62 réponses à ce sujet

[Sifr]

I have heard this mentioned before.  But it's never portrayed that way in the movies or TV shows.

 

Mind you they do monitor every citizen on Earth so that's kind of a bad thing.

 

The Federation's treatment of the Maquis situation makes it come across a dystopian.

 

Because the Federation wanted peace with the Cardassians, they decided to change up the border and give a bunch of planets to the Cardassians, while gaining some Cardassian worlds. The only problem was, they didn't bother telling anyone who lived there what they were doing, so when they refused to leave and chose to defend their homes, the Federation branded them as terrorists.

 

This was despite it being clear to everyone that the Cardassians were breaking the treaty all the time (which we see in the "Wounded" and in the episodes "Chain of Command"), which showed that appeasement simply wasn't working?

 

How messed up is it that the Federation was more concerned with punishing and imprisoning their own people for defying a peace treaty, that the other side was openly defying because they knew the Federation's desire for peace meant that they'd very rarely ever call them on it?

 

But yeah, the constant surveilance thing is kinda disturbing? Like in "Non Sequitur" from Voyager, which showed that in an alternate reality where the sole difference is that Harry and Tom aren't on Voyager, the future Patriot Act is very much in force? Just talking to a former Maquis member and googling the Voyager crew manifest with a valid (but admittedly illegal since in this universe it wasn't his) access code, was enough for Starfleet to slip an ankle bracelet on Harry's leg and declare that if he tried to leave the planet, he'd be formally charged... with something?

[The Devlish Redhead]

The Federation's treatment of the Maquis situation makes it come across a dystopian.

 

Because the Federation wanted peace with the Cardassians, they decided to change up the border and give a bunch of planets to the Cardassians, while gaining some Cardassian worlds. The only problem was, they didn't bother telling anyone who lived there what they were doing, so when they refused to leave and chose to defend their homes, the Federation branded them as terrorists.

 

This was despite it being clear to everyone that the Cardassians were breaking the treaty all the time (which we see in the "Wounded" and in the episodes "Chain of Command"), which showed that appeasement simply wasn't working?

 

How messed up is it that the Federation was more concerned with punishing and imprisoning their own people for defying a peace treaty, that the other side was openly defying because they knew the Federation's desire for peace meant that they'd very rarely ever call them on it?

 

But yeah, the constant surveilance thing is kinda disturbing? Like in "Non Sequitur" from Voyager, which showed that in an alternate reality where the sole difference is that Harry and Tom aren't on Voyager, the future Patriot Act is very much in force? Just talking to a former Maquis member and googling the Voyager crew manifest with a valid (but admittedly illegal since in this universe it wasn't his) access code, was enough for Starfleet to slip an ankle bracelet on Harry's leg and declare that if he tried to leave the planet, he'd be formally charged... with something?

 

Yeah their treatment of Harry was less then it should be.

 

Poor Harry Kim 7 years and he was never ever promoted either.

 

Was that the episode where Harry had to hop across dimensions back onto Voyager? and there were two of him?  I always wondered if they took the wrong Harry Kim.

[Sifr]

Nah, "Non Sequitur" was where Harry got his history changed by a space anomaly, "Deadlock" was the one where the ship and Harry got duplicated and in the end, the Harry from the destroyed Voyager ends up on the other, to replace the Harry that died on that ship? I think DS9 did a similar episode where O'Brien ended up replaced by his future self (from 8 hours ahead) because his past self died, but I can't recall the name of it?

 

(Sliders also did something similar in that show, where there was a fight between Arturo and his twin before one of them slid to another reality, leaving it unclear who actually got left behind, the real one or the twin? It was never answered in the show itself, but according to the writer, the one left behind was actually the original?)

[Sifr]

Why would anybody not just live in the holodeck all day?

 

Barclay tried, they declared it holo-addiction and claimed it was a "problem"... I still maintain it's a coping mechanism to deal with how dull the future is?

[spinachdiaper]

People be bashing on the Trek like it's a dead beat Dad. But the Star Trek society isn't perfect in the first place or else the Q wouldn't have fun messing with them.

[metatheurgist]

Yeah but at the end of the day you get paid for your work and wouldn't you prefer that?

I'm not enough of a trekkie to know. But I'd think people that actually do stuff get extra rations of power as a reward. So you would get paid, you just wouldn't need it. Also, satisfaction is a fine reward. I dunno if that's actually covered by Trek lore.

[The Devlish Redhead]

I'm not enough of a trekkie to know. But I'd think people that actually do stuff get extra rations of power as a reward. So you would get paid, you just wouldn't need it. Also, satisfaction is a fine reward. I dunno if that's actually covered by Trek lore.

 

Yeah I guess but I figure if I have done something and it took hours to do I'd rather get paid for my labours even if it is something I like.

[Gotholhorakh]

Yep, Star Trek society is pretty screwed up.

 

What happens to those who dissent? Attempts at capitalism-free scientific society in the real world have led to killing millions of people in the name of a compulsory vision - essentially killing the people for the good of the people, but what happens to persons of economic/political non-compliance in Star Trek society? Presumably tackling dissent with genocide isn't part of a vision for the perfect society, so are they forced to comply (not a utopia, a nightmare), or expelled to run their own affairs (might put a different complexion on all those people scratching out a living on their own planets)?

 

Even then, colonists can have starships turn up and carry out the Federation's will whenever it likes, as can anyone at war with the Federation. It is only really outsiders who are protected and respected by the Federation's strict non-interference policy.

 

On the face of it, what the Federation is painted to be suggests big skeletons hidden in closets.

[Fishy]

And Caveman did not believe in democracy either or plane flying in the sky.

[Sion1138]

It's possible.

 

It doesn't have to be exclusive.

[Fishy]

Maybe we will evolve at some point. Not long ago America had slave.

[AshenSugar]

Actually this really comes down to the elemental question of nature vs nurture.

 

Do you believe that humans are essentially greedy, violent, grabbing, selfish, narcissistic asshats purely by dint of their genetic makeup?

 

Or do you believe that these traits are programmed into us as a consequence of the kind of society we inhabit? Fostered by our education, upbringing, peer groups,exposure to media etc. 

 

If it's the former, then no, the type of societty outlined in the Star Trek universe can only be a utopian pipedream. If it's the latter, then it would be theoretically possible, but require a major catalyst - a massive, tectonic shift in the manner in which societies are governed, and information disseminated.

[Sion1138]

Actually this really comes down to the elemental question of nature vs nurture.

 

Do you believe that humans are essentially greedy, violent, grabbing, selfish, narcissistic asshats purely by dint of their genetic makeup?

 

Or do you believe that these traits are programmed into us as a consequence of the kind of society we inhabit? Fostered by our education, upbringing, peer groups,exposure to media etc. 

 

If it's the former, then no, the type of societty outlined in the Star Trek universe can only be a utopian pipedream. If it's the latter, then it would be theoretically possible, but require a major catalyst - a massive, tectonic shift in the manner in which societies are governed, and information disseminated.

 

It's both.

[Billy-the-Squid]

In the grim darkness of the future there is only war.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Only philosophical codes of conducts with ancient roots can save the humankind from utter destruction in the future.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Maybe we will evolve at some point. Not long ago America had slave.

 

Not long ago Europe had Hitler and Stalin. lol

[Gotholhorakh]

Actually this really comes down to the elemental question of nature vs nurture.

 

Do you believe that humans are essentially greedy, violent, grabbing, selfish, narcissistic asshats purely by dint of their genetic makeup?

 

Or do you believe that these traits are programmed into us as a consequence of the kind of society we inhabit? Fostered by our education, upbringing, peer groups,exposure to media etc. 

 

If it's the former, then no, the type of societty outlined in the Star Trek universe can only be a utopian pipedream. If it's the latter, then it would be theoretically possible, but require a major catalyst - a massive, tectonic shift in the manner in which societies are governed, and information disseminated.

 

I don't believe these are the only reasons people might dissent from the Star Trek society, I think there will always be reasons why not everybody agrees with some particular ideology or political/economic set-up, and that it does not take many people disagreeing to completely prevent a 100% top-down managed economic set-up from failing to function. This isn't particular to Star Trek and may be inherent to the concept, as every attempt at it in reality has led to terrible problems in real life. This is before you get to concerns about privacy etc.

 

I would anticipate at the very least that some property rights must exist in the Star Trek society so that people can have things, that black market trade would exist, too, that some people would object to being surveilled 100% of the time, that there would have to be some way of forcibly curtailing excess in a post-scarcity society, which might open the door for illicit trade to flourish, and so on.

[Draining Dragon]

I agree. 
 
Communism in a spacefaring society? LOL.

Communism in any society? LOL.

[Jstatham1227]

frankly, what about receiving advanced technology from some alien species, almost as so sort of bartering to open up trading negotiations with them? That honestly sounds like a more logical explanation in my mind. 

[Beerfish]

I agree. 

 

Communism in a spacefaring society? LOL.

What does communism have to do with a spacefaring society?  Or capitalistic, or socialistic or any other political bent as a matter of fact?

[Beerfish]

Communism in any society? LOL.

Communism could work perfectly well in a society, as could capitalism or any of a wide variety of political systems.  The problem is that in each of these systems people 'cheat' the system and that is when things fall apart.

[The Invader]

They could be space socialists for all I care, damnit I want my own star ship.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Communism can perfectly work in a country where it has no neighbors... where is non-existent.

 

frankly, what about receiving advanced technology from some alien species, almost as so sort of bartering to open up trading negotiations with them? That honestly sounds like a more logical explanation in my mind. 

 

If they're not brutal-intelligent aliens and have some ethics.

[The Devlish Redhead]

Communism could work perfectly well in a society, as could capitalism or any of a wide variety of political systems.  The problem is that in each of these systems people 'cheat' the system and that is when things fall apart.

And it's usually the crooked in leadership roles that make it fall apart.