1. US Policy in Iraq – I disagree with your assessment, but given my position I shouldn’t touch that in a public forum. Ask me in person sometime. [/sidestep]

2. UFP is the “America of the Future” playing galaxy cop.

Disagree. True, the Federation is much like the early United States, with several separate sovereign entities aligned almost solely for trade and common defense. However parallels to modern U.S. foreign policy are present but weak in my opinion. Consider:

a) The Enterprise spends the majority of its time in Federation space, and it does act to police Federation worlds. Just because the Federation worlds are aligned, doesn’t mean that they know a lot about each other or themselves. The Federation includes not only humans, but 150 other races. By definition, these worlds have accepted Starfleet as a mediator and protector of the common Federation interest, even though they are bound to disagree with particular actions. Travel to worlds external to Federation space is almost always done in response to a direct threat (see sub-point b), because somebody like Q took them there, or with great trepidation (“but that’s in the neutral zone!”). You don’t even see the Enterprise doing much that could be construed as policing with the Klingons, who are formally allies (in TNG anyway). When they travel outside of Federation space to nonaligned worlds (e.g. not Federation, the Prime Directive applies (see subpoint c).

b) There is no jurisdiction for self-defense. It is always within an individual or entity’s purview to respond to a direct and credible threat. (However, whether that response is executed responsibly is a different matter altogether.) Does the other side have the same view? Probably. Do they have a “right” to that? Maybe. What does that even mean? What governing body gave them that right? Even if you think the right is divinely granted or inherent, at some point you still had to make a choice to believe that, which means that you also have a choice as to which particular way of life you believe should be preserved in the event of a clash between two different ones. I will wholeheartedly agree that I do not like weapons, interference, or violence personally, but an entire nation of non-aggressors would in my opinion be dead very quickly along with their worldview, and what good does that do?

c) There is a great summary of the Prime Directive, including the times it is violated, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive. In general, the theme of my post was that I like Star Trek because of the philosophy it espouses. In my opinion, acceptable counters would be i) Star Trek does not in fact espouse the philosophy I claim it does, ii) Star Trek does espouse that philosophy, but it’s a bad philosophy, or iii) Star Trek as a whole does espouse that philosophy, but chooses to portray the struggle of Starfleet (humanity) in figuring out how it should be best applied. I think you are trying to argue (i) which I think have rebutted, but are using arguments more in line with (ii), which is not relevant. Arguments for (iii) I find much more acceptable counters to my original essay, because I think that is really what I meant to say, but probably failed to do so. It is a good compromise position and I think it also shows the humanity of it, which would be just as true in the future as it would be today. Here we have a standard to which we hold ourselves, but to do so in the face of real dangers and real human problems is a struggle, indeed the central struggle of both the show and what I’m trying to say (see point 3). The overarching theme of the entire series is just that: is it possible for us to hold ourselves to something like the Prime Directive, what does it even mean to do so, and is even trying to do so relevant or meaningful?

3. Star Trek is more a reflection of who we are today and where we were in the past than it is a vision of what we might become.

Qualified agree. In the sense that we have the same human issues in the future that we do today and have always had is clear from the show, that point I will concede. Certainly Starfleet does not always live up to the Prime Directive just as we do not always live up to our stated values in this country. But the major difference between our society today and the Federation of the hypothetical tomorrow is that at least they hold a standard that aims for those lofty goals, and actively try to adhere to them. Today I see no policies to declare that nationalistic goals are over; that the military, while necessary, will no longer dominate our national agenda; that humanity’s mission is first and foremost to be explorers and protectors; that humanitarian concerns must be solved first before we can define our civilization as great. The fact that the Federation can’t live up to these all of the time doesn’t matter so much to me, because we probably never will as a species, but at least they try to, whereas today those goals are not even acknowledged. So when I say “what we could become if we tried”, perhaps I should have said, “the values we could hold if we tried”.

Thanks for forcing me to clarify. Glad you liked the essay!

This was very well written. Some valid points and interesting to read.

However, I disagree with one of your major points:

” Yes, we still have weapons, and yes, on occasion we have to use them; but our progress as a society, as a people, is no longer tied to military dominance or nationalistic goals. In Star Trek, we mature into the core of what humanity is – intrepid explorers, not devoid of prejudice but rising above it, and always creating, learning, protecting, and pushing the boundaries of what is possible.”

Although I can agree that Roddenberry’s Earth is no longer after military dominance, that has been replaced with a drive for intellectual dominance. Which may actually be a more dangerous thing in the long run. However, I would argue that the nationalistic goals of today have merely evolved into planetary goals in Star Trek.

Sometime along in the mid ’90s someone said (I don’t remember who, and I’m paraphrasing) that the US had seen fit to become the world’s policeman. Take for example the invasion of Iraq and the deposing of Saddam Hussein. Will it ultimately be for the good of the state of the earth? Probably. Was it what the Iraqi people wanted? Maybe, but who knows? They weren’t given a choice. Like a parent telling a child to eat their brussels sprouts. It’s yucky in the moment, but ultimately healthy. But who is the US to be the parent (or the policeman) to the entire world? We have no right. But I digress.

My point is that in the world of Gene Roddenberry, Starfleet has taken on the role in the universe that America has in the current world. It has become the policeman of the universe. Yes, there is the Prime Directive, and while that is wonderful in theory, it is violated almost episodically. On the surface, the vision of the future appears quite optimistic, but dig a little deeper, and the situation is much more a corollary for our current societal situation.

I also find it interesting that you see Star Trek as merely the future and not our past. The exploration, creativity and drive to learn are the basis for the creation of our nation. The stories of Star Trek could be told (without the cool gadgets) about Lewis and Clark, or Columbus, or the Vikings. The only difference is the area being explored.

Honestly, I came at the world of Sci-Fi backwards from you — I grew up on Star Trek. I remember sitting in the movie theater for one of the later original movies (I don’t remember which one), reading the Klingon subtitles to my brother because he couldn’t read yet. I was a trekkie quite early on. Star Wars took some growing into for me. I think because I was a total techno-geek — the science and technology of Star Trek was cool and fascinating — and Star Wars was much more about the romance and interpersonal relationships, something that took me longer to really comprehend.

Ok, I’ll stop rambling now. Hope I made sense… ;o)
Cam

Any of the other episodes that also involve the character Q are good for showing humanity’s resolve (“Hide and Q” for example). A few of the episodes that center around Data (I can’t think of names off the top of my head, sorry) deal with the question of what it means to be human.