What are the progressive social issues of the 24th Century?
What are the progressive social issues of the 24th Century?
While some may argue in transparently bad faith that it isn't so, it's obvious to even a casual observer that Star Trek's setting depicts in the Federation a vision of society in which the goals of both the social and economic left wing have largely won out and largely been attained. The people of the Federation have relatively complete equality of race, gender, sexuality, and even species. Resources are abundant and housing, food, shelter, healthcare, education, and beyond even the necessities even most of the pleasures of life are provided to virtually all. The environment is protected and even controlled on many populated planets to protect the ecosystem.
What, then, is at the cutting edge of politics for the Federation? In the interests of disclosure, I have identified as an anarcha-feminist and a pacifist for more than a decade (albeit not a tremendously intellectual one), and my analysis here is based in large part on the issues I believe that, as a civilian living in Star Trek's universe, I would likely have strong positions on.
A few candidates immediately present themselves:
- AI rights. A major theme of 24th-century Star Trek, from the beginning of TNG right up to Picard, is the debate over the rights of artificial intelligences, whether in the form of androids and synths like Data and Soji or photonics like the Doctor, Vic, and Moriarty. Less attention is given to less anthropomorphic forms of artificial intelligence. As we see in Lower Decks, Starfleet and the Daystrom Institute keep rogue AIs such as AGIMUS, Peanut Hamper, and 10111, with no evidence that they received any kind of trial or evaluation. The tragedy of 2385 became a major impediment to AI rights, but after the events of season 1 of Picard they seem to be back on track, at least for Synths. The personhood of photonics and non-anthropomorphic AIs remains up in the air.
- Augment rights. This may be an internally contentious issue. on the one hand, it is clear that genetically-altered individuals are marginalized as of the Dominion War. It is by the narrowest of margins that Bashir avoids being drummed out of Starfleet for being the recipient of a medical procedure he had no ability to consent to or refuse, and the Jack Pack are in some ways treated more like inmates than patients. Less than a century and a half before, Illyrians were persecuted and La'an Noonien Singh faced bullying as a child for being the distant descendant of Khan. However the memory of the Eugenics Wars looms large in the human imagination and genetic augmentation may still be viewed by some as inherently hierarchical.
- Humanocentrism and Vulcan Supremacy. Azetbur's remarks on the Federation as a "Homo sapiens-only" club are not strictly true, but they're not strictly unfounded either. The Federation's capital has always been Earth, Starfleet's headquarters are on Earth, Earth seems to have more colonies than any other member world (and stay tuned while we discuss that further), Humans make up the bulk of Starfleet (even on the Cerritos, by far the most species-diverse ship shown in Trek canon, the majority of the crew seem to be human), Federation Standard is closely descended from English, and four out of six Federation Presidents named or depicted across Star Trek canon are either human or of partial human ancestry. Vulcans, meanwhile, are frequently openly prejudiced against other species and seem to face little opprobrium for being so. This is more prominent in the 22nd and 23rd century, with anti-human terrorism on Vulcan, Spock's childhood bullying, and Starfleet even declaring entire vessels (such as the Intrepid) Vulcan-only; but it still seems to be present in the 24th and even, in some respects, as far ahead as the 32nd century.
- Seceding worlds (and the Maquis.) Unlike the United States of America, which had a whole civil war over the matter, Federation member worlds, and even colonies, appear to have the right to withdraw Federation membership. Aside from the Cardassian Border colonies that produced the Maquis rebellion, Turkana IV is perhaps the most prominent example in the 24th century. We know later in history most of the Federation's worlds, including Earth, Ni'Var, and Andoria, will secede as well in the aftermath of the Burn, and there are some indications that M'Talas Prime may be ex-Federation by the time of Picard. Turkana IV and M'Talas prime serve as an effective demonstration of exactly why this might become a progressive issue: neither seems to have thrived without the Federation, and the Maquis secession resulted in years of violence ending in mass murder on the part of the Dominion. On the other hand making Federation membership irrevocable is not exactly respectful of the sovereignty of those worlds' people. This is likely an issue that sees divided perspectives.
- Expansionism and Imperialism. This may be another controversial one. It is undeniable that the Federation is expansionist, always settling new worlds, welcoming new members, and pushing its borders outwards. As an organization Boldly Going Where No Man Has Gone Before is a central element of Starfleet's mission. However it is clear that one of the key goals of the Prime Directive1 is in ensuring that this expansion does not come at the expense of sovereign indigenous civilizations. Nevertheless, we often see the citizens of other polities feel their people are pressured, or even subtly coerced, to join the Federation, especially in DS9. It is not hard to believe that these concerns are shared by at least some Federation citizens.
- Social issues in neighboring societies. It is clear that many of the Federation's neighbors do not place as high a value on the rights of the individual or of the people as do the Federation, from Ferengi misogyny to Klingon classism to Cardassian totalitarianism. This is the opposite side of the coin from the prior issue, and it seems like the dominant strain of thought in the Federation is to pursue a policy of not intervening even in other advanced societies in the name of inalienable rights, or even providing more than token support to internal resistance movements much of the time (witness the struggles of Bajor, for instance.)
- Section 31. It remains unclear how much of the existence of Section 31, particularly in its modern form, is known to the public. However if it is known, an organization willing to violate the Federation's every high-minded principle in the ruthless pursuit of protecting its interests is doubtless a fraught subject. If their existence only became public knowledge after the fact of their indiscretions, one could easily imagine it being a scandal that tarnishes entire governments.
- Criminal Justice. While crime is no longer as widespread as it is in our own time due to lack of deprivation, the Federation still practices a form of carceral justice. Better minds than I discuss elsewhere the matters of police and prison abolition. Here is one 21st-century left-wing cause that hasn't yet become obsolete.
- Militarism. A common criticism of Star Trek is that everything in the Federation seems to revolve around Starfleet. While that's partly a limitation of the nature of the show, it raises the question: how true is it really? And how true do the people of the 24th century perceive it to be? How comfortable are civilians with the prominence of Starfleet?
Please use the comments to offer your own insights, or to suggest any issues I may have overlooked.
^A subject about which liberal and left-wing arguments both for and against are so played out as to be not worth any further mention.
You're viewing a single thread.
Augment rights. This may be an internally contentious issue. on the one hand, it is clear that genetically-altered individuals are marginalized as of the Dominion War. It is by the narrowest of margins that Bashir avoids being drummed out of Starfleet for being the recipient of a medical procedure he had no ability to consent to or refuse, and the Jack Pack are in some ways treated more like inmates than patients. Less than a century and a half before, Illyrians were persecuted and La'an Noonien Singh faced bullying as a child for being the distant descendant of Khan. However the memory of the Eugenics Wars looms large in the human imagination and genetic augmentation may still be viewed by some as inherently hierarchical.
This I could see going either way, really. One of the issues with augments seems to be that the process tendency to result in some form of megalomania developing, so attitudes onwards augments tends to stem from that.
On the other hand, it is also fairly explicitly stated that it was really only Earth who ran into those issues, having tried to go well overboard with their Augments. Others, like the Denobulans, didn't.
Instead of it being focused so much on Augments rights specifically, this might instead fall under a wider umbrella of decriminalising genetic engineering, instead pushing for it to be a regulated, guided process, rather than being outright banned.
Supporters might point to the Illyrians, who were driven to extinction in an attempt to appease the Federation's genetic augmentation ban, by creating a virus in an attempt to reverse their modifications, that ultimately wiped them out. For them, genetic modification of every individual to suit the environmental demands, instead of terraforming, or biosuits, was part of their culture, and as such, supporting the ban would put it in violation of the principles behind General Order 1.
AI rights. A major theme of 24th-century Star Trek, from the beginning of TNG right up to Picard, is the debate over the rights of artificial intelligences, whether in the form of androids and synths like Data and Soji or photonics like the Doctor, Vic, and Moriarty. Less attention is given to less anthropomorphic forms of artificial intelligence. As we see in Lower Decks, Starfleet and the Daystrom Institute keep rogue AIs such as AGIMUS, Peanut Hamper, and 10111, with no evidence that they received any kind of trial or evaluation. The tragedy of 2385 became a major impediment to AI rights, but after the events of season 1 of Picard they seem to be back on track, at least for Synths. The personhood of photonics and non-anthropomorphic AIs remains up in the air.
At least one of the problems with AI rights is that the Federation struggles to figure out where software/hardware ends, and sapience begins. Both the Doctor, and the Exocomps were reset repeatedly when they began to express burgeoning sapience, because it was considered a malfunction in the software. There's no clear way to look at a machine and say "yep, this is sapient".
There's also the rights issue, where rights apply to organic humanoids, and aren't applied to machines the same way, but that might be an issue of definition.
We also see a few sapient machine civilisations by this point, and I could see rights groups pushing very hard to enshrine synth rights in a way similar to humanoid ones. Another synth ban would also prevent them from reproducing, and could be used to enact a genocide.
Humanocentrism and Vulcan Supremacy. Azetbur's remarks on the Federation as a "Homo sapiens-only" club are not strictly true, but they're not strictly unfounded either. The Federation's capital has always been Earth, Starfleet's headquarters are on Earth, Earth seems to have more colonies than any other member world (and stay tuned while we discuss that further), Humans make up the bulk of Starfleet (even on the Cerritos, by far the most species-diverse ship shown in Trek canon, the majority of the crew seem to be human), Federation Standard is closely descended from English, and four out of six Federation Presidents named or depicted across Star Trek canon are either human or of partial human ancestry. Vulcans, meanwhile, are frequently openly prejudiced against other species and seem to face little opprobrium for being so. This is more prominent in the 22nd and 23rd century, with anti-human terrorism on Vulcan, Spock's childhood bullying, and Starfleet even declaring entire vessels (such as the Intrepid) Vulcan-only; but it still seems to be present in the 24th and even, in some respects, as far ahead as the 32nd century.
We start to see it be questioned a bit here and there, but decoupling the Federation from its core worlds/founders is almost certainly going to be a radical position.
If we dial back to the problem with Augments, it was stated fairly explicitly to be Earth's mistake, and there's the question of whether Earth should be allowed to impress the consequences of their own actions on the whole of the Federation. Other worlds in the Federation didn't have problems with their Augments, and a few even saw benefits from their genetic modification processes (Illyrians/Denobulans).
Supremacy movements will always exist, but I doubt that they are in the mainstream. They seem to be fairly limited, with most of it beings stereotyping instead, like seeing all Vulcans as expressionless, humans as all being adapted, Klingons as honourable warrior meatheads, so on so forth. A progressive movements might try to poke into that, and try to shift stereotypes, either by suggesting a broadening of the exchange program, or offering increased exchanges opportunities.
Social issues in neighboring societies. It is clear that many of the Federation's neighbors do not place as high a value on the rights of the individual or of the people as do the Federation, from Ferengi misogyny to Klingon classism to Cardassian totalitarianism. This is the opposite side of the coin from the prior issue, and it seems like the dominant strain of thought in the Federation is to pursue a policy of not intervening even in other advanced societies in the name of inalienable rights, or even providing more than token support to internal resistance movements much of the time (witness the struggles of Bajor, for instance.)
This one seems a bit contentious. While yes, on the one hand, social issues like that are a problem, the other is also whether the Federation has a right to intervene in the development of those societies by opposing or condoning particular social practices. For Starfleet at least, General order 1 would prohibit that kind of interference, and there's a clearly drawn line where the Federation doesn't descend and try to forcibly improve pre-warp societies, even if their values don't align with the Federation's.
It runs the risk of the Federation becoming an empire trying to force its morals and way of life on everyone else. It is also worth considering that the Federation might also be imperfect with how they treat their citizens (like synthetics), would they appreciate another civilisation interfering with them to fix that?
A few other things: It seems a bit Earth-centric and 21st century to think that Federation politics would have a similar kind of left-right political spectrum, let alone the definitions of them being more American than representative of what the political spectrum might be like elsewhere.
Politics might be like the Federation economy in the sense that it is big, different, and difficult to comprehend compared to today. At minimum, you also have to consider the political spectra of the other founding members, and how they might be different. A Vulcan political spectrum could be entirely orthogonal to the human one, for example, and that might impact the calculus for 25th century Federation politics.
The Prime Directive I could also see being contentious, and a political topic. Some people might think that it is too restrictive, preventing the Federation from helping civilisations that can be helped, and are in strife through no fault of their own, whereas others might think it isn't good enough, with how often it seems to get violated, and the Federation start are nosing it's way into other civilisations, even though it has no right to do so.
It seems a bit Earth-centric and 21st century to think that Federation politics would have a similar kind of left-right political spectrum, let alone the definitions of them being more American than representative of what the political spectrum might be like elsewhere.
I suspect that "liberal" and "conservative" going to be pretty standard political splits even in a distant future; not in any way particularly reminiscent of their current manifestations in American/global politics, but in the way different people answer a more fundamental question: do we stick with what works, or continue to push the boundaries?
"We should let people augment themselves without consequence" is a very liberal position. It endorses experimentation beyond the current status quo, emphasizing an ideal (personal liberty) above specific practical considerations. "We should prevent people from augmenting themselves or their children except to correct for specific disabilities" is a fundamentally conservative position: it endorses sticking with the status quo, sacrificing an idealistic possibility that comes with uncertainty and risk for the security of what has worked well for a long time.
We see noticeable breakdowns along these lines for older/younger siblings, for example, and between generations at different points in their lives. For humans, at least, risk tolerance seems to be one of the major things that separates how we think about issues, and it's something I would fully expect to continue to divide people even if/when we finally get ourselves sorted on the big issues of today.