this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
133 points (99.3% liked)

Star Trek

10608 readers
109 users here now

r/startrek: The Next Generation

Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...

Maybe a little slash fic.


New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?


Rules

1 Be constructiveAll posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.


2 Be welcomingIt is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.


3 Be truthfulAll posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.


4 Be niceIf a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.


5 SpoilersUtilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episodes, as well as previews for upcoming episodes. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.


6 Keep on-topicAll submissions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/quarks.


7 MetaQuestions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.


Upcoming Episodes

Date Episode Title
11-21 LD 5x06 "Of Gods and Angles"
11-28 LD 5x07 "Fully Dilated"
12-05 LD 5x08 "Upper Decks"
12-12 LD 5x09 "Fissue Quest"
12-19 LD 5x10 "The New Next Generation"

Episode Discussion Archive


In Production

Strange New Worlds (2025)

Section 31 (2025-01-24)

Starfleet Academy (TBA)

In Development

Untitled comedy series


Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.


Allied Discord Server


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

LoglineCommander Una Chin-Riley faces court-martial along with possible imprisonment and dishonorable dismissal from Starfleet, and her defense is in the hands of a lawyer who’s also a childhood friend with whom she had a terrible falling out.


Written by Dana Horgan

Directed by Valerie Weiss

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

To me the vibe was that from the writer's perspective generic modification is so obviously acceptable that it's impossible to even come up with an argument against it that stands up to scrutiny, and that the racism against the genetically modified was just an idiosyncratic cultural trait of the federation that they would hopefully one day grow out of entirely. And I'd pretty much endorse that take. What risk of genocide could possibly be posed by letting parents give their children the modifications they think will serve them well in life? As the episode said, it's not like augments have Khan lurking within them or anything, they're morally no different from anyone else and no more likely to start a genocide.

[–] Mezentine@startrek.website 7 points 1 year ago

The danger of letting parents choose modifications they think will serve their children in life is exactly what Bashir expresses in DS9: it gives parents, and society more generally, the power to determine what's acceptably "normal" and flatten out anything that deviates. Geordi similarly expresses at least twice that he doesn't want normal vision, that his blindness is not a defect that needs fixing and what's utopian about the Federation he lives in is that his difference is accommodated and supported.

I've always really appreciated Star Trek's hardline stance on this, because its a moral problem that I feel we've lost a little bit of sight of and is going to emerge again in the next few decades in real life. I think you could make a case for the Ilyrian environmental adaptation being different, but to do that you would have to explicitly place it against the real arguments against gene editing and work through them, and this episode went in a different direction.

[–] bulbasaur@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can't believe I have to tell you that deliberate genetic modification for the enhancement of individuals and species is the definition of eugenics, and that eugenics is not "so obviously acceptable that it’s impossible to even come up with an argument against it that stands up to scrutiny".

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problematic aspect of eugenics is sterilizing or killing people deemed inferior, people modifying their own children has none of the same issues.

[–] bulbasaur@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's really incorrect. I hate that this episode is spurring eugenics apologia like this

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It is correct actually. Make an counterargument if you can, but as I've been saying, there really isn't one beyond trying to smear something reasonable like enhancing children with the brush of something bad like forced sterilizations by lumping them under the same "eugenics" label.

[–] Mezentine@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What you think "enhancement" means now is very different from what people might have said "enhancement" meant in the 60s which is very different from what they thought "enhancement" would have been in the 20s and is very different from what we might think it means in the 2050s. Homosexuality used to be a mental disorder, and it would have been an enhancement to "cure" it. There would have even been gay people who would have voluntarily taken that cure because of the distress society subjected them to, there are records of patients coming to medical professionals looking for treatment. I like the alternate solution to that problem we're currently making progress towards, in which we accept and support that there are diverse ways for people to exist, and I do not trust that we have correctly figured out what things about human being are currently "wrong" and which things can be "improved"

[–] bulbasaur@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The idea that you can modify someone's genes to "enhance" them is bog standard "positive" eugenics. It's literally the definition of eugenics and it's upsetting to me that you are treating this like a debate.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127045/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41434-019-0088-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_eugenics

New eugenics [...] advocates enhancing human characteristics and capacities through the use of reproductive technology and human genetic engineering.

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can see that you're just doing what I described and making an argument solely based on "eugenics" being a broad term that includes evil things right? What is the concern you have about letting parents modify their unborn child's genes, besides the fact that it could ungenerously be described as eugenics?

[–] bulbasaur@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's literally eugenics. There's nothing ungenerous about calling it what it is.

If you don't see the issue with genetically modifying children without their consent to "enhance" them or make them racially "superior" then I can't help you.