The Federation - evil ?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

. I'm one of those people who as to see it to believe it.

Well since we dont see any of the evil brainwashing camps they dont exist.

We are told how many died, I think it was approx 500 million and we are told almost every city is gone.

Stop twisting the quote. it was 300 milllion dead, most of the MAJOR cities destoyed.

[TheDarkling]

I couldnt remeber it exactly but I still think that is a major war.

[TheDarkling]

"Makes sense most of the major cities have been destroyed, very few governments left, 600 Million dead"

Theres the quote.
Its 10 years after ww3.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

"Makes sense most of the major cities have been destroyed, very few governments left, 600 Million dead"

Theres the quote.
Its 10 years after ww3.

And you know what's funny? In TOS, with the Romans with guns, Spock says something like 40 mil for WWIII.

[TheDarkling]

Yeah well TOS said alot of crazy stuff - the 25 grams of antimatter planet killer being my personal favourite.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Yeah well TOS said alot of crazy stuff - the 25 grams of antimatter planet killer being my personal favourite.

yes well, it said the death toll first.

[TheDarkling]

Ah so that makes it more valid?

Remember Spock can be wrong as someone already pointed out.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Ah so that makes it more valid?

Remember Spock can be wrong as someone already pointed out.

AFAIK when 2 things completly contradict, the first made is right. I think.

[TheDarkling]

I heard newer material overides older material but that may just be for Star wars official material.

I dont think 40 million deaths would cause many governments to fall and it would cover abuot 5 major cities thus I would say Rikers quote fits better - I would also back Data and Picard knowing their history.

It matters not in the grand scheme.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I heard newer material overides older material but that may just be for Star wars official material.

I dont think 40 million deaths would cause many governments to fall and it would cover abuot 5 major cities thus I would say Rikers quote fits better - I would also back Data and Picard knowing their history.

It matters not in the grand scheme.

40 million does seem small for a world wide nuclear war.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

[slightly off-topic]

This doesn't really have to do with Star Trek, but I'll say it anyway, as it is a little similar.

In the anime series Mobile Suit Gundam, which takes place in Universal Century 0079 (AD 2159), humanity is engaged in the One Year War. The Human population is more than 11 billion (on Earth and in Lagrange Point based space colonies). Within the first 2-3 weeks of the war during the One Week Battle, 4.5 billion people are killed from nukes, poison gas, and finally a colony dropped on Earth (which obliterates Sydney). After this, a treaty is drafted and the rest of the war is a stalemate until the Earth Federation defeats the Principality of Zeon at the end of the year.

Anyway, you'd think that with half of the population being killed, something like what supposibly happens in Star Trek would happen, right?

Wrong. Just three years later in 0083 there's another war. Then again in 0087-88. And 0093. Then 0123. Then 0153.

So even after nearly after 75 years, they were still having wars, and human behavior was pretty much the same (they may have discovered that life was a little more precious, but that's it.) A similar situation (actually worse, really) and nothing happens to human behavior in the UC Gundam universe.

[/slightly off-topic]

[Master of Ossus]

I heard newer material overides older material but that may just be for Star wars official material.

That would be INSANE if it applied to ST. That would mean that Enterprise overrides TOS, DS9, and TNG!

[SCVN 2812]

The thought that humanity cannot change in 3 centuries is ridiculous, consider how much Western society has changed in just a century and a half. Slavery has been abolished, women and entire ethnic groups granted suffrage and the same rights as men and the group(s) that previously dominated them. Racial intolerance has significantly reduced although it still remains somewhat of a problem.

First Contact with an alien species theoretically and in Star Trek it's an established undeniable fact, would have major consequences for humanity. It could have and in Star Trek did have the positive effect of making the petty differences between humans seem small by comparison to an alien species, especially the Vulcans. Our two species have very little in common besides physical resemblance and this would be especially apparent to a divided humanity weakened by internal conflict and destruction on a scale beyond that of any other war. The simple fact that it involved the use of nuclear weapons on a massive scale put it in a class all by itself. In the face of contact with an alien species that is significantly more advanced than we are, unwilling to share advanced technology, and far more socially different to humanity than even the most different human groups. History and the likelihood of a unifying influence (humanity finally has something in common with eachother, we're humans and compared to the differences between humanity as a whole and the Vulcans, our own differences are not all that different) that a first contact provides is proof enough that given the right conditions humanity can make drastic changes in a short period of time.

As for the Federation being extremely restrictive on what it's citizens can and cannot do, where is the social upheavel that very often occurs when a significant portion of the population feels that it's freedom is being too unfairly restricted? Do we ever hear of any demonstrations against the Federation government? Even under oppressive regimes that crack down on such a thing, there are still demonstrations and people, even people in the military are going to discuss it, even if it's just a offhand comment denouncing the demonstrations. Obviously no one feels overly disenfranchized or bitter, quite to the contrary, the freedom they enjoy is routinely boasted about and obviously the Federation cannot be all that "evil" as Starfleet didn't seem to suffer from any shortage of personnel to replace their losses during the course of the Dominion War suggesting that the population was highly motivated to protect their way of life and forced conscription runs contrary to the ideals the Federation canonically cherishes.

I am not going to outright deny that what we see does seem to suggest socialist even communist influences but there is nothing to suggest that it is a forced or cruel regime due to the lack of popular rebellions or any resentment among the citizens we've seen. There is no shame in socialist influence. The USA itself regulates it's economy instead of doing the capitalist thing and letting businesses operate unchecked. The government is even able to control interest rates in some areas and has placed numerous checks on the power of business, for example making monopolies illegal. If the USA was a true capitalist state the power of business would be allowed to do whatever it pleased as long as it didn't violate anything set down in the constitution or civil laws. However, this is not the case, while the restrictions on the power of business are fairly light the fact remains they exist period. Consider for a moment what life would be like if the US was a pure capitalism, monopolies and mega-corporations would be prolific and these massive corporations, in terms of economic power, would be unmatched by most nations. They could cripple entire nations simply by cutting off supplies of their products which they alone control production and distribution of having squashed all competition since it is legal to do so. Prices on common goods would be extreme and wages low. So is a healthy bit of socialism really that evil?

[TheDarkling]

Master of Ossus: yes it would be but on the flipside it means we take TOS over everything else - its probably best to use the more reasonable figure/evidence when 2 things are in stark contradiction.

[Master of Ossus]

SCVN, first of all, shut up because anyone who thought that a mounted soldier could defeat one using a tank has no right to be telling us what to think.

That aside, slavery has not been abolished in the last three centuries. Not only does it still exist in many parts of the world (particularly Sudan), but people have simply changed the definition of a slave. Are sweatshop workers making soccer balls in Siam considered slaves? How about the Workers that the Saudis import? Both of them are little better off, if at all. Second of all, human nature has NOT changed in three centuries. In fact, it has never changed! Since the dawn of time people have had the same impulses and desires. While the standards of conduct have changed over time, that has not changed people in general.

Second of all, I see few relevent differences between Vulcans and humans. The two races can interbreed. They have VERY similar physiologies, and while their cultures may be different, they are hardly any more different than, say, the Japanese culture from the culture of tribes living in the Amazon. In fact, the only thing that appears to be separating the two "species" is racism towards one another (ref. Enterprise). This further indicates that human nature has not changed in ST or in real life.

There may or may not be social upheaval within the Federation. I can think of three different possibilities that explain the absence of on-screen evidence of such an issue. The first is that there actually IS social unrest, it just happens off-camera. This is possible because socialist/communist societies in RL frequently try to cover up problems that they are having domestically. The second is that, well, the Federation has managed to make socialism/communism or some economic model that uses many similar principles work in spite of human nature. Please note that just because people are downtrodden does not mean that they will rebel. Consider the Persian/Iranian people. Under the Shah, they had made significant economic and social gains. They were becoming slightly more democratic, and people were enjoying a social system. They then rebelled to install a fundamentalist, totalitarian state that almost immediately wiped out all of the gains that the Shah and his government had made in the country over the preceding decades.

I do not, and have never, believed that the US runs a completely capitalist system. I think that there would be many benefits if it did, but there would also be many drawbacks. The system that we currently have is a compromise between two reasonably successful (in theory) economic models, and it has formed a reasonably stable society. Incidentally, many multi-national corporations within the US ALREADY take in more money per year than the majority of nations on the globe. Your ethnocentrism apparently stopped you from recognizing that, as you claimed in your post that there would be "massive corporations [which would] be unmatched by most nations [in terms of buying power]. This is already the case. I would also point out that we did have a pure capitalism once in the United States (remember Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and the like?). That system worked reasonably well, and in spite of what liberals say there was surprisingly little unrest. In fact, there appeared to be more unrest among the people who enjoyed more benefits! That is completely contrary to most liberal theory, but it was true. The only explanation is that liberals have misjudged human nature, and that their predominate theories fails to explain this trend.

[Master of Ossus]

Master of Ossus: yes it would be but on the flipside it means we take TOS over everything else - its probably best to use the more reasonable figure/evidence when 2 things are in stark contradiction.

I don't think we should either take the older or the newer bit of evidence all the time. Instead we should make decisions based on what the other pieces of evidence are. In this case, 40 million seems too low (unless it was merely a limited exchange of nuclear weapons). In other cases, I would prefer if we would examine the evidence, try to find a solution that explains both pieces of evidence (even when they appear contradictory). THEN, if there is no compromise possible, we could go back and try and figure out which one is supported more by other facts and pieces of evidence than the other.

[Vapthorne]

"The thought that humanity cannot change in 3 centuries is ridiculous, consider how much Western society has changed in just a century and a half. Slavery has been abolished, women and entire ethnic groups granted suffrage and the same rights as men and the group(s) that previously dominated them. Racial intolerance has significantly reduced although it still remains somewhat of a problem. "

How has western society changed? You've brought up a lot of narrow stuff. Slavery might be gone, but the force that made us bring slaves: Greed, still exists. Ethnic groups and women's rights increased because they fought for it; but the bigotry of sexism/racism/ignorance is still here. In these cases, only the law had changed. The underlining evils of human nature are still apart of us, as they will always be. They will just take different faces.

"First Contact with an alien species theoretically and in Star Trek it's an established undeniable fact, would have major consequences for humanity. It could have and in Star Trek did have the positive effect of making the petty differences between humans seem small by comparison to an alien species, especially the Vulcans. Our two species have very little in common besides physical resemblance and this would be especially apparent to a divided humanity weakened by internal conflict and destruction on a scale beyond that of any other war. The simple fact that it involved the use of nuclear weapons on a massive scale put it in a class all by itself."

Such a massive scale that many monuments pre-WW3 exists and many records from the 20th century had made it to Starfleet databases. Also, 10 years after the nuclear war, they Earth had plenty of vegetation, no nuclear winter and humanity is still around. It is not as extreme as people make it to be. That seems to be the problem with some people in these debates, they take gossipal at face-value without looking back and questioning some of the subtle hints that contradict what is said. That's why I'd make a piss-poor Federation citizen.

"As for the Federation being extremely restrictive on what it's citizens can and cannot do, where is the social upheavel that very often occurs when a significant portion of the population feels that it's freedom is being too unfairly restricted? Do we ever hear of any demonstrations against the Federation government?"

Coupled with the fact that the Federation seems to control news and information and Starfleet has an extensive database of the activies of every citizen, the lack of anti-Federation demonstrations is extremely disturbing. The casual oberserver, this might indicate that everything is fine and dandy. But, someone might wonder, is that the case, or does the Federation simply sweep it under the rug. They say war, poverty, and disease are gone... but I've seen wars in the Federation, I've seen disease, I've seen poverty. This should clearly indicate that the Federation is lying about it's uptopia claim. Why should I not believe that there is anti-Federation setiment, especially when some of morals and practices conducted by it's chain of command absolutely sickens me; therefore I can't imagine how a decent person would idly accept it in Federation society unless they lost their frontal lopes in a childhood accent (ie, Federation pre-school).

Look at the Maqui, they objected to Federation policy of allowing the Cardassians to take their homes and stand by as human women were raped and men were beaten. And, worse, they even stepped in and stopped the Maquis and arrested them, even though Picard stated that those who stayed in DMZ would lose their rights as Federation citizens. Apparently, they are still under Federation judical edict.

In ST:I, they claimed that the Baku's planet, which was in there borders was considered Federation property dispite the fact noone among Baku had any rights as Federation citizens.

"So is a healthy bit of socialism really that evil?"

But, SCVN, there is a difference here. You claim that extreme capitalism is bad, but ANYTHING in the extreme nature can be a bad thing.

[TheDarkling]

Isnt that what I said?

[TheDarkling]

Monuments could be rebuilt - already explained about documents.

10% of the world pop dead is a big war (ok their population was probably bigger than 6 Billion).

Governments collapse etc etc.

Proof that the News is censored??? - Jake seems shocked that the freedom of the press was being withheld by the Dominion.
Proof of the other things you claim - Poverty etc.

They dont say they are perfect but they are better than what we have today.

[Master of Ossus]

Monuments could be rebuilt - already explained about documents.

10% of the world pop dead is a big war (ok their population was probably bigger than 6 Billion).

Governments collapse etc etc.

Proof that the News is censored??? - Jake seems shocked that the freedom of the press was being withheld by the Dominion.
Proof of the other things you claim - Poverty etc.

They dont say they are perfect but they are better than what we have today.

10% of people dead is a big war, but hardly an unmanageable one or one that would alter people's human nature. Don't you understand that in WWI France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and several smaller countries had death rates in that range? Don't you realize that the Soviet Union, in World War II, had one SIXTH of its entire population killed or wounded in combat? Don't you realize that countries in the Balkans have repeatedly sustained those kinds of casualties during warfare? Just because 10% of Americans have never been killed in a war since King Phillip doesn't mean that those kinds of casualties somehow cause massive changes in humanity. Where the hell were you guys in WORLD history class? It is American ethnocentrism that leads you people to believe that those kinds of casualties are unmanageable for a society.

Second, you cannot judge a society based upon looking almost exclusively at its upper-middle class. The Soviets frequently claimed to have eliminated poverty (and various other problems in their country: illiteracy, hunger, lack of health care), but in fact all they had done was made almost everyone more impoverished (although their gains in literacy and health care and education were very impressive). The Chinese made similar claims about their society, but they also did things like having people starve in order to increase their country's production of steel without improving their industrial base, first.

Some monuments can be rebuilt, but others clearly cannot. The Golden Gate Bridge probably could be rebuilt, but could all of the buildings of San Francisco? I only know of one society that has purposely attempted as a collective to return to the "old days." That one was in Cambodia, being led by Pol POT! Unless you want me to continue comparing the Khmer Rouge to the Federation, I suggest you quit the discussion immediately.

[SCVN 2812]

Are the underlying evils of human nature really human nature or just learned? Human nature is just an excuse used to justify human acts rather than even consider that there might actually be other factors to take into consideration.

People don't naturally form hatred and intolerance, it's quite obvious otherwise there would still be hate crimes on the level and scale of the opposition to the civil rights movement decades back. Times and people change, while at one time white supremacy groups held considerable power and were a constant threat, they are barely even taken seriously today. While minorities and women are not socially yet the total equals of majorities and men, they are still gaining more and more equality as now there is little holding them back except social conditions like poverty and the occassional but still becomming fewer and fewer surviving bastion of discrimination.

The effects of WW III are not debatable, we know the effects: hundreds of millions dead, very few remaining major cities. As for landmarks, landmarks are easily rebuilt or restored and despite hundreds of wars quite a few landmarks from ancient times still survive despite the gradual increase in the destructiveness of warfare and the effects.

[TheDarkling]

Master of Ossus: You accusing me of being from the USA?
Im a UKer (just a night owl).

10% world wide is a big deal - enough to destroy entire countries..

We have never seen poor because maybe they dont exist???

Yes the Federation is an evil regime because they tried to retore Pre war buildings.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Relating to what Ossus said above, I'd like to mention my post on page 11 where I cited a series that had billions die in less than 14 days, which did little if nothing to affect the way people acted.

Tragedies don't always effect people as much as we'd think they'd do.

[Master of Ossus]

SCVN, why the heck can't I get you to understand this? The hate crimes that we saw at the start of the Civil Right movement are dying out because the government, and society as a whole, began to expel groups of people who participated in such behavior. They then established a criteria that said, "If you blow up black churches/synagogues/whatever other religious/racial institution, we will hunt you down and throw you in prison." That is making it easier for most people to simply live with people who are different than it would be for them to set fire to their new neighbor's home in an effort to drive them out. People do not like to go to prison. Sorry, Darkling, I should have said "Western ethnocentrism," but I was primarily going after SCVN when I said that. Even though the English took FAR heavier casualties in both world wars than the Americans (by percentage), even the casualties to the BEF was no where near as high as the total casualty rates for the Soviets, French, Germans, Austro-Hungarians (in the first WW), and the casualty rates among much of central Europe.

In regards to my example of the Khmer Rouge, I still cannot think of any other, similar societies off the top of my head. If you can find a better example, I would be more than happy to change my opinion on that particular sub-portion of the debate.

SCVN, I would also point out that your casualty figures are still nowhere NEAR as high (by percentage) as those from the Black Death in Europe. The physical toll of WWIII is not debatable, you are right. What I also don't think is debatable (but you do) is that I don't hink that such an event would change human nature among huge portions of the population, as you claim.

The other reason we may not have seen the poor is because there would be no poor on a warship, a space station, an exploration vessel, or in the heart of New Orleans or wine-country France. There are no poor on our warships, space stations/military outposts, and science labs today. There are no poor in wine-country France, and there are very few poor in New Orleans' restaurant districts. There are VERY few impoverished people there today, and the only reason we should expect to find them in those locales in ST would be if their society/economy had actually DEgenerated since today. Incidentally, colony worlds clearly DO suffer from poverty. Read up on Tasha Yar and her family, if you will.

[TheDarkling]

The colony that Yar came from broke away from the federation (if it was ever a federation world - im not sure) and thus the poverty/crime etc was not federation.

We are told poverty has been gotten rid of - can you give me evidence to contary.