Why the Star Trek Universe is secretly horrifying

[JirinPanthosa]

The Federation strikes me as having some forms of freedom and not others. People seem free to live their personal lives however they want without legal barriers or prejudice. Also, everybody starts out on an even playing field: Children with rich parents no longer have a ridiculous advantage.

In the economic sense it's very authoritarian.

Nobody really thinks the real future will be identical to Trek, but they see Trek as a metaphorical future that we should strive toward.

 

[CorporalClegg]

In fact, it wouldn't be economically feasible for a society like Ferenginar's to function without some kind of slaved (or, at best, indentured) work-force.

Just another example of DS9's obscenely inconstant writing.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

^ 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.



Agreed on that point.

In your original post it seemed like you were placing order and obedience before liberty. I think we would both agree that having both order and liberty is the best situation, but I would argue liberty without order is better than order without liberty.

Many people who advocate just obedience to the state would argue that without law, people would be running around looting and raping all the time. This is just plain untrue. The majority of people, in a situation where their basic survival needs are met, are not violent people. People instinctually form communities and protect their own. The downside of liberty without order of course is that you need to find protection for yourself instead of relying on the state to provide it. But if you are part of a community with the power to protect itself that you can provide value to, you have both liberty and relative safety.

When you have order without liberty, you can walk down the street without having to worry about getting attacked by criminals, but you basically end up being a slave to the state, living in fear of prosecution. So the authorities become the people you fear instead of criminals. The difference is, you have a chance to defend yourself against criminals.

I don't know if you're defining order as something that can't exist without also having liberty to rule out authoritarian regimes, so I'll let you clarify.

Like, where would you stand on issues where liberty and order come into conflict, such as bills that let the government spy on you without probable cause?

 

[Kor]

Huh?

Rand as in Ayn Rand.

Anyway, I think Earth society in the Trek future should be like that depicted in Logan's Run.

Kor

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Many people who advocate just obedience to the state would argue that without law, people would be running around looting and raping all the time.

As I said, I'm not advocating blind obedience to the state. I argue for a strong, protective, democratic government.

But human nature would generally support the second part of your statement. People, in their most basic nature, are nasty, brutal, vicious animals. (How else do you explain what just happened in Dallas? Or Orlando? Or the dozen or so OTHER mass shootings that have happened within the last year?)

The only thing that can be trusted to protect people from other people is a strong central government which maintains a clearly defined set of laws, and enforces penalties for breaking same. Because without that, what's going to stop them?

The majority of people, in a situation where their basic survival needs are met, are not violent people.

I disagree. People will be violent unless they are stopped from being violent. I mean, think of the last time that you were really angry with someone - so angry that you wanted to hurt or even kill them. What stopped you?

I'm sure there are some people who are intrinsically "nice" and who would never hurt anyone even if they had the complete freedom to do so. But the problem is, not everyone is like that. Some people are just evil - they would hurt anyone they felt like, if given the freedom to do so. And who protects us from people like that?

You can't expect everyone to bear the sole responsibility for protecting themselves, because that's what turns our homes into armed camps ruled by paranoia. And some people just don't have the ability to function independently - we're not all survivalists who can live off the land without help from anyone. Who protects those who can't protect themselves?

When you have order without liberty, you can walk down the street without having to worry about getting attacked by criminals, but you basically end up being a slave to the state, living in fear of prosecution. So the authorities become the people you fear instead of criminals. The difference is, you have a chance to defend yourself against criminals.

But that's the thing. I am not arguing for order without liberty. I argue that it is only a strong central democratic government that can enforce those things. Because without a government to maintain order, there can be no liberty, because the tyranny of chaos - of the mob, of anarchy - is not liberty. It's fear, nothing more.

Only a government can ensure justice for all. Only a government can secure rights for the people. I'm not saying governments ALWAYS do this - sometimes our most basic democratic institutions fail us, or don't always work as expected. But the way you fix that is to engage in the democratic process from WITHIN the system, you don't DESTROY the system.

You mentioned people banding together into communities which protect their own? That is exactly what a government is. Or at least, what it should be.

 

[UnknownSample]

The problem is a fetishizing of the idea of "freedom."

If you were omnipotent, would you like to be able to kill people at will? Maybe you would. Maybe the truth of human nature, of nature, is that though we're not all bad, we do have limits to our abilities to focus. Maybe at some point you'd kill someone with a snap of your fingers without even noticing you did it, say because they were distracting you from something. Maybe upon noticing what you did you'd feel bad about it...the first time, or the 100,000th, but you might be surprised to find that you would eventually not. Despite who you are today, you would change as your freedom would realign your morality, robbing you of your caring about their rights. As it would rob them were they in your place. Freedom should matter to us to the extent that it doesn't rob us of our perspective.

Wow, excellent. We need more of the kind of opinions here that acknowledge universal weaknesses and flaws, and vulnerabilities.

 

[fireproof78]

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.

Understandable.

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?

Sure, Eddington was full of it, but Sisko never gave a counter argument. It feels poorly thought out and and drama for the sake of drama, as well as painting the Federation in a poor light.

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 don't know. The Enterprise often seems to be the only ship in the quadrant, and the one capable of getting the job done. So, it's hard not to question it as a broader indication of competence, even if it is only used for dramatic license. Same thing with the admiral thing. It wouldn't be such a problem if it didn't feel like it was happening a lot.

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

I think the Federation has its ups and downs. I don't think its as utopian as it is always painted, but there is at least some interesting ideas to explore.

YMMV and probably will.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Sure, Eddington was full of it, but Sisko never gave a counter argument.

That's because Eddington was such a damn loudmouth, Sisko couldn't get in a word edgewise.

 

[drt]

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

Heh, the way some cling to canon, I'm pretty sure there probably are.

 

[JeffinOakland]

"True" democracy is two wolves and a rabbit deciding what's for dinner. A representative democracy protects the bunny's "right" not to be eaten. ST does not present utopia; it presents a version of utopia that works for some of its characters.

 

[Spot261]

You mentioned people banding together into communities which protect their own? That is exactly what a government is. Or at least, what it should be.

No, in the first instance that's what a tribe is, which then becomes a society with socially defined structures. Over time those structures become formalised, including structures for managing those structures. That's what a government is, or at least part of.

Back on to the point I was intending to make, I'm often bewildered by the insistence that star trek (or the federation at least) represents a utopia. We see a society which was presented in a certain way to challenge the prevailing political winds of the 1960s, with prejudice and discrimination being damped down (NOT eliminated). Nothing about TOS suggested the federation was a perfect society, in fat it was quite pointed about the physical and medical dangers, corruption at high levels, the abuses of power, genocide and greed all being still major factors in day to day life. Kirk was on many occasions quite disparaging about the concept of utopia in principle, never mind adhering to any party line that the federation was one in practise. TOS dealt with social issues, it did not present a perfect society.

People point to TNG as being the exemplar of this perfect society meme, which again leaves me wondering if we have watched different shows. The TNG era federation was explicitly full of corruption, with many living in conditions far removed from the idyllic (and seemingly meaningless) lives of core world citizens, with war, internal strife, famine and human rights abuses occuring on an alarmingly frequent basis.

 

[BillJ]

In fact, it wouldn't be economically feasible for a society like Ferenginar's to function without some kind of slaved (or, at best, indentured) work-force.

Just another example of DS9's obscenely inconstant writing.

Quark is just another character that looks at his culture though rose-tinted glasses. Not really any different than Spock and Worf.

 

[Karp666]

Quark is just another character that looks at his culture though rose-tinted glasses. Not really any different than Spock and Worf.

And Picard.

 

[fireproof78]

No, in the first instance that's what a tribe is, which then becomes a society with socially defined structures. Over time those structures become formalised, including structures for managing those structures. That's what a government is, or at least part of.

Back on to the point I was intending to make, I'm often bewildered by the insistence that star trek (or the federation at least) represents a utopia. We see a society which was presented in a certain way to challenge the prevailing political winds of the 1960s, with prejudice and discrimination being damped down (NOT eliminated). Nothing about TOS suggested the federation was a perfect society, in fat it was quite pointed about the physical and medical dangers, corruption at high levels, the abuses of power, genocide and greed all being still major factors in day to day life. Kirk was on many occasions quite disparaging about the concept of utopia in principle, never mind adhering to any party line that the federation was one in practise. TOS dealt with social issues, it did not present a perfect society.

People point to TNG as being the exemplar of this perfect society meme, which again leaves me wondering if we have watched different shows. The TNG era federation was explicitly full of corruption, with many living in conditions far removed from the idyllic (and seemingly meaningless) lives of core world citizens, with war, internal strife, famine and human rights abuses occuring on an alarmingly frequent basis.

This is largely my point, though I think DS9 often dissected it rather well, as did STID, to a certain degree. I think that Star Trek future has some good ideas, and some that require further scrutiny.

 

[Tenacity]

Nothing about TOS suggested the federation was a perfect society

The Federation Presidents certainly didn't seem to be a particularly bright bunch, power hungry bureaucrats with private agendas, no high level opposition to section thirty-one, in-fighting between representatives of member planets.

I argue that it is only a strong central democratic government that can enforce those things

But "these things" can also be imposed by unelected bureaucrats, a totalitarian state or a powerful warlord.

think of the last time that you were really angry with someone - so angry that you wanted to hurt or even kill them. What stopped you?

My up-bringing, religious beliefs, learned civilized behavior. Statute laws are only a small part of what makes for a orderly society, and they aren't the prime motivator for many people.

The books are full of idiotic laws, and every idiotic law deduces the respect people have for the ones that make sense.

But the way you fix that is to engage in the democratic process from WITHIN the system, you don't DESTROY the system.

That would depend on the level of flaw within the existing system. Beyond a certain level of flaw the best course of action could be to not fix the system, but to replace it.

Another possibility would be the equivalent of a system purge to the basic operating system, removing decades or centuries of mistaken political ideas and supposed "improvements." Separating the wheat from the chaff.

People, in their most basic nature, are nasty, brutal, vicious animals

I find this a strange statement given your advocacy of democracy, the core of any democracy is the general populace and their consensuses, not elected officials.