Federation Bigotry

[Tenebrae]

While TOS was conceived as a hippy kind of utopia, where regardless fo race, creed or religion Kirk would do 'em all, that original vision of tolerance for the Federation seems to be somewhat degraded in later Treks.

 

In TNG, we have Data forced to go on trial to prove that he's not simply a machine and piece of property - not including the insistent whinging of Polaski...

 

With DS9 we had Bashir almost kicked out of Starfleet for being genetically altered - and people in a similar state institutionalised - and all because of events that happened in the Eugenics Wars getting close to 400 years ago.

 

And finally, in VOY we have what amounts to a rehash of Data's trial... except that the Doctor isn't actually given

 

To be honest, I find the prejudice against androids/holograms to be somewhat more perplexing as you'd think that SOMEONE would have managed to develop a big ol' sentinent AI by the time TNG rolled around... and even if Data was the first sentinent artificial life form, in what way does his sentinence difference from any other artificial creatures? The only real difference between the Doctor and Data is that the Doctor lacks an actual physical form.

 

So, I put it to you - members of the jury - that for all its protestation that it is an enlightened and tolerant society, that in fact the United Federation of Planets remains bigotive and closed minded in terms of the rights of sentinent beings that are not as it best understands them - humanoid and organic.

 

How do you find the defendant? Guilty or not guilty?

[nireves1]

Guilty

 

i noticed this as well, strange world this is!;)

[Antipodean]

But I think thats the point yeah, bigotry and intolerance are never issues to take for granted. It requires eternal vigilence to keep them in check.

[TetsuoShima]

Data is a good example, but a little extreme. He was the first of its kind known to the Federation and he was a machine... I can imagine them having a hard time accepting such a thing as an equal (while in reality he's their better in a lot of areas). I must admit that I am a big Data fan, though I like the 'old' Data (from the series) better than the new one (from the movies). It somehow seems to me that they changed his character a little for the movies (which does makes sense with the integration of the emotion chip and all). Then again, before the integration of the emotion chip Data was incomplete and did not live up to 'human standards' in a lot of ways. What makes someone human? imo it is a combination of a lot of things, and emotions are certainly a necessary aspect (even Vulcans have emotions, even though they don't like to admit it). But the referred episode was not about being human, it was about being property and about deep self awareness, it was a very good episode.

 

Bashir was not a good example imo. One should learn from the past, not forget about it and make the same mistakes again and again. I don't know what was the reason why these genetically modified people reacted so excentic compared to Bashir and why they were so willing to sacrifice the Federation, was it because they were never integrated in society and thus had no feeling with/for it? Or was it because they really were like that integrated or not? At least they were not killed on sight, which is something I could imagine happening in these days. Superior intellect breeds superior ambition, not allways, but usually, even for us non-enhanced people this is true.

 

As for holograms, the difference is really simple. One could argue, a person is the owner of its own body. Thus Data is the owner of its own body. The Doctor is may be called the owner of its own algorithms, but he doesn't own anything that can be used to for him to 'live'. He needs extra equipment to live at all. And as long as nobody gives him a first holoprojector, he can even be said to be a slave and there is nothing nobody can do about it, since if the real owner of the equipment decides to turn it of, he's gone. The mobile emitter technically is the property of Starfleet, since it was 'loot' from an away mission, in much the same way as Data was, but here the mobile emitter is not intelligent, it's the doctor that matters and he's nothing without it. Thus the doctors case is a lot harder to argue. Even if Janeway decided to give the emitter to the doctor (which I think she actually did at one time or the other), it is still property of Starfleet, since I'm pretty sure her decision can easily be reversed, does a captain have the right to give away extremely interesting artifacts. I would think that there'd have to be some extremely good reason for that (like impending doom for the galaxy or something silly like that), and somehow I doubt the doctor is such a good reason. He can 'live' just as well in a normal holosuit (remember that intelligent hologram from TNG, Moriarty or something like that). One could call that a prison, but by the same reasoning that made them take appart Voyager and remove all the future technology from it, they could just as easily confiscate the mobile emitter, or maybe even easier, since it was from further into the future. In this future I can see holograms becoming 'free', but no sooner, the technology simply isn't ready.

 

As long as the mobile emitter is not a common thing, holograms will allways be 'less' than humans and can only have sovereign rights if they were given an emitter of their own and only when they are there. They don't exist without it. (Even though that is a stupidity of Star Trek I never liked, a hologram is a computerprogram with a holographic 'interface', the visual and sensory part is only there as a shell it holds no 'intelligence' it's the program that does it. So if you turn of the holo emitter, the program can just as well go on. According to Trek, the program should be halted if the emitter stops, but there really is no good reason for that, or at least there shouldn't be one, walking a circuit on chip should be as easy for the doctor as walking a road for us, in a manner fo speaking and if he was never taught how to do it, than that would be a fine way to prove his intelligence, Trek is weird in this aspect, Trek holograms are 'less' by design).

 

So, as for Data, they were guilty, but it was rectified. The others I'm not so sure about. What if it were illegal to experiment with gene modification and still someone does it. He modifies a colony of pigs to be intelligent adn self aware... What's to become of these pigs, can they reproduce and compete with the other intelligent species or should they be quarantined. If they are turned loose what's anybody to stop from doing it again and thus creating new artificial species after new artificial species... What if someone makes them sexually compatible with say... humans... What would happen to their interspecies children... There has to be drawn a line somewhere. And honestly, since I'm not an inhabitant of the Federation (LOL) I don't have a clue as to how exactly things go on over there, so I don't know if it is about time for 'the old law' to become obsolete, but if it still hasn't and since Trek is supposed to be so idealistic, I'm sure they would have a good reason not to scrap it. Then again, politicians anywhere are not to be trusted... ;)

[GorunNova]

Bigoted against machine intelligence, bigoted against genetically modified humans, bigoted against those who don't match up with 'human standards'... yeah, the Federation IS actually quite bigoted and conservative... or at least it became that way by the time TNG rolled about. Then again, such changes in society happen in real life, and bigots don't like to be known as bigots, especially if they're the majority...

[MrDad]

Then again, before the integration of the emotion chip Data was incomplete and did not live up to 'human standards' in a lot of ways. What makes someone human? imo it is a combination of a lot of things, and emotions are certainly a necessary aspect (even Vulcans have emotions, even though they don't like to admit it).

Why is it necessary for Data to be human or have any humanlike qualities? There are thousand of species in the Federation. Are all of them required to be human? As far as the Doctor, he is not the only noncorporeal being encountered by the Federation. He is a sentient being and his physical form is irrelevant. Without our bodies, we would cease to exist. Are we so different? Bashir committed no crime yet he would have been severely penalized by the Federation merely because of his genetic identity. There are similiar groups today, like the National Front in the UK or the Klu Klux Klan in the US for example. Should one be judged by his deeds, not his genes? Federation ships are named for humans, crewed primarily by Caucasian humans and commanded by Caucasian humans yet they are a small minority of the Federation. It's not exactly the happy, shiny world it appears to be if you think about it.

[Tenebrae]

There was also that terraforming incident where the silicon sand was sentinent? And what about those multitool things?

 

In those cases, people ACTIVELY IGNORED signs of sentience because it suited them.

 

To be honest, I've debated it with myself - is there really any difference beyond artificial and organic consciousness. Yes, the Doctor requires technology for his second to second existence... but at the same time, we require oxygen and pressure in the right proportions. Holograms have a different set of requirements but as the Doctor observes, in many ways - better. Much like Data. To be honest, it's almost as if the Federation is scared of superior life forms.

 

AS I said, with Bashir - his fellow altered friends were, most likely... damaged as the result of genetic engineering being forced underground. Or implied. Enterprise seems to indicated that the Augments from the Eugenics Wars were actually GENETICALLY predisposed toward aggression and such. In fact, NONE of the augments in DS9 show any inclination toward domination and the fact that they wanted the Federation to surrender was, if anything, a concession to compassion. They wanted the least possible casualities.

 

The thing is, if there were some underlying current for this... maybe it would make sense but really - there wasn't. It just makes the Federation seem hypocritical.

[TetsuoShima]

Why is it necessary for Data to be human or have any humanlike qualities?

 

It isn't, in that literal sense. I was merely using the term human as a term to describe something more than a computer AI. Something without emotions is great for efficiency but awful for the interaction, imo emotion is a requirement to be something more than a 'dead' machine, but as I also said (though not so litereally and directly), it does not give Starfleet the right to control and own him. I totally agree with the fact that Data should be able to determine himself what happens to his life. He's his own boss if he wants to, so to speak...

 

As far as the Doctor' date=' he is not the only noncorporeal being encountered by the Federation. He is a sentient being and his physical form is irrelevant. Without our bodies, we would cease to exist. Are we so different?[/quote']

 

Yes we are. We have control over our own bodies, we own them, as I said. Technology in the Starfleet erra where the Doctor lives, just isn't ready yet to support holograms as sovereign entities. Suppose someone would give the doctor a holosuit to live in. Then you could say, he has the right and sovereignity to do whatever he pleases in that holosuit, but even though you can go anywhere in a holosuit, compared to the freedom of an android like Data or a human or most other species, he will essentially be imprisoned. You could say, built holotransmitters everywhere... But afaik Starfleet isn't in the habbit of converting every area they visit to a suitable place for everybody. They make exceptions for single rooms, yes, but not everywhere. This can be seen in a few episodes. It would even be impossible for them to do it, some things that some species require for breathing are toxic to others. Why should holograms receive special treatment? I think they shouldn't. They should be able to get equal treatment however. Once technology becomes ready for it (the portable holoemitter). And given previous events (ie. Data), I'm pretty sure they will, at that point, if not sooner.

 

Bashir committed no crime yet he would have been severely penalized by the Federation merely because of his genetic identity. There are similiar groups today' date=' like the National Front in the UK or the Klu Klux Klan in the US for example. Should one be judged by his deeds, not his genes?[/quote']

 

You are missing the point. There is a law. Someone disobeys that law and creates something. If you allow the creation to join, then you are essentially undermining the law (you can compare it to the ethical problem the Doctor faces when B'Ellanna is 'joined' by some weird species and he creates a hologram of Mosset). I don't know if the law still has any good valid reasons to exist, as I said, if it doesn't, remove the law and the problem is solved. But don't forget that you can then expect 90% of the people to 'upgrade' their children from then on. Nobody wants to be at a permanent disadvantage when they can just as well not be (in fact it would be a requirement for them to do so, if they wanted to be able for their children to join Starfleet for example, only the best may join, it is clear that 'non-altered' people would become mentally inferior to genetically enhanced people and so they probably wouldn't pass the tests). So, after some quick thought, imo there is a good reason for this law to exist, even in the 24th century. Are humans ready to change their 'essence' and become their own god, since that is what will happen once you give a people full control over their genes, you can rewrite yourself into an entirely different species. Now maybe they are ready for it, mabe they aren't. Maybe some are and some aren't, I don't know... But it's not such a simple decision for the people on the top to make as it would seem at first sight, at least I don't think it is. I sure wouldn't be able to say in just a second, do this or do that... This is the kind of moral decision that can take weeks of time to think about before you can fully comprehend its implications.

 

Federation ships are named for humans' date=' crewed primarily by Caucasian humans and commanded by Caucasian humans yet they are a small minority of the Federation. It's not exactly the happy, shiny world it appears to be if you think about it.[/quote']

 

That is what we get to see of it mostly, yes, but is that all there is to it... I can imagine it being a network decision to have more human-like creatures on a show and less truely alien people. If you look at the things they stand for, than it should be clear enough, that if anyone wants to join, they can, and if they want to leave, they can also (for Starfleet there is the extra requirement of a good brain), at least if they have evolved to a certain point, which is a logical decision, not to allow planets who still live in the middle ages to join a group of people who 'live' between the stars. Of course, if you expect them to be perfect you're going to be dissapointed, they are human after all. But it is extremely clear imo, that they have moral standards that are generally applied, that are a lot higher than what we are used to in our own world. Also, don't forget that in the later show, the Federation was actually portrayed to be less by administrative/directive/storyline decision, just so that people could feel closer to it, such things make it seem more real to us. (ex. Sisko's dubious dicision in the war, this is said in one of the extras of DS9)

 

There was also that terraforming incident where the silicon sand was sentinent? And what about those multitool things?

 

In those cases, people ACTIVELY IGNORED signs of sentience because it suited them.

 

Ah, good examples, about as good as Data even. But remember that in each case it was rectified and that the majority of people was horrified when they learned what happened, I use majority here as in the crew of the Enterprise, since that is basically all of the Federation we ever get to see in some detail. So, if most people are like this crew, then all is well, if most people are like the (seemingly) exceptions they showed to further 'glorify' this crew, then I'm going to have to give it to you, the Federation would be guilty of all, but I choose to view them as the exception rather then the rule, exceptions make great stories, much better than dull perfectionistic people who never do anything seriously wrong. And exceptions are (obviously) not the standard thus should not be used as such to judge a whole society. The fact that the law is reflecting and backing the Enterprises crew, would further seem to indicate that that the majority is a lot more like this crew than like the exceptions. Usually laws represent the views of the majority, at least to some extend. (though lately I'm not so sure about that anymore, maybe I'm just to idealistic myself)

 

To be honest' date=' I've debated it with myself - is there really any difference beyond artificial and organic consciousness. Yes, the Doctor requires technology for his second to second existence... but at the same time, we require oxygen and pressure in the right proportions. Holograms have a different set of requirements but as the Doctor observes, in many ways - better. Much like Data. To be honest, it's almost as if the Federation is scared of superior life forms.[/quote']

 

Air (or whatever is breathable) and sustenance are to organics what electricity is to the Doctor, the holomatrix and computertechnology behind it truely is the Doctor's body, his intelligence and mannerisms is his code. I would have to agree that once technology evolves to a certain point, it is quite likely that he would become superior, not only mentally.

 

As for being scared of higher lifeforms, imo that is a perfectly natural reaction. At least at first, the unknown scares, that is normal. There even are some very good evolutional reasons for this fear of the unkown to be ingrained in us. Anyone who says he/she is not scared of the unknown, is either a fool or a liar. Now, it is how you handle this fear, that can make you a better or a worse person. If you go about killing everything that is unkown to you, then that is imo obviously not the best way to handle this fear. The only time I can see fear of the unkown not to exist is when you become so superior to everything else, that there really is nothing left to fear. And even that is relative, there is allways a bigger dog....

 

AS I said' date=' with Bashir - his fellow altered friends were, most likely... damaged as the result of genetic engineering being forced underground. Or implied. Enterprise seems to indicated that the Augments from the Eugenics Wars were actually GENETICALLY predisposed toward aggression and such. In fact, NONE of the augments in DS9 show any inclination toward domination and the fact that they wanted the Federation to surrender was, if anything, a concession to compassion. They wanted the least possible casualities.[/quote']

 

Erhm, I disagree. They, these 3 genetically modified people, were willing to bet the rest of the lives of every single person living in the Federation on the theory that they were right and the others were wrong. That is some serious problem of a feeling of superiority toward the rest of these people. It is not necessary to have superior agression to have superior ambition, since that is really what this was about: superior ambition. They thought they knew better than the rest, thus they wanted to control the destinies of the rest, that is superior ambition imo. Why would you listen to someone whom you judge to be less capable of making the right decisions...(ie. less intelligent) Their compassion is irrelevant in that aspect, I wouldn't even call it compassion. Can you call killing 100,000 people and basically enslaving 1,000,000 people for sure instead of killing 1,000,000 people maybe, compassion? If anything, this episode would confirm that the laws are there for a good reason.

 

 

In the end though, it all depends through what glasses you watch the show. They (the Federation) are by no means saints and they have their flaws, especially towards the later series, but generally they seem to have a lot less of them, than we do. As I said, if you make them to perfect, it doesn't make for an interesting show anymore. You should just not judge them by the exceptions, but rather for the whole they aspire to be.

[slug]

Yeh, you're hitting on the ineviatible choice they had to make after Roddenberry died to make the good guys a little less saintly, otherwise the show would have become unbearably dull. This subject deserves a topic of its own.

 

Im not sure that these examples represent an overall continuity of bigotry, more just a rehash of the same storyline in different series which actually damages any attempt to see things from a continuous perspective. Although it is right to make the distinction of genetic engineering, which is quite an intelligently handled topic.

 

I visit a holomatrix every fortnight, she has a twelve year old son though, which is a bit unsettling.

[MrDad]

Bashir committed no crime yet he would have been severely penalized by the Federation merely because of his genetic identity. There are similiar groups today' date=' like the National Front in the UK or the Klu Klux Klan in the US for example. Should one be judged by his deeds, not his genes?[/quote']

 

You are missing the point. There is a law. Someone disobeys that law and creates something. If you allow the creation to join, then you are essentially undermining the law (you can compare it to the ethical problem the Doctor faces when B'Ellanna is 'joined' by some weird species and he creates a hologram of Mosset). I don't know if the law still has any good valid reasons to exist, as I said, if it doesn't, remove the law and the problem is solved. But don't forget that you can then expect 90% of the people to 'upgrade' their children from then on. Nobody wants to be at a permanent disadvantage when they can just as well not be (in fact it would be a requirement for them to do so, if they wanted to be able for their children to join Starfleet for example, only the best may join, it is clear that 'non-altered' people would become mentally inferior to genetically enhanced people and so they probably wouldn't pass the tests). So, after some quick thought, imo there is a good reason for this law to exist, even in the 24th century. Are humans ready to change their 'essence' and become their own god, since that is what will happen once you give a people full control over their genes, you can rewrite yourself into an entirely different species. Now maybe they are ready for it, mabe they aren't. Maybe some are and some aren't, I don't know... But it's not such a simple decision for the people on the top to make as it would seem at first sight, at least I don't think it is. I sure wouldn't be able to say in just a second, do this or do that... This is the kind of moral decision that can take weeks of time to think about before you can fully comprehend its implications.

You're missing the point. Julian did nothing wrong except exist. His parents disobeyed the law. Why should he be judged for the actions of others? His fate should be decided on the basis of his words and deeds, not his DNA.

[TetsuoShima]

Bashir committed no crime yet he would have been severely penalized by the Federation merely because of his genetic identity. There are similiar groups today' date=' like the National Front in the UK or the Klu Klux Klan in the US for example. Should one be judged by his deeds, not his genes?[/quote']

 

You are missing the point. There is a law. Someone disobeys that law and creates something. If you allow the creation to join, then you are essentially undermining the law (you can compare it to the ethical problem the Doctor faces when B'Ellanna is 'joined' by some weird species and he creates a hologram of Mosset). I don't know if the law still has any good valid reasons to exist, as I said, if it doesn't, remove the law and the problem is solved. But don't forget that you can then expect 90% of the people to 'upgrade' their children from then on. Nobody wants to be at a permanent disadvantage when they can just as well not be (in fact it would be a requirement for them to do so, if they wanted to be able for their children to join Starfleet for example, only the best may join, it is clear that 'non-altered' people would become mentally inferior to genetically enhanced people and so they probably wouldn't pass the tests). So, after some quick thought, imo there is a good reason for this law to exist, even in the 24th century. Are humans ready to change their 'essence' and become their own god, since that is what will happen once you give a people full control over their genes, you can rewrite yourself into an entirely different species. Now maybe they are ready for it, mabe they aren't. Maybe some are and some aren't, I don't know... But it's not such a simple decision for the people on the top to make as it would seem at first sight, at least I don't think it is. I sure wouldn't be able to say in just a second, do this or do that... This is the kind of moral decision that can take weeks of time to think about before you can fully comprehend its implications.

You're missing the point. Julian did nothing wrong except exist. His parents disobeyed the law. Why should he be judged for the actions of others? His fate should be decided on the basis of his words and deeds, not his DNA.

 

I can see what you mean and I did consider that, and in a sense I agree, but the fact remains, that if they were to do that on a regular basis, this law would become meaningless. The only good way to apply a law is to allways apply it. If you cannot allways apply it, it is either a bad law and needs to be rewritten, or it becomes a subjective law which is even worse than no law at all (of course, all laws are subjective, but the less the better and so far this seems to me to be very subjective).

 

Look at my example, the one about the doctor if that makes things easier. You cannot use something that is gained by unlawfull means or you are condoning the unlawfull aquisition of these things. The same thing applies to genetic alteration and integration of successfull 'experiments'. Of course Julian did nothing wrong, in fact he did an awfull lot of things right. The fact remains that by accepting him and his equals, you are sending the message: go ahead and do genetic engineering on humans, we won't intervene once you are done. The goal of the people doing such thing would imo, not be to better themselves, and hence it is of little use to punish only these people doing it. The real effective measurement to take to discourage people from doing it anyway, is by making it useless to do it. You want to give your child a better chance in life by unlawfully genetically modifying them. If you make sure that all such children are put in an institution for their equals you make sure that these 'cheating' (by not doing what they were supposed to) parents are not succeeding in their goals. Would you rather have a brilliant child in an institution or a mediocre child that is 'free' (as far as freedom can be attained)?

 

If there is a law and people agree that it should be there, then the law should be applied, allways! Not just sometimes.

 

Let me give a comparable though quite different and not very realistic example. Say you have 1 child, 1 wife and you want to give your family an easier and more luxurious life, you rob a bank, and you steal 1 billion dollars, no one gets hurt. I don't know what the punishment is for such a thing, but suppose it is 20 years in prison. In the mean while his family can live in luxury and after 20 years, this person gets out and from then on also can enjoy the 'easy life'. Of course, laws are such that he has to return all the money, but suppose one way or the other, it would be impossible to do that... Yes, this is not a realistic example, but it is essentially the same. Would it stop people who want to do the same to punish this man some more? No, since he met his goal anyway, he got his family a life with lots of money... - - What should be done, back to the genetics, is punish the parents and remove the enhancements, removing the enhancements is imossible, thus what do you do? You can see the problem, right? It's no use punishing the parents some more, that won't make the enhancements go away and it won't stop the parents from reaching their goals. If they were willing to risk everything to have their child modified, then I'm pretty sure they won't mind they get punished, as long as they reach their goal. To discourage others from doing the same thing, you need to stop them from reaching their goals. (in case of the money thing, I'd vote for placing the man's family in prison too btw, that way you are punishing innocents yes, but these innocents are benefiting from unlawfullness, you could say, they could promise not to use the money, but suppose that too would be impossible, -> genetics: you cannot promise not to use you enhancements, they are there)

 

The problem is that the one that benefits did not ask for it (whatever it may be), but the ones that ordered it did it anyway and against the law. By allowing this and only punishing the benefactor and allowing the one that benefits to continue on normally with his advantage, you are essentially encouraging people to disobey this law, since they get what they want without serious repercussions (the fact that they get punished is not a serious repercussion, since the goals are met).

 

I can see why it is unfair towards Julian in this example to place him or anyone like him under 'house arrest', but imo that is the only way to uphold the law. The fact that they didn't for Julian is a bad day for justice. I agree that he didn't do anything wrong, but why would they let him be free and not the others... I'm pretty sure there are more then those 3 loonies from that particular episode and chances are that they don't all act that crazy (if even that is a reason to put someone away) and they didn't all betray the Federation.

 

I think the emphasis should be on this particular law and why it is there, and not on the exception/this particular case. As long as this law is in effect and is popularly supported, I see no other alternative, but to do what they did to these genetically enhanced persons. It is not a very ethical thing to do, punish someone who had no hand in the unlawfullness, but the fact remains that this is the only way to prevent such unlawfull things from happening again (if you have a better way, you can post it, I'd love to see this/my/the Federation's 'bad' solution to be wiped away and replaced by something more correct and humane).

 

By locking the enhanced people away, you are discouraging other parents from trying the same thing. These enhanced people should not be angry at the Federation, they should be angry at their parents from doing such a thing to them in the first place. It is not the Federation that put them in this institution, it is the action of their parents that created the need to place them there.

 

 

So, let me simplify what I mean: as long as this law is there, they should continue to do as they are doing and locking such people away. What I don't know however, is whether or not the reasons for keeping this law are good enough. Should such a law exist or not? That is the real problem. All the rest are just logical consequences of this law (prohibition of significant genetic enhancements).

 

EDIT: sorry for writing such long texts btw, I get carried away sometimes. :)

[Tenebrae]

I see little - if any - relevance in your analogy and I agree with MrDad - you're missing the point.

 

It's not about punishing people for breaking the law on genetic engineering, it's the law ITSELF. All you're focusing on is the criminality and consequences, which are irrelevant.

 

The fact of the matter is that the law represents a prejudice. Worf suggests that it would give unfair advantages and parents would feel a need to compete - but that seems totally out of synch with what we know about the Federation. Not to mention the fact that - given the VOY episode "Lineage" - genetic engineering seems like something you can do in your lunch break and the fact that the Federation has a lot of resources, well - there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to outlaw genetic engineering. Especially as "The Augments" in ENT seems to indicate that the extra aggression and ambition was also engineered.

[TetsuoShima]

I see little - if any - relevance in your analogy and I agree with MrDad - you're missing the point.

 

It's not about punishing people for breaking the law on genetic engineering, it's the law ITSELF. All you're focusing on is the criminality and consequences, which are irrelevant.

 

The fact of the matter is that the law represents a prejudice. Worf suggests that it would give unfair advantages and parents would feel a need to compete - but that seems totally out of synch with what we know about the Federation. Not to mention the fact that - given the VOY episode "Lineage" - genetic engineering seems like something you can do in your lunch break and the fact that the Federation has a lot of resources, well - there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to outlaw genetic engineering. Especially as "The Augments" in ENT seems to indicate that the extra aggression and ambition was also engineered.

 

You do realise that you are making my point for me, what was the conclusion of my text? Riiight, that the law itself should be the focus of the attention and not these specific examples (from the DS9 ep). So in this I reply to your saying I'm missing the point: you should re-read my text carefully and notice that I was saying exactly what you are saying that I am missing...Or something like that. :p

 

It's either uphold the law completely or rewrite or remove that law. You are choosing to remove it, which can be acceptable, though personally I wouldn't make such a statement so fast, since removing this law has some very important and complex implications, which I could not oversee completely. Simply put, I don't know whether or not it should be removed, but it certainly is a very valid possibility, not to be dismissed out of hand. If it's a better possibility than the one they are currently applying, that is the true problem. It's not just about competition though and I'm pretty sure within 2 generations 90% of all people (be it alien or human) will be genetically modified once that law is done away with, simply out of pure competitive need (and since it will probably done for free by capable people), again whether or not that is a good or a bad thing, is the real question. Do they have all the underlying wisdom and knowledge to make the right modifications without complications... And to what level? Will they crossbreed humans (or any other sentient species) with animal dna (I'm confident there are some who would be willing to try that)? Would that be acceptable? Should the law be completely dissolved or should it just be altered to allow for certain cases? These are all interesting questions imo...

[MrDad]

It's fear that is the basis for their actions, fear of the Other. Those laws to which you refer were passed in kneejerk reaction to the likes of Khan Noonien Singh and his contemporaries.

 

Humans regularly vie for promotions and advancements on a level playing field with other species who would be considered mentally and/or physically superior, like Vulcans for example. Apparently no one considers that to be unfair nor has humanity been relegated to a second class status as a result.

 

That would be Draconian to punish the children for their parents mistake, wouldn't it? In fact, children used to be punished for their parents' crimes, back in a more barbaric age.

 

"It's the law" is no defense for a morally wrong position. Auschwitz was legal under the Nuremberg laws. Apartheid was legal under South African law. Segregation was legal under the US' Jim Crow laws. The Federation was wrong to punish people like Julain Bashir, who committed no crime nor offense against society except to exist. He was regarded by law as a menace to society though he never harmed nor threatened others. Legalized bigotry is still bigotry.

[TetsuoShima]

Of course, I agree, but that's what I've been saying all along. Either uphold the law correctly and completely, or change the law. But you cannot arbitrarily uphold the law, that is a position that cannot be held. (the genetially modified children are breaking the law btw, whether they can help it or not, suppose you are a cleptomaniac, if you steal enough things, you'll still get locked away, with psychiatric help most likely, untill you are either cured or done your time, to bad these children cannot be cured (I think))

 

If there are no good reasons for this law, then it should be dissolved. Simple as that. Now that this is settled, only question I'm interested in is whether or not there are good reasons to uphold such a law. I know that in our current age there are good reasons. I don't know if in the Startrek universe there are... You guys seem to be quite certain that there aren't. I'm not entirely convinced, but that may be because I may not be looking at it through Startrek eyes enough.

 

A nice episode aimed at this 'problem' could solve it though, to bad there isn't any new Trek series in sight. :)

[Tenebrae]

It still seems academic to the actual topic. The Federation has made the ruling that anything except - as I recall - "life threatening" conditions is illegal.

 

This isn't something that is going to directly hurt anyone and certainly, if we look at Soong androids - of the two fully functional ones we know about... one was one evil mofo. So... why not discriminate against robots?

 

The point isn't to nitpick about the minutae of morality of the law or such, it's that the Federation is clearly not open minded at times.

 

Hell, in season one of DS9 Odo was almost a hate crime victim... but those Bajorans are a backward bunch.

[MrDad]

Of course, I agree, but that's what I've been saying all along. Either uphold the law correctly and completely, or change the law. But you cannot arbitrarily uphold the law, that is a position that cannot be held. (the genetially modified children are breaking the law btw, whether they can help it or not, suppose you are a cleptomaniac, if you steal enough things, you'll still get locked away, with psychiatric help most likely, untill you are either cured or done your time, to bad these children cannot be cured (I think))

 

If there are no good reasons for this law, then it should be dissolved. Simple as that. Now that this is settled, only question I'm interested in is whether or not there are good reasons to uphold such a law. I know that in our current age there are good reasons. I don't know if in the Startrek universe there are... You guys seem to be quite certain that there aren't. I'm not entirely convinced, but that may be because I may not be looking at it through Startrek eyes enough.

 

A nice episode aimed at this 'problem' could solve it though, to bad there isn't any new Trek series in sight. :)

If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.

 

[TetsuoShima]

If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.

 

Nice quote, and on a purely ideological level I could support that, but in reality such a statement holds no real ground. Most laws require at least some people to be caused injustice in their eyes (which is not directly the same thing, but extrapolated it amounts to the same thing, suppose you are a police officer and you don't agree with some law, are you supposed to quit or not do your duty? And after that, when, for example, you yourself are accused of that very same thing you don't agree with, still be convicted? That is not really in your best interest imo. You can protest it, but you must uphold it untill it is changed, unless you wish to become an unkown martyr, wich is fine for everybody else but yourself.) Injustice is defined by law (since it also defines justice), that is what the law is there to do for, on that level that quote is a contradiction to itself. However, injustice (and justice) are also ingrained in the human mind and is not allways the same for everyone. If you take that statement and apply it to its fullest potential, you can, in the end, just as wel remove all laws, since this feeling of justice is at least partly culturally and socially determined, that would mean that not all laws can be applied to all people and as such is another reason for injustice.

 

Anyway, this is a little beyond the scope of this original discussion. :)

[Mav]

The only one that kind of points bigotry at Starfleet/Federation is the Data example. And that's simply cause to stop from being disassembled and studied Data had to resign his commission and go through a trial to prove he's a living being.

 

The Doctor from Voyager was different. He had a similar small trial thing based apon his write as an author because he was a hologram and not a biological person. People forget, the Federation didn't deny him those rights and they didn't say he didn't have him. The Doctor's holographic publisher, who was a Bolian (whom probably wasn't a member of Starfleet/Fed) was the guy who pulled the hoodwink idea of "the Doctor has no rights since he is not a person". The Federation just acted as a mediator and go between since no laws had been done on the subject and the fact that the Doctor is a member of Starfleet (complete with rank and everything).

 

Bashir's issue is more of a leftover past from the Eugenics Wars. Sure after all this time we as humans, should be more open minded. But also, for every Bashir that was created through genetic manipulation, they also created a hundred Khan's. The bad definitely outweighs the good when it comes to illegal genetic manipulation. Now, if the Federation had come to terms with such ideals and made it legal in some instances based on usage and how it's done, then yes it would be bigotry on Bashirs part. Hell even Bashir himself said one of the reasons it was illegal was "if it was legal then other parents would feel pressured to have it done to their children just so they could keep up".

 

Let's not forget that despite how far in the future all Trek timelines are, the majority of Starfleet are humans. And while Roddenbury did try to paint a rose colored picture of the future in TOS, humans still have flaws in the 24th century. No race will ever be 100% perfect. Sure we eliminated war, poverty, most diseases and such on Earth but it's a huge galaxy that we travel. Such things will be enountered and we made a part of. Even the gung ho fire-phasers-first-ask-questions-later Kirk tried to achieve goals of peace and morality in the galaxy. It just doesn't always work out that way.

[Guest c4evap]

SNIPPET:

 

So, I put it to you - members of the jury - that for all its protestation that it is an enlightened and tolerant society, that in fact the United Federation of Planets remains bigotive and closed minded in terms of the rights of sentinent beings that are not as it best understands them - humanoid and organic.

 

How do you find the defendant? Guilty or not guilty?

GUILTY! Let's take them all out back and beat the snot outta 'em!!!

 

c4 B)