way street. By that, I mean you can enter but you can't leave. The Maquis, the Bajorans, among others, are all expected to want to join the Federation without any measure of concern. But, regardless of what one might think about Eddington, his point that Sisko can't understand people wanting to leave the Federation. So, if the Federation is a meeting of equal membership, why the worry over people leaving? I personally would like that to be explored more.

Finally, despite the fact that situations are unusual in the greater scheme of things, the leadership within Starfleet seems to be be very susceptible to corruption, and more than just the garden grade scale of embezzlement or scandal that is seen among politicians in contemporary society. Far from being pillars of integrity, many admirals fall prey to suspicion, worry, prejudice, paranoia and bias. So, apparently the best and the brightest and most competent are not the leaders but out exploring?

I really love this article. There is a lot about Star Trek that is out of date. The Abrams movies alas are not only less thoughtful that traditional Trek, but they're also too retro, ceding even an attempt at verisimilitude to a more nostalgic representation of the future. Trek's always been a bit unrealistic with its Horatio Hornblower ships in space, but they've usually given the sci-fi a good effort. I hoped DS9/VOY/ENT would have addressed some of the points in the article already, and wasn't too heartbroken when the Berman Trek era came to a close, but Abrams also not is disappointing.

I personally think Abrams' is more thoughtful, or at least as thoughtful as TOS. But, I do agree that they went too retro in their look, though I can appreciate the more 60s era imagining with contemporary twist.

I thought it was silly making Bashir illegal for being genetically-engineered. Hell, you could have make the argument part of there reason why everyone in the future is so handsome and intelligent and well-adjusted is in part due to a bit of that. It's certainly going to be a very real and ultimately very beneficial aspect of real life, I think.

The Borg should have been one example of the internet gone crazy, but it's silly to think mind-uploading isn't going to happen. And it's going to date Trek a lot when it's watched by folks 50-100 years from now.

Same with the way the TNG crew seemed to react to the nanites in TNG's "Evolution." You'd think they use nanotech all the time in the future. As a kid, I explained it away as the Feds being beyond nanotech and that's why they found it unusual. That replicator and various beam technologies made it rarer.

What about the singularity? I'd love to see an episode in which they come across a planet that didn't get through it as well as the Federation may have. Certainly Kirk came across plenty of supercomputers with agendas in TOS.

Starships aren't going anywhere just because they may send unmanned-probes ahead of their arrival.

What do you think about some of the points brought up in the article?

I personally think the article is very poignant. I feel like Star Trek has gone from a imaginative world that was meant to entertain and inspire some optimism. I think it evolved in to a humanistic utopia that doesn't quite line with how human nature seems to work, at least from my perspective and research.

Secondly, the whole starship thing. I find that whole discussion quite fascinating, and the idea that the Starfleet "starship" concept of a self-contained, self-sustaining vessel being inaccurate is a facet that would be really interesting to explore. Personally, I think that ENT could have done more with this concept, or even VOY, as they demonstrate the resourcefulness of the crews to keep their ship going.

All that to say, yes I have concerns about Star Trek future. I don't see it as more than an entertainment vessel first and social commentary second. I don't want to live in a Star Trek future necessarily but I can agree that a post scarcity society is one that I think can be worked towards.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

'To be specific, it was about the power to control your own life.

Picard said wanting to control your own life was a illusion ... that's their utopia?

Being powerless? This might appeal to some.

One persons utopia, is another person's life of horror. Not everyone want to live a life where things are provided for them, some people want to make their own way and achieve their own destiny.

He didn't say it was the power to control your own life, he said it was the power to control YOUR life. Meaning other people's lives.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

- Without government, there can be no law.
- Without law, there can be no order.
- Without order, there can be only chaos.
- With chaos, there can be only fear.
- With fear, there can be only death.

A very Cardassian philosophy.

I would fundamentally disagree that law is the only path to order. Under the wrong conditions, law is more dangerous than crime. Specifically, the moment the burden of proof falls to citizens that they have not broken the law. A perfect authoritarian system is one where there is no crime because everyone is arrested the second it even seems slightly possible they might commit one, and that's far more terrifying than a lawless society. In a lawless society at least I can align myself with a motorcycle gang and achieve relative safety. It's easier to defend yourself against criminals out to get you than cops out to get you.

The best situation is the one where there is powerful law enforcement but one that is well regulated and kept in check, and always has the burden of proof before they can arrest someone.

I most certainly do not trust the government to decide what's best for me, but I trust a well regulated one will protect me from what's worst and allow me to choose on my own what's best.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ You missed my point, I already said that a dictatorial or authoritarian regime is NOT order, because all it does is spread fear.

And as for allying yourself with a motorcycle gang? That's fear too. The fear of chaos, of the mob, of casual brutality. Gangs have always ruled by fear.

The best situation is the one where there is powerful law enforcement but one that is well regulated and kept in check, and always has the burden of proof before they can arrest someone.

Agreed on that point.

 

[scotpens]

The retort was that it was never about money, it was always about power.

'To be specific, it was about the power to control your own life.

Picard said wanting to control your own life was a illusion ... that's their utopia?

Yeah, I did a double-take when I heard that line. So what does control our lives, then? The state? Fate? The gods? I was waiting for Ralph Offenhouse to say, "Excuse me, Captain, but you're completely full of shit."

 

[JeffinOakland]

I think its non-sense...



That is deep. Or it isn't. It really isn't. Our future and Trek's future were never going to be the same. Star Trek is entertainment. People really need to wrap their minds around that.

Do you think some Trekkies take it so seriously that they think ST is some sort of crystal ball documentary of the future?

 

[Arpy]

Sure, there specific things that bother me.

First of all, even if it is slightly older concept of the Federation is that they are very planned societies and balanced environments, as Spock described it (Way to Eden).

I'll have to give it another look as I don't remember it very well. I think my brain rejected anything near those space-hippies.

Secondly, membership in the Federation is apparently a one way street. By that, I mean you can enter but you can't leave. The Maquis, the Bajorans, among others, are all expected to want to join the Federation without any measure of concern. But, regardless of what one might think about Eddington, his point that Sisko can't understand people wanting to leave the Federation. So, if the Federation is a meeting of equal membership, why the worry over people leaving? I personally would like that to be explored more.

Eddington was full of it, and Sisko allowing him to get away with that speech was DS9's writer/producers "sticking it to their fathers." This from the same people who wrote Sisko poisoning an entire planet just for an easy Les Miserables reference. Vash left the Federation. Eddington left the Federation. Anyone is free to go whenever. The book Spock's World was about a referendum whether or not to leave, and in the DS9 Relaunch, the Andorians did. If no one leaves, maybe it's because everything's maybe actually really good?? But, no, please, Eddington, do continue...oh you can't because you turned out to be a surprisingly delusional and suicidal Romantic? Oh, ok?

Finally, despite the fact that situations are unusual in the greater scheme of things, the leadership within Starfleet seems to be be very susceptible to corruption, and more than just the garden grade scale of embezzlement or scandal that is seen among politicians in contemporary society. Far from being pillars of integrity, many admirals fall prey to suspicion, worry, prejudice, paranoia and bias. So, apparently the best and the brightest and most competent are not the leaders but out exploring?

The crazy admiral is a standard Trek trope. Like the doomed redshirt or alien-of-the-week. They only bring in a superior officer to be a problem for the captain or they'd receive their mission orders via subspace. Often I'll hope it turns out to be different but it's usually not. But remember that our heroes are but one crew in a massive fleet in a massive nation and the Enterprise doesn't just luck out generation after generation to be crewed by the absolute best people in the Federation. They are a product of it. As are the overwhelming majority of its citizens. Even Eddington, the first time we saw him was absurdly entrusted with a bridge position on the Defiant after he'd just sabotaged it in Dominion space because he "gave his word" and Sisko "trusted the uniform."

I personally think the article is very poignant. I feel like Star Trek has gone from a imaginative world that was meant to entertain and inspire some optimism. I think it evolved in to a humanistic utopia that doesn't quite line with how human nature seems to work, at least from my perspective and research.

Utopia is relative. We already live in a utopia if all you know is ancient Egypt. The Federation is just a better society, IMHO.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Yeah, I did a double-take when I heard that line. So what does control our lives, then? The state? Fate? The gods? I was waiting for Ralph Offenhouse to say, "Excuse me, Captain, but you're completely full of shit."

Offenhouse does have the last laugh, though: In the novelverse, he is a senior Federation government official (the Secretary of Commerce, IIRC) so technically speaking, he's Picard's boss now.

 

[Richard Baker]

Didn't Quark have a great metaphor when he was sharing a moment with Garak(?)- IIRC it was about a sugary phizzy drink being seductive like the Federation ...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And let's not forget Quark is just as likely as Eddington was, to spout sanctimonious bullshit as well. Quark claims that the Ferengi are better because they've never had slavery? Not only is that probably a lie (I find it very likely that the Ferengi once DID practice slavery), they still treat their women like shit - Ferengi females are effectively slaves, so Quark's got no right to be lecturing humans about that.

And even so, Ferengi society is financially corrupt to an extent that no human culture ever was.