You know what I always loved about Star Trek, primarily TNG? The characters and stories were centered around a positive and optimistic philosophy. They avoided conflict as much as possible, they always learned from their experiences, they were fair and open-minded. It's the ultimate ideal to raise kids on, as far as I'm concerned. It's entirely unrealistic, but it's based on hope.
Yeah, thus my issue with people going "making it dark and political is cool!". It's not really what Trek was originally concieved to be; even with TNG's darker episodes it was always individuals that were assholes, not Federation as a group.
I fucking hate the concept of Section 31, I really do. I can't even remember (thanks to the final season of DS9 being forgettable bar the battle scenes), did they turn out to be officially sanctioned or not? They were going back and forth with that throughout the storyline.
Section 31 is a dangerous concept because it teeters on the edge of making ST into a dark and brooding continuity when it's not supposed to be. However I also think that it's an important idea, because the near-perfection of the Federation is just so blatantly unrealistic. Sacrifices have to be made to maintain that peaceful, hopeful, progressive society, especially since they occupy a universe that is home to many other, less than perfect empires.
The fact that those sacrificed are minimized would speak to the effectiveness of Section 31 but also the real devotion of the Federation to its own ideals. The problem is that ideals aren't enough, and to build a show on the idea that principles and good intentions will always lead to victory is less than appealing because it is so childish. I find it much more interesting that a small but powerful organization within the Federation smooths down the rough patches and violates the principles of the Federation when it is truly necessary. It makes so much more sense. Much more interesting than the poorly-thought-out utopian vision that we normally see of the Federation.
Section 31 is a dangerous concept because it teeters on the edge of making ST into a dark and brooding continuity when it's not supposed to be. However I also think that it's an important idea, because the near-perfection of the Federation is just so blatantly unrealistic. Sacrifices have to be made to maintain that peaceful, hopeful, progressive society, especially since they occupy a universe that is home to many other, less than perfect empires.
So the same humanity that is incapable of creating a utopia within the lofty rules they set is capable of producing ruthless, amoral nationalistic individuals that operate outside the law that get the job done without said individuals abusing the power they were given?
I can imagine a number of politicians that would fap to this idea, but as far as realism goes it's a total fairytale. It would only work if Section 31 weren't human themselves (even modified humans like Bashir are just ordinary humans with ordinary human flaws that just possess extraordinary abilities), but then it's a very cynical vision that I don't really find very inspiring.
"This is a unvierse in which humans only exist because they need to rely on outside help to keep them in check."
Section 31 is a dangerous concept because it teeters on the edge of making ST into a dark and brooding continuity when it's not supposed to be. However I also think that it's an important idea, because the near-perfection of the Federation is just so blatantly unrealistic. Sacrifices have to be made to maintain that peaceful, hopeful, progressive society, especially since they occupy a universe that is home to many other, less than perfect empires.
So the same humanity that is incapable of creating a utopia within the lofty rules they set is capable of producing ruthless, amoral nationalistic individuals that operate outside the law that get the job done without said individuals abusing the power they were given?
I can imagine a number of politicians that would fap to this idea, but as far as realism goes it's a total fairytale. It would only work if Section 31 weren't human themselves (even modified humans like Bashir are just ordinary humans with ordinary human flaws that just possess extraordinary abilities), but then it's a very cynical vision that I don't really find very inspiring.
"This is a unvierse in which humans only exist because they need to rely on outside help to keep them in check."
They aren't necessarily amoral; look at what Sisko did (and agonized over) to get the Romulans into the war with the Dominion. That's the kind of thing I would imagine a successful Section 31 would do.
A utopian human society is almost impossible because of basic human flaws and the demands of the world/galaxy/etc in general. My point is that the Federation is a utopia, or close to it. I think it is less realistic that such a utopia would spring into being because everyone was nice and principled and good, especially given the characters we've seen in the Federation so far, and more realistic that such a utopia exists because it is enforced.
Corruption in a position of power is obviously problematic but that's what would make the show exciting.
Obviously the solution is that Section 31 does in fact have absolute power and corruption is prevented because the truly absolute controller of Section 31 is, in fact, Data from the future, having travelled back in time after seeing the Federation decay, by means of not one or even two but three modified detector dishes.
Not to mention, the Romulans and Cardassians have powerful spy agencies and are trying to infiltrate, corrupt and ultimately destroy the Federation. And utopian good will isn't going to stop them. Section 31 is a necessity for the Federation to last more than 5 minutes against these external threats.
They aren't necessarily amoral; look at what Sisko did (and agonized over) to get the Romulans into the war with the Dominion. That's the kind of thing I would imagine a successful Section 31 would do.
I meant immoral.
I think it is less realistic that such a utopia would spring into being because everyone was nice and principled and good, especially given the characters we've seen in the Federation so far, and more realistic that such a utopia exists because it is enforced.
Except that Federation by design is full of rules. And Section 31 is supposedly successful because it ignores said rules. Thus my complaint, that the same flaws that make Federation too idealistic would also make Section 31 impossible.
Basically, it's backwards logic. "The only way Federation would be able to exist is if Such An Agency Existed." Completely ignoring that such an agency couldn't exist within the defined parameters. If humans are flawed then Section 31 is flawed. If humans corrupt under idealistic Federation conditions then humans corrupt absolutely under unrestricted Section 31 conditions.
Not to mention, the Romulans and Cardassians have powerful spy agencies and are trying to infiltrate, corrupt and ultimately destroy the Federation. And utopian good will isn't going to stop them. Section 31 is a necessity for the Federation to last more than 5 minutes against these external threats.
I disagree: "idealistic" /= "pushover." Yes, the galaxy is full of dangers, and that's partly the reason the Federation exists. You know, strength in numbers and all that. It's still perfectly possible (and plausible, at least to me) that a society could choose to live a "utopian" lifestyle and still be willing to defend their lifestyle/ideals to the death. Which, in fact, is precisely what we've been led to believe in most of Star Trek thus far.
Society agreeing to share all the fruits of everyone's labors and holding lofty ideals doesn't mean that society can't aggressively seek out and eliminate threats while simultaneously adhering to the same code of behavior that rules in that "utopian" society.
Was there some explanatory line about Section 31's authority being written into the Federation charter? Or am I just making that up?
Plus: What about a show that's dark a political wherein Section 31 has taken over? And one remaining "rogue" ship vows to stand up for the Federation's lost ideals?
Also, in a more general sense, Serenity and Moya (the corrupt ideals of the Peacekeepers), although neither of them was trying to actually fix the situation. BTW, what was Andromeda like? Worth watching?
They aren't necessarily amoral; look at what Sisko did (and agonized over) to get the Romulans into the war with the Dominion. That's the kind of thing I would imagine a successful Section 31 would do.
I meant immoral.
I think it is less realistic that such a utopia would spring into being because everyone was nice and principled and good, especially given the characters we've seen in the Federation so far, and more realistic that such a utopia exists because it is enforced.
Except that Federation by design is full of rules. And Section 31 is supposedly successful because it ignores said rules. Thus my complaint, that the same flaws that make Federation too idealistic would also make Section 31 impossible.
Basically, it's backwards logic. "The only way Federation would be able to exist is if Such An Agency Existed." Completely ignoring that such an agency couldn't exist within the defined parameters. If humans are flawed then Section 31 is flawed. If humans corrupt under idealistic Federation conditions then humans corrupt absolutely under unrestricted Section 31 conditions.
Just because rules exist, doesn't mean that people will follow them. That is the problem. Even worse, there are people to whom these rules don't apply, living in separate galactic empires, who can and do have a large effect on the Federation. In such a situation, it is impossible to survive without bending and even breaking your principles, let alone maintain a strong and utopian empire.
The Federation doesn't make any sense at all. There is a lovely article somewhere on the net about how the Federation is, by all appearances, a harsh military dictatorship, since it is apparently ruled by Starfleet and their massively powerful galaxy class starships. The point they raise is that this military dictatorship never needs to exercise its might against its own citizens because they magically never do anything that they're not supposed to.
Section 31 doesn't have absolute power. They have a very wide license, but obviously they can't do anything they want. Are they the highest power in the Federation? I doubt it. I would imagine that the higher ups would know who is who in Section 31, and if they tried to take over they'd find themselves outnumbered and outgunned.
If the Federation didn't have a covert ops group that has license to do things no one else can, then they would have been destroyed by empires that don't have their scruples, like Richy said.
The reason I brought it up, rather than Serenity or Moya, is that it was yet another rejected Star Trek concept, and one very similar to Zalbinion's idea. A ship in the distant future, where the utopian peaceful regime has fallen, vows to stand up for the lost ideals...
The reason I brought it up, rather than Serenity or Moya, is that it was yet another rejected Star Trek concept, and one very similar to Zalbinion's idea. A ship in the distant future, where the utopian peaceful regime has fallen, vows to stand up for the lost ideals...
...And it was a Roddenberry project, right? Too bad it couldn't have been developed for Star Trek.
Yeah, neither do epic fantasy and heroes. I don't watch Trek because it's "humanity today with laser guns", I watch Trek because it's "what humanity could be". Again, my previous complaint of people wanting to turn Trek into B5 instead of watching B5.
Section 31 doesn't have absolute power. They have a very wide license, but obviously they can't do anything they want.
I must be missing the obviousness then. Please expand on what keeps an organization with no oversight in check. What's stopping them from simply disposing of the people who know of them?
Please explain to me why you aren't pitching this to the star trek people.
This is the best idea ever.
Why are you still reading this? Go pitch!
Ideas rejected by the Star Trek people:
* Section 31
* Time War
* The Dominion (every week the writers had to lie and say "yeah, we're ending it next week, promise")
* Starfeet/Maquis conflict on the bridge of Voyager
* The Romulan War
* The founding of the Federation
But the Time War was stupid. Like, really stupid. Unless you're talking about something other than the Enterprise storyline.
I don't even know what the "Romulan War" is; I assume it was in Enterprise.
And while I might be branded a loser, one of my fave DS9 episodes is Take Me Out to the Holosuite (yes, the baseball episode).
Dr. Julian Bashir: What are you eating? O'Brien: I'm not eating; I'm chewing. Dr. Julian Bashir: Chewing what? O'Brien: Gum. It's traditional. I had the replicator create me some. Dr. Julian Bashir: They just chewed it? O'Brien: No, they infused it with flavor. Dr. Julian Bashir: What did you infuse it with? O'Brien: Scotch.
or:
Nog: What? What happened? O'Brien: He didn't touch home, Nog! Nog: Well, what do I do? Worf: Find him and kill him!
I won't call you a loser for that. It was a fun episode. It was one of the few holodeck-heavy episodes I liked. (Mind you, TNG did a few good ones too. I think it was really Voyager that killed me on those. Especially when the holographic Nazis take over the ship and blaughfargagh)
JANEWAY: Hello, Jean-Luc. I'm an Admiral, and you're not. PICARD: Fuck off, bitch. I saved Earth a half-dozen times and all you did was find your way back there after getting lost. JANEWAY: Well anyway, now that you've finished setting up obvious plot foreshadowing devices, go to Romulus. Some guy named Shinzon just killed off the Romulan Senate and seized power. PICARD: OK. I still can't believe they promoted you over me.
The prosecution rests your honor.
Er.
I haven't seen Nemesis, but you're missing an important point: Picard doesn't want to be an Admiral. He almost certainly would be promoted if he wanted to be one. Janeway, after commanding a starship lost in deep space for seven years, probably doesn't ever want to leave Earth again.
Wow, searching around on eBay, it seems the Elite Force 2 videogame goes for more than $40 and the Armada games go for $60 together. The only Star Trek game I own in the first Elite Force and I vaguely remember renting the original series' NES version.
I tried playing Elite Force a couple months ago, but it's aged pretty horribly. Maybe I would've enjoyed it in 1999.
"Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the bridge, off that ship. Because as long as you're there, you can make a difference."
I have been watching Voyager again, and I always kinda had the impression that Janeway was relatively new to being a captain. I suppose the possibility exists that Voyager was her first command, unless someone knows differently.
So seeing her as an Admiral seemed odd to me, but then again, she now is the expert on the Delta Quadrant so its not completely unwarranted I guess.
Glal, you are my hero. Multifarious, go watch Babylon 5 because it sounds to me that's what you want Trek to be. Trek is not gritty, it's idealistic. That's the whole damn point. It's not what we are, it's what we are at our best. Same concept that drives all heroic fiction to one extent or another. Federation ideals work because, dammit, everything's wonderful.
Practice, as to the non-humans, there's been quite a few, but all have been from the Milky Way Galaxy (barring Whoopie Goldberg's character, who I foget the name of, and potentially could have been from outside the Milky Way). Even Species 8472 and the Borg. As dumb as it sounds, I was actually thinking of something akin to Star Wars' Yuuzhan Vong, without the mind-numbing repetitiveness. Though I suppose a similar story has already been done with the Borg and the Dominion, come to think of it...
I'll just point out that I love B5, I just don't want Trek to be yet another dark political science fiction series. Maybe this is why I like Farscape more than post-TNG Trek; somehow Crichton seems closer to that spirit than any of them.
Yeah, neither do epic fantasy and heroes. I don't watch Trek because it's "humanity today with laser guns", I watch Trek because it's "what humanity could be". Again, my previous complaint of people wanting to turn Trek into B5 instead of watching B5.
Section 31 doesn't have absolute power. They have a very wide license, but obviously they can't do anything they want.
I must be missing the obviousness then. Please expand on what keeps an organization with no oversight in check. What's stopping them from simply disposing of the people who know of them?
Perhaps I am missing something (in all seriousness). What makes you think they have no oversight? Any such organization has to have oversight. If they don't have anybody watching over and directing them, they are no longer the "secret spy organization," they are the "secret cabal of men in tall chairs who direct the empire from behind the scenes." That's not what I think Section 31 is/should be. Section 31 would be a tool of the higher-ups, not the higher-ups themselves.
A Section 31 that is entirely self-directed would be retarded, that I agree with. It would be silly to put that in the show, and it would be even more silly to imagine any competent administration creating such a body.
Edit: Incidentally I found Babylon 5 to be an enormously boring show which (admirably) attempted a political sci fi thing but failed IMO to create interesting characters, background, etc. Everything except the politics was really painfully clichéd and generic - the two ancient races, one good one evil, the evil one rising again, etc. On the other hand I really enjoyed the political aspects of Deep Space 9 because they abandoned the attempt to make the Federation perfect, and showed that it had its flaws. Ultimately the Federation of idealism and such is inconsistent and not very believable, and that can be solved without overly damaging that idealism by introducing Section 31.
She somehow managed to survive for 7 years at the other end of the galaxy and bring her ship and crew back to Earth. And you wonder how she got a promotion?
And yes Picard was offered a promotion or a different assignment plenty of times during the show's run, he never took them.
IAmSoKawaii on
"If I ever woke up with a dead hooker in my hotel room, Matt would be the first person I'd call."
I'll just point out that I love B5, I just don't want Trek to be yet another dark political science fiction series. Maybe this is why I like Farscape more than post-TNG Trek; somehow Crichton seems closer to that spirit than any of them.
That's a really good point. I loved Farscape too, and Crichton definitely had some of the TOS-ish naive boldness and idealism. Of course, he evolves towards the end of Farscape until he's almost always as jaded as the rest of them.
They didn't really give us that much information about Section 31, except that it doesn't officially exist, that it operates against foreign threats and that its authority stems from Article 14, Section 31 that makes allowances for "bending the rules" during times of extraordinary threats.
Interpret that as you will.
Anyway, I'll just add that judging Federation from today's standards is kind of like asking someone from the 16th century about the reality of democracy, legal equality among men, minimal wage, work safety standards and everything else we take for granted.
Zal: I disagree, somewhat. He may grow up a bit, but he's still as star-eyed as ever. Even when the rest of the universe is beating down on him he's still living up to his ideals.
They didn't really give us that much information about it, except that it doesn't officially exist, that it operates against foreign threats and that its authority stems from Article 14, Section 31 that makes allowances for "bending the rules" during times of extraordinary threats.
Interpret that as you will.
Anyway, I'll just add that judging Federation from today's standards is kind of like asking someone from the 16th century about the reality of democracy, legal equality among men, minimal wage, work safety standards and everything else we take for granted.
Good point. Why do we so blithely accept obviously fictitious technobabble explanations for faster-than-light travel and teleportation and the fact that all the aliens look like humans with prosthetics, but it's the economics and morals that are unrealistic?
Zal: I disagree, somewhat. He may grow up a bit, but he's still as star-eyed as ever. Even when the rest of the universe is beating down on him he's still living up to his ideals.
I can agree with that. He becomes very pessimistic in outlook, but acts according to the same moral compass of the first episode. More or less.
They didn't really give us that much information about it, except that it doesn't officially exist, that it operates against foreign threats and that its authority stems from Article 14, Section 31 that makes allowances for "bending the rules" during times of extraordinary threats.
Interpret that as you will.
Anyway, I'll just add that judging Federation from today's standards is kind of like asking someone from the 16th century about the reality of democracy, legal equality among men, minimal wage, work safety standards and everything else we take for granted.
I think making Section 31 a massive powerful organization that is always active and has independent control or even significant autonomy would be silly and wouldn't fit with Trek.
However I also think that having the Federation completely unbending in its principles, even in the face of said extraordinary threats, would be equally silly and would break my suspension of disbelief. My favourite episodes of Trek are where their principles clash with the demands reality and they have to wrestle with the idea of bending them. The aforementioned Sisko ep where he assassinates that Romulan diplomat, for example - fantastic ep.
What makes them so good though is that they exist in the context of an idealistic yet successful empire, and in the context of a show where people generally have solid principles that they stick to, and most of the time I think that should be what they do. I don't want a completely dark political Trek any more than you do, I just think it's important that the Federation not be rigid and unbending.
Section 31 having no oversight is half the point of Section 31 (storywise). I mean, do we even know if their telling the truth? Maybe it was created like 50 years after the start of the Federation and they just lied to all the new recruits, who now believe it. Or maybe their lying right now. It's an interesting idea.
Section 31 having no oversight is half the point of Section 31 (storywise). I mean, do we even know if their telling the truth? Maybe it was created like 50 years after the start of the Federation and they just lied to all the new recruits, who now believe it. Or maybe their lying right now. It's an interesting idea.
Having S31 be the ultimate rulers of the Federation would be very interesting - in that they are nasty dudes but they have created a utopian society, so that's some interesting moral turbulence - but it would be kinda betraying the original vision of the series.
And I agree about the whole Trek showing humans as more evolved thing. I think DS9 was about as gritty as it should get.
Which is why I think I'm most disappointed with Voyager. I thought that show had a real chance to do something interesting with the idea. I mean, how well are Federation ideals going to hold up in a crew that's running a beaten down ship in the middle of hostile space with no support from the rest of the Federation. It's all well and good and easy for Picard to be all "stick to our ideals" when he's on the bridge of an enormous fucking starship with the might of the Federation at his back. Might not be so easy without it. And the friction and such involved in bring the Maquee around to being part of a Federation crew would also have been good.
Of course, Voyager did nothing with that. Which is why I dislike it the most. It wasn't just bad. It was disappointing. It was wasted potential on a huge level.
Section 31 having no oversight is half the point of Section 31 (storywise). I mean, do we even know if their telling the truth? Maybe it was created like 50 years after the start of the Federation and they just lied to all the new recruits, who now believe it. Or maybe their lying right now. It's an interesting idea.
Having S31 be the ultimate rulers of the Federation would be very interesting - in that they are nasty dudes but they have created a utopian society, so that's some interesting moral turbulence - but it would be kinda betraying the original vision of the series.
They don't have to be rulers of anything though. They could just easily be a bunch of intelligence operatives who took it upon themselves to defend the Federation at any cost and just pretend to be legitimate. That's the point. We don't know shit about them, except what they tell us. It's what makes them so interesting.
Section 31 having no oversight is half the point of Section 31 (storywise). I mean, do we even know if their telling the truth? Maybe it was created like 50 years after the start of the Federation and they just lied to all the new recruits, who now believe it. Or maybe their lying right now. It's an interesting idea.
Having S31 be the ultimate rulers of the Federation would be very interesting - in that they are nasty dudes but they have created a utopian society, so that's some interesting moral turbulence - but it would be kinda betraying the original vision of the series.
They don't have to be rulers of anything though. They could just easily be a bunch of intelligence operatives who took it upon themselves to defend the Federation at any cost and just pretend to be legitimate. That's the point. We don't know shit about them, except what they tell us. It's what makes them so interesting.
I was just continuing based on my previous assertion that an unsupervised group with no limitations on their actions would, de facto, be the rulers of the Federation, regardless of whether they called (or even believed) themselves that.
However if they sort of splintered off and exist as an unknown entity, almost like a vigilante intelligence operation, then that would be interesting as well.
I think making Section 31 a massive powerful organization that is always active and has independent control or even significant autonomy would be silly and wouldn't fit with Trek.
However I also think that having the Federation completely unbending in its principles, even in the face of said extraordinary threats, would be equally silly and would break my suspension of disbelief. My favourite episodes of Trek are where their principles clash with the demands reality and they have to wrestle with the idea of bending them. The aforementioned Sisko ep where he assassinates that Romulan diplomat, for example - fantastic ep.
What makes them so good though is that they exist in the context of an idealistic yet successful empire, and in the context of a show where people generally have solid principles that they stick to, and most of the time I think that should be what they do. I don't want a completely dark political Trek any more than you do, I just think it's important that the Federation not be rigid and unbending.
Interesting. I think I disagree, insomuch as one of my favorite episodes (aforementioned) is "I, Borg," wherein Picard has to wrestle with his fear and hate of the Borg when deciding whether to infect the Collective with a computer virus that will destroy them all. In the end, he (like everyone else--Georgi, Beverly IIRC, even Guinan, whose people were virtually annihilated by the Borg) admits that the disconnected Borg drone they've rescued, Hugh, is a person and fully entitled to "human" rights, so they don't infect him with the virus.
I like this episode because of its naked idealism. When faced with the choice of bending (or breaking) a moral rule in order to gain safety against the most dangerous foe they've ever encountered, Picard and co. choose instead to risk destruction of the entire Federation rather than violate Hugh's right to exist. It's not a choice made lightly, and it takes Picard a good deal of time to get there, but he still does, and it's great.
I've seen the DS9 episode you mention, and it's always bugged me because of the direct comparison to "I, Borg."
Also, I almost quit Voyager after "Tuvix." Very similar moral dilemma for captain, opposite decision.
When it comes to Trek's domestic problems, the real question is not can they stray from the principles, its why would they? All food is free, thanks to replicators, you can always get any meal you want free of charge. People making food by hand can't compete price wise, and don't need the money since realistically anything you want you can get free, so they make it for other people's enjoyment. If a person values hand made food, then they eat at a restaurant, if food isn't really their thing then they'll walk up to the replicator and order something worth eating and get back to what their doing.
The whole point of replicators in the Trek universe was to establish that for civilians there is no rat race. No constant striving to get your next meal, nor a fight to be able to afford a house. All neccessry resources are free so you do basically whatever it is that you feel the need to do. Now with technology being what it is crime is essentially pretty easy to find, especially since you don't really have much stealing, since you took something free and immediately replaceable, with a few rare exceptions for family heirlooms and antiques, but there aren't any pawn shops so the only point in taking it would be the thrill of taking it. So basically you're only major crime would be murder, since people are still people, and when people are generally happy, the number of those decreases dramatically.
Now your colonists are going to be a mixed bag, as you'll have idealists and the people who don't generally like being under the federations thumb so much. However being in a hostile environment, they'll quickly learn that some semblence of order is needed and will have to reley on starfleet for safety from nearby aliens so that should generally keep the rebellious amongst them busy.
Now as I remember, they do have a president, but I wouldn't imagine them picking someone who hadn't at least served in Starfleet or as an ambassador, not because the place is a military dictatorship, but because when your domestic policy doesn't need to be fixed, it means that you need someone with foreign affairs experience.
tl;dr: With infinite resources, most human problems theoretically fix themselves.
Obviously the solution is that Section 31 does in fact have absolute power and corruption is prevented because the truly absolute controller of Section 31 is, in fact, Data from the future, having travelled back in time after seeing the Federation decay, by means of not one or even two but three modified detector dishes.
Obviously.
Only after reversing polarity on the replicators, seeking moral guidance from Guinan, and turning Barclay back into that giant spider thing.
When it comes to Trek's domestic problems, the real question is not can they stray from the principles, its why would they? All food is free, thanks to replicators, you can always get any meal you want free of charge. People making food by hand can't compete price wise, and don't need the money since realistically anything you want you can get free, so they make it for other people's enjoyment. If a person values hand made food, then they eat at a restaurant, if food isn't really their thing then they'll walk up to the replicator and order something worth eating and get back to what their doing.
Replicators didn't exist in TOS, if I'm not mistaken. TNG also mentions them as relatively new technology. I think the Federation had already solved its food supply problems before replicators, and the latter just made them easier.
Obviously the solution is that Section 31 does in fact have absolute power and corruption is prevented because the truly absolute controller of Section 31 is, in fact, Data from the future, having travelled back in time after seeing the Federation decay, by means of not one or even two but three modified detector dishes.
Obviously.
Only after reversing polarity on the replicators, seeking moral guidance from Guinan, and turning Barclay back into that giant spider thing.
Omfg, yes. Yes!
Deflector arrays, you posers. Not "detector dishes". :P
Posts
Section 31 is a dangerous concept because it teeters on the edge of making ST into a dark and brooding continuity when it's not supposed to be. However I also think that it's an important idea, because the near-perfection of the Federation is just so blatantly unrealistic. Sacrifices have to be made to maintain that peaceful, hopeful, progressive society, especially since they occupy a universe that is home to many other, less than perfect empires.
The fact that those sacrificed are minimized would speak to the effectiveness of Section 31 but also the real devotion of the Federation to its own ideals. The problem is that ideals aren't enough, and to build a show on the idea that principles and good intentions will always lead to victory is less than appealing because it is so childish. I find it much more interesting that a small but powerful organization within the Federation smooths down the rough patches and violates the principles of the Federation when it is truly necessary. It makes so much more sense. Much more interesting than the poorly-thought-out utopian vision that we normally see of the Federation.
One time is definately worth the effort.
I can imagine a number of politicians that would fap to this idea, but as far as realism goes it's a total fairytale. It would only work if Section 31 weren't human themselves (even modified humans like Bashir are just ordinary humans with ordinary human flaws that just possess extraordinary abilities), but then it's a very cynical vision that I don't really find very inspiring.
"This is a unvierse in which humans only exist because they need to rely on outside help to keep them in check."
They aren't necessarily amoral; look at what Sisko did (and agonized over) to get the Romulans into the war with the Dominion. That's the kind of thing I would imagine a successful Section 31 would do.
A utopian human society is almost impossible because of basic human flaws and the demands of the world/galaxy/etc in general. My point is that the Federation is a utopia, or close to it. I think it is less realistic that such a utopia would spring into being because everyone was nice and principled and good, especially given the characters we've seen in the Federation so far, and more realistic that such a utopia exists because it is enforced.
Corruption in a position of power is obviously problematic but that's what would make the show exciting.
Obviously the solution is that Section 31 does in fact have absolute power and corruption is prevented because the truly absolute controller of Section 31 is, in fact, Data from the future, having travelled back in time after seeing the Federation decay, by means of not one or even two but three modified detector dishes.
Obviously.
Except that Federation by design is full of rules. And Section 31 is supposedly successful because it ignores said rules. Thus my complaint, that the same flaws that make Federation too idealistic would also make Section 31 impossible.
Basically, it's backwards logic. "The only way Federation would be able to exist is if Such An Agency Existed." Completely ignoring that such an agency couldn't exist within the defined parameters. If humans are flawed then Section 31 is flawed. If humans corrupt under idealistic Federation conditions then humans corrupt absolutely under unrestricted Section 31 conditions.
I disagree: "idealistic" /= "pushover." Yes, the galaxy is full of dangers, and that's partly the reason the Federation exists. You know, strength in numbers and all that. It's still perfectly possible (and plausible, at least to me) that a society could choose to live a "utopian" lifestyle and still be willing to defend their lifestyle/ideals to the death. Which, in fact, is precisely what we've been led to believe in most of Star Trek thus far.
Society agreeing to share all the fruits of everyone's labors and holding lofty ideals doesn't mean that society can't aggressively seek out and eliminate threats while simultaneously adhering to the same code of behavior that rules in that "utopian" society.
Just because rules exist, doesn't mean that people will follow them. That is the problem. Even worse, there are people to whom these rules don't apply, living in separate galactic empires, who can and do have a large effect on the Federation. In such a situation, it is impossible to survive without bending and even breaking your principles, let alone maintain a strong and utopian empire.
The Federation doesn't make any sense at all. There is a lovely article somewhere on the net about how the Federation is, by all appearances, a harsh military dictatorship, since it is apparently ruled by Starfleet and their massively powerful galaxy class starships. The point they raise is that this military dictatorship never needs to exercise its might against its own citizens because they magically never do anything that they're not supposed to.
Section 31 doesn't have absolute power. They have a very wide license, but obviously they can't do anything they want. Are they the highest power in the Federation? I doubt it. I would imagine that the higher ups would know who is who in Section 31, and if they tried to take over they'd find themselves outnumbered and outgunned.
If the Federation didn't have a covert ops group that has license to do things no one else can, then they would have been destroyed by empires that don't have their scruples, like Richy said.
The reason I brought it up, rather than Serenity or Moya, is that it was yet another rejected Star Trek concept, and one very similar to Zalbinion's idea. A ship in the distant future, where the utopian peaceful regime has fallen, vows to stand up for the lost ideals...
...And it was a Roddenberry project, right? Too bad it couldn't have been developed for Star Trek.
interesting trivia his wife was also the "computer" voice for the bulk of TNG
And TOS, if I remember correctly, as well as Voyager and DS9 (well, at least the Starfleet computers).
from Memory Alpha
I must be missing the obviousness then. Please expand on what keeps an organization with no oversight in check. What's stopping them from simply disposing of the people who know of them?
and even that gets old after a while.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
However, it would be nice if one made frequent appearances, or was even a standard character.
But the Time War was stupid. Like, really stupid. Unless you're talking about something other than the Enterprise storyline.
I don't even know what the "Romulan War" is; I assume it was in Enterprise.
I won't call you a loser for that. It was a fun episode. It was one of the few holodeck-heavy episodes I liked. (Mind you, TNG did a few good ones too. I think it was really Voyager that killed me on those. Especially when the holographic Nazis take over the ship and blaughfargagh)
Er.
I haven't seen Nemesis, but you're missing an important point: Picard doesn't want to be an Admiral. He almost certainly would be promoted if he wanted to be one. Janeway, after commanding a starship lost in deep space for seven years, probably doesn't ever want to leave Earth again.
I tried playing Elite Force a couple months ago, but it's aged pretty horribly. Maybe I would've enjoyed it in 1999.
So seeing her as an Admiral seemed odd to me, but then again, she now is the expert on the Delta Quadrant so its not completely unwarranted I guess.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Practice, as to the non-humans, there's been quite a few, but all have been from the Milky Way Galaxy (barring Whoopie Goldberg's character, who I foget the name of, and potentially could have been from outside the Milky Way). Even Species 8472 and the Borg. As dumb as it sounds, I was actually thinking of something akin to Star Wars' Yuuzhan Vong, without the mind-numbing repetitiveness. Though I suppose a similar story has already been done with the Borg and the Dominion, come to think of it...
Perhaps I am missing something (in all seriousness). What makes you think they have no oversight? Any such organization has to have oversight. If they don't have anybody watching over and directing them, they are no longer the "secret spy organization," they are the "secret cabal of men in tall chairs who direct the empire from behind the scenes." That's not what I think Section 31 is/should be. Section 31 would be a tool of the higher-ups, not the higher-ups themselves.
A Section 31 that is entirely self-directed would be retarded, that I agree with. It would be silly to put that in the show, and it would be even more silly to imagine any competent administration creating such a body.
Edit: Incidentally I found Babylon 5 to be an enormously boring show which (admirably) attempted a political sci fi thing but failed IMO to create interesting characters, background, etc. Everything except the politics was really painfully clichéd and generic - the two ancient races, one good one evil, the evil one rising again, etc. On the other hand I really enjoyed the political aspects of Deep Space 9 because they abandoned the attempt to make the Federation perfect, and showed that it had its flaws. Ultimately the Federation of idealism and such is inconsistent and not very believable, and that can be solved without overly damaging that idealism by introducing Section 31.
And yes Picard was offered a promotion or a different assignment plenty of times during the show's run, he never took them.
"If I ever woke up with a dead hooker in my hotel room, Matt would be the first person I'd call."
www.PatriceOneal.com
That's a really good point. I loved Farscape too, and Crichton definitely had some of the TOS-ish naive boldness and idealism. Of course, he evolves towards the end of Farscape until he's almost always as jaded as the rest of them.
Interpret that as you will.
Anyway, I'll just add that judging Federation from today's standards is kind of like asking someone from the 16th century about the reality of democracy, legal equality among men, minimal wage, work safety standards and everything else we take for granted.
Zal: I disagree, somewhat. He may grow up a bit, but he's still as star-eyed as ever. Even when the rest of the universe is beating down on him he's still living up to his ideals.
Good point. Why do we so blithely accept obviously fictitious technobabble explanations for faster-than-light travel and teleportation and the fact that all the aliens look like humans with prosthetics, but it's the economics and morals that are unrealistic?
I can agree with that. He becomes very pessimistic in outlook, but acts according to the same moral compass of the first episode. More or less.
I think making Section 31 a massive powerful organization that is always active and has independent control or even significant autonomy would be silly and wouldn't fit with Trek.
However I also think that having the Federation completely unbending in its principles, even in the face of said extraordinary threats, would be equally silly and would break my suspension of disbelief. My favourite episodes of Trek are where their principles clash with the demands reality and they have to wrestle with the idea of bending them. The aforementioned Sisko ep where he assassinates that Romulan diplomat, for example - fantastic ep.
What makes them so good though is that they exist in the context of an idealistic yet successful empire, and in the context of a show where people generally have solid principles that they stick to, and most of the time I think that should be what they do. I don't want a completely dark political Trek any more than you do, I just think it's important that the Federation not be rigid and unbending.
Having S31 be the ultimate rulers of the Federation would be very interesting - in that they are nasty dudes but they have created a utopian society, so that's some interesting moral turbulence - but it would be kinda betraying the original vision of the series.
Which is why I think I'm most disappointed with Voyager. I thought that show had a real chance to do something interesting with the idea. I mean, how well are Federation ideals going to hold up in a crew that's running a beaten down ship in the middle of hostile space with no support from the rest of the Federation. It's all well and good and easy for Picard to be all "stick to our ideals" when he's on the bridge of an enormous fucking starship with the might of the Federation at his back. Might not be so easy without it. And the friction and such involved in bring the Maquee around to being part of a Federation crew would also have been good.
Of course, Voyager did nothing with that. Which is why I dislike it the most. It wasn't just bad. It was disappointing. It was wasted potential on a huge level.
They don't have to be rulers of anything though. They could just easily be a bunch of intelligence operatives who took it upon themselves to defend the Federation at any cost and just pretend to be legitimate. That's the point. We don't know shit about them, except what they tell us. It's what makes them so interesting.
I was just continuing based on my previous assertion that an unsupervised group with no limitations on their actions would, de facto, be the rulers of the Federation, regardless of whether they called (or even believed) themselves that.
However if they sort of splintered off and exist as an unknown entity, almost like a vigilante intelligence operation, then that would be interesting as well.
Interesting. I think I disagree, insomuch as one of my favorite episodes (aforementioned) is "I, Borg," wherein Picard has to wrestle with his fear and hate of the Borg when deciding whether to infect the Collective with a computer virus that will destroy them all. In the end, he (like everyone else--Georgi, Beverly IIRC, even Guinan, whose people were virtually annihilated by the Borg) admits that the disconnected Borg drone they've rescued, Hugh, is a person and fully entitled to "human" rights, so they don't infect him with the virus.
I like this episode because of its naked idealism. When faced with the choice of bending (or breaking) a moral rule in order to gain safety against the most dangerous foe they've ever encountered, Picard and co. choose instead to risk destruction of the entire Federation rather than violate Hugh's right to exist. It's not a choice made lightly, and it takes Picard a good deal of time to get there, but he still does, and it's great.
I've seen the DS9 episode you mention, and it's always bugged me because of the direct comparison to "I, Borg."
Also, I almost quit Voyager after "Tuvix." Very similar moral dilemma for captain, opposite decision.
The whole point of replicators in the Trek universe was to establish that for civilians there is no rat race. No constant striving to get your next meal, nor a fight to be able to afford a house. All neccessry resources are free so you do basically whatever it is that you feel the need to do. Now with technology being what it is crime is essentially pretty easy to find, especially since you don't really have much stealing, since you took something free and immediately replaceable, with a few rare exceptions for family heirlooms and antiques, but there aren't any pawn shops so the only point in taking it would be the thrill of taking it. So basically you're only major crime would be murder, since people are still people, and when people are generally happy, the number of those decreases dramatically.
Now your colonists are going to be a mixed bag, as you'll have idealists and the people who don't generally like being under the federations thumb so much. However being in a hostile environment, they'll quickly learn that some semblence of order is needed and will have to reley on starfleet for safety from nearby aliens so that should generally keep the rebellious amongst them busy.
Now as I remember, they do have a president, but I wouldn't imagine them picking someone who hadn't at least served in Starfleet or as an ambassador, not because the place is a military dictatorship, but because when your domestic policy doesn't need to be fixed, it means that you need someone with foreign affairs experience.
tl;dr: With infinite resources, most human problems theoretically fix themselves.
Tuvix would probably have made a much more interesting character than either Tuvok or Neelix, too.
Also, the premise of that episode was pretty retarded.
Only after reversing polarity on the replicators, seeking moral guidance from Guinan, and turning Barclay back into that giant spider thing.
Omfg, yes. Yes!
Deflector arrays, you posers. Not "detector dishes". :P