Sign in to follow this  
Red Shirt Volunteer

Is the Trek Earth totalitarian?

Recommended Posts

It seems somewhat odd to me how everyone on Earth supports Starfleet and the Federation. There always seems to be an external threat such as the Klingons, the Romulans or the Borg, but I seriously doubt humanity will ever be so united as to put aside all ethnic/linguistic/cultural differences.

 

You could say the UT solves the language issue, but it's just not realistic because there is an underlying assumption in any tech used for translation that people think the same way and all ideas can be understood by all cultures. The whole thing seems beyond belief to me at times, though it's nice to think it might actually happen.

 

The only way I can conceive it is if we assume the Federation has created at totalitarian form of government. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there some kind of world democracy? There is a federation president so how could there be a totalitarian earth? I would think that there would be some kind of UN style of world government that took precedence over nation-states. The need for such a government would be motivated by the end of WWIII and the arrival of the Vulcans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've heard democracy refered to as tyranny of the masses - so even if there was a world democracy that doesn't mean there would be unity of thought. In fact world democracy makes me think of partisan bickering on a global scale.

 

Interesting question redshirt...I have to agree the ST vision of the future seems a little unrealistic to me as well. However, I think DS9 made it more clear that there were differences of opinions (such as the Maquis not supporting the Federation's treaty with Cardassia, and Section 31 etc) and internal conflicts still existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd always assumed some form of democratic process existed, yet it all just seems too idyllic. Hints were certainly dropped during DS9's run that dissenters were not unheard of, but they always struck me as a fringe group while the moral core of humanity, based in the principles of the Federation, remained unchallenged by the majority. I suppose a large part this was a result of the sweeping generalisations Picard made. I won't get into whether I agree or disagree with the value system he referred to (especially noteworthy examples abound in "First Contact"), but there was always a degree of arrogance to the way he would proclaim the virtues of his own civilisation. When people begin to extol their own values like this, I wonder at times if they can continue to better themselves or if they make themselves subordinate to those values.

 

The original question came to me in light of recent discussions on the Romulans in the Ent. forum as I wondered what effect the war, expected by many fans, with an alien race might have on uniting people as well as the upcoming Russian election that President Putin is predicted to win in a landslide. Well, enough rambling. I though I would explain this last bit a little more, but I'm sure someone will work out what I'm driving at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall always love Democracy, however, if anyone has seen the movie "The Patriot", Mel Gibson's charactor has a great line. "Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Partisan bickering on a world scale seems believable, but that does not mean it is paralyzing. I think the bickering would be mitigated by the knowledge of the existence of beings on other worlds, and a need for survival of humanity. We saw examples in TNG where worlds were not admitted to the federation because of the inability of the planet's world society to resolve fundamental issues. Earth could not lead the Federation if it were suffering from the same inability to function effectively on a planetary level.

 

American demcocracy and the two-party system is often criticized because the two major parties are viewed to be too very close in ideology, but this reflects the fact that there are widely shared perspectives among American citizens, and differences are in "fine-tuning". For example practically all Americans favor capitalism, and both major parties do, and they often differ in how much regulation of business or where the tax relief should be. I think in the Star Trek world they would have had to move to that level of agreement. I can't say that I can imagine how it came about except again by necessities arising out of the end of the war, and the arrival of the Vulcans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Gene Roddenberry? that guy whos name rarely comes up? he had a vision that humans would be united, peaceful and evolved in the future and that is the simple reason that the planet is united, many people have different opinions but i think that the people on earth are happy, no poverty, no harm, there is still ethnic diversity, look at where sisko and picard are from each area is distinct adn they hold that diversity in high regards but only with diversity can we unite...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I view Trek's political system as a "functional" socialism. One reason it seems to work is their people, in general, do not seem to lack motivation, which is the inherent problem with current socialist societies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it may happen .... but are we really who we are, or is the Earth as one in another mans vision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hay, I was searching the web the last nite for "all things Star Trek" and came across a paper with that very same idea.....but it was a very long.....long....long paper. I could probably go find it again if you're interested.

 

http://www.friesian.com/trek.htm

Edited by headborg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hay, I was searching the web the last nite for "all things Star Trek" and came across a paper with that very same idea.....but it was a very long.....long....long paper.  I could probably go find it again if you're interested.

 

http://www.friesian.com/trek.htm

That was an interesting little piece. The point the writer made about militarism on Trek and the mixing of families and military personnel was well put. Time and time again Starfleet vessels are faced with hostile aliens or destructive natural phenomena. It's absolutely ludicrous to raise children under those circumstances and one wonders who would voluntarily subject their family to the trials the Enterprise had to face unless they were unaware of what they were signing on for. As the author wrote, seeing a child assimilated by the Borg would have been a disturbing image. They must be duped to some degree by the Federation.

 

Trek could, and should, deal with some of these things but relies on the ability of fans to suspend disbelief along with common sense at times to make its point. It's like a manual to put together the ideal world, but they only include the picture of what it looks like when it's finished, not the steps leading up to that perfection. It's the lack of explanation that keeps Trek optimistic enough to enjoy but vague enough to lack credibility as a viable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this