Episode Discussion | Star Trek: Strange New Worlds | 2x02 "Ad Astra Per Aspera"
Episode Discussion | Star Trek: Strange New Worlds | 2x02 "Ad Astra Per Aspera"
Logline
Commander 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're viewing a single thread.
Loved it. Star Trek has always been handwavy with legal rules in favour of a compelling debate and this was no exception.
As a Canadian, I instantly started thinking about the metaphor in terms of laws the Canadian government had against indigenous people practicing or teaching their cultural practices.
On the other hand, as a gay man, I was thinking about when homosexuality was considered a criminal practice and how sometimes gay men will stay in the closet to avoid discrimination.
One of the things that’s most interesting to me is how many minorities groups Una’s experience maps to in some rhyming way.
I've heard a number of people interpret it about themselves, which is really good, the allegory was understandable while still being a cohesive story.
I thought trans people were a good fit for the metaphor, given the body alterations that can be involved.
I think how the genetic augmentation ban was portrayed in Una's case in particular - a military court martial - was similar to "Don't Ask Don't Tell", so LGBTQ+ groups do seem to fit better than, say, race or sex. Even with DADT no longer in force, there's topical parallels, like you suggest, with trans people. But there was an emphasis on the Illyrians' genetic augmentation being "their custom", so you can apply religious or cultural prejudice equally as the allegory.
Every show is handwavy about legal rules, not just Trek! Trek at least has the benefit of usually being a military court for a fictional military organization.
When the Federation gets a little handwavy with legal rules, just remember that this is a civilization which went through a "kill all the lawyers" phase
I was going to say "I don't think there was a debate here really, unlike say in Measure of a Man". But that's not actually true, I just find the Federation argument so specious and hypocritical compared to many other Federation points that I honestly don't see their POV.
I'm... not gonna lie, I get the Federation's argument. Genetic engineering is a dangerous thing to start doing to sapient species, and it can lead to a resurgence of eugenics and other stuff like that.
The only real issue with their stance is that they discriminate against people who've been genetically augmented, instead of simply trying to prevent stuff from happening in the first place.
Genetic engineering is a dangerous thing to start doing to sapient species, and it can lead to a resurgence of eugenics and other stuff like that.
Sure, but so is freedom of speech, and we've been resurging Nazis just fine sans genetic engineering. I guess I'd want to know why people think it's so cut and dried when we don't think that about plenty of other issues like speech and misinformation and disinformation, various anti-patterns of information flow on the Internet and such. I think you easily end up in a place where you divide medicine vs engineering.
The other thing I think is dangerous about the genetic engineering is inherently eugenics is that it seems to require beliefs that there are actually "better" genetic IDK settings? And that engineering will pull them out. But this would also imply that there are naturally occurring "better" people, and that is controversial to say the least.
I think it's patently obvious that there are people influenced by genetics but needing specific nurture to make the most out of it to be more skilled in one area or another. I'm never getting into the NBA just because I'm well under 6' tall, and I wasn't hurt for nurture.
The problem with eugenics as I see it is the idea that there is a "better" in all aspects platonic ideal we could engineer or breed our way towards, and there's not really any evidence of those people existing, and I've seen plenty of speculations that moving one thing too far out of norm has other affects. I don't think we know it's true, but it's certainly plausible that there are people who have various aspects that when increased tend to cause either through genetics or more likely culture and the like other aspects to be neglected.
For instance, if you're very good at school / book learning, you might find that sort of young experiences more enjoyable than say sports, where you'd have to work at it. I sort of doubt without an authoritarian system already in place well before genetic engineering that you'd be able to interest even enhanced people in everything, and if they're just better at some things I don't see why people who already don't buy into the eugenics philosophy would not treat this just like a Michael Jordan sort of person.