(Star Trek) Authorial Intent, Genetic modifications and the polite atrocity: Why the Federation is a dystopia.

[u/Animus_Infernus]

TW: Genocide

Star trek is a franchise about the future.

Specifically, a post-scarcity future revolving around Starfleet and the Federation.

The basic premise is that humans have founded a unified coalition of planets and nations, spreading human values of peace, prosperity and acceptance across the galaxy. This is the Federation

Obviously, there are cultures that aren't as progressive as humanity. Cultures who seek to erode federation values, this necessitates Starfleet, an earth-based and human-controlled military faction within the Federation.

For my first point, Authorial Intent is important here.

Star trek has gone through a lot of authors, but the eternal intent is that the federation is good. Sometime's it's space-NATO, sometimes it's space-UN, sometimes it's space-USA. But it's always been what those groups should aspire to be. A beacon of hope. (at least that's the intent)

We see it with Picard (both the show and the captain) being hyper-patriotic for the missions of peace and science. with Star Trek: Enterprise demonstrating how separate cultures came together to found the federation. with Star Trek: The Original Series being about human homesteading and a peaceful end to the space cold war.

And then the cracks begin to show, starting with the Augment Ban.

In Star Trek's human history, augmented humans led a series of bloody wars and atrocities. The natural human instinct was to ban all genetic modification. This carried on to the federation, any culture that wants to join the federation has to ban genetic modification.

Multiple species have canonically performed mass genetic augmentation without becoming tyrants, but they aren't permitted into the "beacon of hope." Because Starfleet is still mad about something humans did to each other. Curing a health condition using alien tech is considered sciencecrime, but only if that alien tech is genetic modification. This isn't even from the cynical shows, this is established in Strange New Worlds. and Enterprise which are both full of "starfleet awesome, federation awesome."

And then Star Trek: Picard comes around, and drives another nail into the coffin of "The Federation is free"

Star Trek: Picard starts with a terrorist attack being perpetrated by robots. Therefore a decision is made to ban robots. Creation of robots is forbidden, any research that involves them is forbidden (including, canonically, life-saving cybernetics) and any existing robot has to be executed.

These aren't even "robot arm and computer" robots. The ban specifically requests the "disassembly" of Asimov-style thinking machines, across the whole of the federation.

The ban is repealed fourteen years later, after which an unknown number of sapient beings have been taken apart for the sake of a human law. An entire type of person is declared illegal, even though the attack had nothing to do with the perpetrators being robotic.

That's two different data points of the federation declaring people's existence a crime. Which is textbook fascism. Star trek portrays the robot ban as a mistake, true, but you can't just say "whoopsy, we mandated genocide. Our bad."

It gets worse. Because of a concept that modern Star Trek loves:

Section 31.

Section 31 is Starfleet's martial law. A group of people who can declare "interstellar emergency." and get a pardon for anything, up to and including attempting to destroy planets. People operating under section 31 have no oversite, even from Starfleet Intelligence (starfleet's spy agency). While at the same time recieving cutting-edge tech beyond what Starfleet gives its flagship vessels.

Starfleet has managed to "solve" multiple political problems by taking a rabid group of spies and ordering them to commit atrocities. They're willing to cover up those spy's actions and very existence, even after section 31 attempts a coup on earth's government.

So the Federation is willing to ban life-saving medicine, criminalize people's existence, and fund a fascist secret police that even they can't control. All for the sake of a sick HFY attitude, that the spread of human values are worth debasing everything that humanity is supposed to mean.

[u/Serpentking04]

So i am not a trekkie but I feel like the authorial intent part is underminded by... well, the concept that it means that what what one author's Starfleet allows and does doesn't mean it is one the other's would have... like in the case of the robots.

I like Darker takes on the Federation don't get me wrong but... still.

[u/Animus_Infernus → u/Serpentking04]

The point of my authorial intent remark is that the showwriters are very insistent that starfleet is good, but they write themselves into corners that make me wonder what they consider good.

The robot ban is part of Star Trek: Picard. The showwriters of Picard go to great lengths to reminisce about TNG era, and to drive in this idea of the federation as a beacon of hope. While brushing aside the ban as being "just a mistake."

Star Trek: Discovery has a season about how Starfleet ditched humanity during an apocalypse to save their own asses, and they're still the beacon of hope during that apocalypse.

Star Trek: Lower Decks has a major apocalyptic threat be solved by a no-oversight faction operating under permanent martial law.

There's a new film coming out about how the aforementioned no-oversight faction hired a cannibalistic fascist.

It's not just about having multiple authors, it's about the authors telling us "this is the post-scarcity goodguys" while showing us "cannibalistic space-Hitler gets her own film"

[u/Serpentking04 → u/Animus_Infernus]

Because that's a problem with that author not the entire concept.

[u/Animus_Infernus → u/Serpentking04]

I'm not judging the concept, I'm judging the franchise.

Multiple shows, with multiple seasons and different authors, have turned the franchise into being about a dystopia.

In it's current state, my complaints are valid. Even if the "concept" would be the federation being good, the way that concept is shown leaves a lot to be desired. Judging a setting by its concept is the ultimate "tell not show." Focusing everything on a short snippet that can be as optimistic and perfect as imagination permits.