Is the Federation's Utopia Possible in the Trek Universe? 

The big problem with the TNG Federation is that 99% of Picard's speeches about having evolved past economics, politics, religion, etc. are bald faced lies. There are plenty of examples of people in the Federation, including Picard himself, acting on those motivations, yet as an official representative of the Federation, he keeps repeating these inherently false claims. This is because the Federation, in the TNG era, is not a paradise. The Dominion War forced the Federation to stop wasting time with propaganda speeches, and actually fight.

I love how you spin this, not a way I would think. And I love it. I remember what Sisko said in the maquis episode. "The problem is earth, there there is no crime, no war, no poverty. You look outside Starfleet Headquarters, and it's paradise." The fact is that in the core worlds it maybe that, but not everywhere.

Honestly Picard should've been investigated for not using the weapon on the Borg

You ask a soldier, about their country. You will undoubtedly get a really positive view of it. An important part of military training is pride and loyalty ones country and it's government. Trek is based off the eyes of military personnel, so I think their views may be skewed. DS9 onward started to show non-accadamy grad folks who saw the federation without the demanded loyalty

You are talking about the very essence of Being human. You take even our society now and put them on the edge You will see the base instinct kick in. Even quark said it. Back a human into a corner and take away there comfort and you will see the true side of human nature.

I always felt that everyone saying that they were evolved was more of a comforting lie 'I can't commit the sins of my father because I'm something better' sort of thing. To me that's the Achilles heel of the federation, people aren't trying to prevent the distopian problems because they don't think it can happen, then it does. It's a bit true I guess, it's easy to be a saint in Paradise, but the fundamentals of people haven't changed and problems are going to show up and the quicker they are dealt with the better.

That’s a great argument for Section 31: you have people willing to do very bad things (morphogenic virus) to protect the idealism of the Federation. Starfleet gets to “stand by their ideals” while not being annihilated by powers who don’t care about your ideals.

My biggest issue with Trek especially TNG is when Picard does his speech about them being evolved humans, then many of the characters act the same as to day. In some small ways worse. For example when a teenager piches a fit like a small child about not getting to see the bridge.

Someone's Utopia is another's Dystopia. There will never be a Utopia for all

I find the motivation for Captain Ransom of the Equinox is very similar. Ransom did state in his defence that his ship was out of resources and his crew was starving. These circumstances can push anybody to the edge if not near certainly over the edge. I also remember what Captain Kirk stated in his log regarding observing the Prime Directive when stated that includes to put it above their own lives. It's a matter of survival vs the Federation Principles. Captain Sisko did also stress that it's easy to follow the Federation Principles in Paradise but not at the Front Lines.

It really bothers me that you'd make all the races of the Federation complicit in the actions of Section 31 creating the morphogenic virus. Yes, the Federation benefited from their actions, but VERY few people actually knew what had happened. Calling the rest guilty by association is just bad reasoning to me.

The STNG style "Utopia" where the majority of the population can just "do whatever they want" can ~only~ exist on Earth only when the following conditions are met. ~ No significant degree of global/international conflict exists. (World Peace/free trade/global government) ~ Limitless "Free" power is available. (Fusion power and/or 100% efficient solar power collection) ~ The ability to convert that limitless power directly to necessities such as food, water and shelter exists (Replicators) And while the first two items on the list are at least "theoretically possible" to the human race within the next 30-50 years, the third (Replicators) is still utterly in the realm of "Science Fiction Magic".

After the third use of the word "Paradise" I started singing along to the video with "Big Yellow Taxi"....I don't exactly know what good a parking lot is in Trek, but there you have it. (Good video. Thumbs up.)

A lot of this comes back to Gene he was adamant that humans had evolved past all emotional failures. Like in one episode of next generation when the kid lost his mom and he wouldn't let the kid mourn his mom because he thought that by this time in the future humans would have gotten past their fear of death. Which makes no sense.

Great video bringing up some very good points

The Federation isn't some utopian monolith. It likes to think it is, but reality gets in the way. That may be the most realistic thing about Star Trek.

There's a truth that if you live in a house long enough, eventually you no longer see the leaking faucet, the shutters that need replacing, and the new coat of paint that's needed. It's not that they don't exist, they just don't register. The fundamental flaw in the UFP utopia is that technology and discovery become the house, while human nature become the leaking faucet, etc. It may not matter how nice the house is, if those things aren't addressed, the facade gets removed. That isn't to say those things can't be fixed or adjusted, but there never comes a point where there's nothing left to be done. Not only did technology, exploration, and discovery lead the Federation into unprecedented existence, it gave them a false sense of arrival at some sort of perfection.

I’m reminded of Col Jessup from a few good men. “You need me on that wall.” That’s Section 31.

With respect to the confusion about Christians vs strong central government... Not so confusing if you take traditional Christian theology into account. The condensed version of this is that mankind is inherently flawed. Because of that, it is a foregone conclusion that all government will also be flawed to one degree or another, as government itself is not a faceless entity that exists unto itself. Governments are people, people who are flawed. The concentration of too much power in the hands of a small number of officials presents an obvious danger. Christians believe that God Himself is their final authority, a being who has all authority to Himself. The difference is that God literally does not make mistakes and is literally perfect, which entirely changes the analysis. At least I think this is the source of the confusion. If this is more of a historical play about the medieval and renaissance church wielding a lot of centralized political power, I'd point out that much of the early emigration to the new world was specifically Christian believers trying to get away from that regime. Also...people are flawed and do a lot of stuff they shouldn't.

Very cool breakdown abd hadn't considered that what we get with some if our favorite characters from TOS has more in common with another older century from Earth than such as the 1800s where TNG goes from the Golden age of Trek to something from 1950s science fiction such 1984 or Starship Troopers. Good eye as always.

If you want to get technical, it was section 31 that came up with the Changeling disease, not the Federation. When the Federation found out about it and the cure, they didn't give the cure the Dominion during the war, but after words, they allowed Odo to take it to them.

I'm reminded of a comment a teacher made in High School Physics which is likely a gross oversimplification (lies to children, et al) but it serves as a decent metaphor here. You cannot get the temperature of anything absolute zero because the surroundings would inevitably have to be at least slightly warmer than it, which would raise that temperature, however marginally. It's the same thing here, really. You cannot have a perfect paradise because it will come into contact with something from the outside that will forever taint it. And if you try to contain that paradise, like a ship in a bottle...? The process of building that bottle around your ship would itself inevitably destroy whatever paradise you were building.

You should talk about how cornucopia technologies enable the Federation to have the economy that it has, and without which money or some analog would still be required.

Ideals must give way to necessity and survival. The trick is identifying what is truly necessary, for how long, and keeping the ideals alive so they can be restored. Rigid adherence to any unchanging ideology is a recipe for failure. Ideology must bend to truth.

TNG is basically like one long propganda film for Starfleet academy cadets. I absolutely love the show for many reasons but the utopian aspects of it feel unconvincing. DS9 feels like it struck the perfect balance between showing that humanity was striving for greater, more high-minded things while also admitting that humans will always be flawed creatures of emotion first and foremost.

It's the paradox of science fiction: No matter how creative it is, we're stuck using modern words, terms, etc. And limited by the knowledge of it's creators. In other words, coke fiend & sex addict Gene Roddenberry's utopian vision is gonna be limited by his own mortal failings and basically liberal outlook. Which isn't to insult him: our additions to the franchise is also gonna be limited by our conceptions of things; a country spending 7+ decades as a military super power is gonna wanna see militarism in it's fiction (even if it's to condemn it). And I kinda think that's what Trek (but DS9 and Discovery in particular) do best: they both essentially ask "can we think & act as we do, and still end up in a utopian future"? Or maybe I shouldn't of smoked that joint before your video. I dunno man.

Glad that was an April Fools joke and that you didn't quit. Though it would be cool if Gary from Nerdrotic got to go consult for some of the newer Trek series.

See, there's a big sticking point in all this that I think is being overlooked. See, no one outside of Starfleet has ever called the Federation as a whole a Utopia. Earth is described that way by humans and non-humans that live on Earth, the broader Federation itself is more like a *functional* utopia. Everyone's playing by the same rules, agreements are made in good faith, and any disagreements are settled through debate and compromise. It's a UN with actual legislative powers. What really separates the frontier and "golden" eras of the Federation from wartime and postwar periods, to me, is that they still were *striving* to live up to that Utopian ideal. Take the TWoK era and the transition the Federation underwent between then and the "lost era" leading to TNG for example. There was rampant militarization of Starfleet in response to a heightened state of war with the Klingons, but as those relations became more peaceful, so did Starfleet itself. So much so that it was able to focus it's efforts on building ships of exploration that were comfortable enough to live on for years at a time without going insane from Cabin Fever. It was living through that transition to peace that gave officers like Picard all their high minded ideals about diplomacy, truth, and morality. Part of the troubles with the modern era of Trek is that the people working on it haven't been bold enough yet to show us the practical side of reestablishing peace after war; rebuilding, disarmament, endless negotiations and dealing with the lingering PTSD of those who were on the front lines. On a world that's gotten too comfortable with the idea of war, a show about the hard work of *peace* would be one of the boldest things you could put on TV.

The Federation's core problem is that Roddenberry didn't know jack about evolution. He had the pop-cultural notion many people have -- that evolution has a "plan" and a "victory condition", which, of course, matched the image of "advanced" races as depicted in the old sci-fi he read as a kid, with maybe some religious influences as well. The reality is that a race can evolve into nearly anything, because all evolution cares about is effective breeding. So, here's the Federation, where citizens are coddled to the point that Sisko's dad was able to live comfortably by doing a little recreational cooking for people who got bored sitting at home with their magic tech that could turn electricity into Lobster Newburg. His restaurant wasn't even busy! So a typical Fed citizen had NO reason to strive, to innovate, to learn, or even to prefer such traits in a mate. Meanwhile, the NON-typical citizens who still had some ambition were mostly drawn to Starfleet, where they had a much higher death rate, and were hindered in reproduction by distant postings and unstable circumstances. Over time, the "grasshoppers" on core Federation worlds outbred the "ants" in Starfleet, gradually optimizing the population for idleness and consumption, just as any population of lifeforms gets optimized for the environment and lifestyle it leads. Earth began to resemble the Axiom from "Wall-E". Starfleet eventually began to face a recruitment crisis, as worthy candidates became harder to find. Compromises would be made, where either lower-end people were let in, or manpower was reduced to maintain a quality standard. The absurd-seeming policy of building starships to accomodate children was undoubtedly an attempt to increase the breeding rate of Starfleet-quality people, but the shift to a more warlike footing in the late 24th century made this both futile and politically-unacceptable. As the death rate of Starfleet-caliber people soared, the quality of the breeding populations dropped further. This led to greater incompetence, as positions had to be filled with lower-caliber people, trained by lower-caliber people. Once the slide began, the smart money began shifting away from Federation worlds to more merit-based societies in territories whose alignment with the Federation did NOT extend to adopting their utopian notions. Ferengi businessmen made enormous fortunes from this trend. Economic decline in Fed space added to corruption, crime, and desperate half-a$$ attempts by the Council and planetary governments to stave off collapse... but these decisions were being made by fools and the people that fools would vote for. The end was sudden but inevitable. TLDR -- a utopia inevitably breeds people who are not smart enough, strong enough, or ruthless enough to do what it takes to maintain a utopia. It is an unstable, self-eliminating form of society.

I admit to a certain burning curiosity about one question. What would section 31 be like in the Mirror Universe?

Nice

I don't think the whole Federation is an utopia as we saw many colony world are quite harsh and primitive. However, Earth is pretty well off in the Star Trek setting. With the tech such as replicator and a huge surplus of energy generation, the Federation can ensure a pretty comfortable high standing of "basic" income for everyone living on Earth.

Good thoughts, Lore. I touched upon similar themes in a recent video I did questioning the Federation’s self-proclaimed utopia (which smacks of propaganda, quite frankly). The only point we differ on is your belief that the Federation was strengthened by the Dominion War. I actually argue the opposite (the massive armada of the USS Cut & Paste notwithstanding). It seems evident to me that the Federation was not just shaken to its core, it was severely weakened. By the end of the 24th century, we find s Federation which is broken, cynical, and teetering on the brink of collapse-with core worlds even threatening to secede, and the outer planets having to fend for themselves and take matters into their own hands (i.e. the Ferris Rangers). It’s not a stable era for the Federation at all.

In the argument of would I rather live in the Star Trek universe or the Star Wars universe, my answer was always Trek because the future was bright and I’d survive to be 150. But after STD imploded trek, I don’t wanna live in that time line anymore.

The so-called 'Golden Age' was perhaps anything but. Yes, science and exploration continued; but was it really as fast as might have been expected? Think of those old ship designs that had been around for literal generations. More importantly, because the Federation was largely unchallenged for much of a lifetime, they became complacent. When Starfleet DID start to phase out old ships, they were being replaced with 'apartment buildings in space'. Anyway, 'Utopia' is a subjective thing. Even the 'real', literary Utopia was observed as being rather boring by its creator. And more than a little authoritarian in my opinion. It's more about social stability than some 'paradise', (and even 'paradise' isn't synonymous with 'fantasy-land'). So, while Utopia is commonly seen as term suggesting social perfection, it's NOT a heavenly experience, it's NOT truly some astoundingly wondrously happy place to live, it's a stable, highly predictable society, with duties and requirements, and egalitarian by enforced design. One where an individual might be safe, productive and, yes, even happy; but where outsiders might still look askance at it for multiple reasons. Anyway, we've never really seen much of civilian life on earth and only smatterings of colony life. Much of what we have seen doesn't seem that incredible. There are a great many parks scattered about the world, many preserved old buildings as well as fancy ultra high-rises. The known pleasures of Star Trek's earth is that people can operate restaurants where they cook by hand, or ride horses if they desire. That's about what we know of earth! Colonies in development have much less amenities, I'm sure! Doubtlessly conditions changed over time. The 25th Century is not the same as the 24th Century, which is not the same as the 23rd Century, which is not the same as the 22nd Century. Even during ENTERPRISE, earth and humanity had solved its problems. How is not revealed, but given the hardships of the post WWIII era, I imagine that some degree of 'lowered expectations' were at play. As, perhaps, a lowered population burden on the planet and so on. But I'm a believer that earth's utopia is something that exists because society says it does. Also, that 'Utopia' and 'Dystopia' are very similar!

The whole "evolved human" myth was Federation propaganda that many bought into until things started getting rough.

The idea of a utopia is impossible when you have the concept of a centralized government that will sacrifice world for a fragile peace. And I believe the federation with in this universe is the greatest foundation of peace.

i feel like Lower Decks would fit somewhere in this essay too

Despite its flaws, I still think Star Trek's future is something we should strive towards. A world/universe where you don't *have* to struggle just to survive. Where the basics are provided -- healthy food, clean water, safe shelter, healthcare, education -- so that people are free to pursue their own interests. There's a reason nobody's flipping burgers on 24th Century Earth. I'd imagine such a world could make HUGE scientific and technological breakthroughs, could create the most fantastic works of art imaginable. If one positive thing was gained from the Pandemic, it was irrefutable proof that people don't *want* to be lazy and sit on their butts all day. They want to create, to share, to make their world better in whatever little way they can. And they're realizing that life is too short and too precious to waste time slaving away so someone else can be a billionaire. Face it, the Federation's problems all stem from outside forces, and with space being as huge as it is, and FTL travel a physical impossibility (to our current knowledge), we *could* make a world that all humans could live comfortably in, and *not* have to worry about the Klingons invading, or the Borg assimilating us. It's certainly better than the captitalistic hellscape we currently live in. Star Trek is one of the very few science fiction stories that dares to even hope for a *better* future. That's what makes it unique and special in a genre otherwise chock full of dystopias. Please don't try to take that away.

Sometimes the greatest utopias are secret dystopias, and the scariest dystopian society is a utopia.

I was watching one of your older videos where you said the Akira class look better than the sovereign class. In my opinion the Akira class is what you would get if you ask a Klingon to design a new shovel

See this is why I liked the writing of Heinlein. The Terran Federation was a massive improvement, but it was never suggested to be a utopia. Problems were explicitly pointed out. Utopia does not, and can not exist. Its pursuit always ends disastrously.

Referencing the Dominion War, I'd point out that the bioweapon is not Federation policy and that Federation/Star Fleet citizens fight to correct it even though it would be much to their advantage to just let it proceed. Considering just how sick and evil the Dominion is, I'm not sure that was a morally justifiable decision. Perhaps a little analysis by you of just how evil it is for the Changelings to have created the Jem'Hadar and Vorta would be illuminating for you?

Answer before watching: Before the dominion war yes after no

The original premise of Trek is that the Federation contains a more evolved version of humanity that has managed to move beyond it's main failures. We kind of have to take that at it's word - i'm not sure it makes sense to question whether it's possible anymore than it makes sense to question whether warp speed or transporter technology is possible. Obviously though, the show is produced, written and acted by very much non-perfect humans. It contains all of the flaws that exist in us today, including how we perceive that we would deal with challenges using the best moral arguments we have. If the writers were capable of explaining how a 'utopian'' society would deal with a threat like the Dominion that doesn't diminish their principles - well, then they should be doing far more important things with their lives than writing Star Trek! In a lot of Trek, the writers create plots where our heroes are never put in positions where they have to fundamentally break their ethics. There's often contrivances or deus ex machina stuff that means they are never ultimately faced with a difficult choice. But as time went on, the shows choose to actively deal with these issues more, which was fantastic for drama and character development, but did means that Trek's uptopian ideals were steadily diminished.

Facts

If you truly love a thing... is to not accept it at face value or risk losing it. You must dissect it, to understand how it works, maybe why it doesn't, and how to make it better... to care is to love... if you put no effort in just letting a thing be, you contribute to its complacency and downfall and that's not love really.

To protect paradise from monsters some of those in paradise must become monsters themselves.

I am confused, why would the western world hate the form of government you described. That is the system most of us live in. Heck if you replace member world with member state that is the exact description of the US. The key difference is our leaders are assholes, and we don't live in a post scarcity world. But yes, most economists would agree with you. A government like ours is completely I'll suited to run a post scarcity world. Most of its benefits disappear when resource allocation is no longer a concern. Even today our world is a thin veneer of happiness built on the suffering of others. It is economically impossible for things to be otherwise.

If memory serves the book utopia were utopian comes from, basically says utopia is impossible.

Wasn't the morphogenic weapon just Section 31's idea, or was Starfleet in on it as well?

Not really. Maybe pre-Federation. During the "Enterprise era". Right after First Contact and rebuilding from World War III but just before the Xindi attack and Romulan war.

Utopias don't exist, and even the Federation doesn't pretend it is one. It simply seems Utopian in comparison to today. The thing that makes them seem the most "Utopian" doesn't even happen until somewhere between the end of The Original Series and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Its not until ST:IV that we learn that the Federation doesn't use "money." Throughout TOS there are references to pay and really earning one's paycheck thanks to some sort of activity. Its right about then that food synthesizers started to get close to be replicators. "Need", and thus Economics (the systems, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc, necessary for distribution of wealth), do not exist. This is especially true by TNG, where using energy to matter conversion through replicators, nearly everything can be attained by anyone regardless of social standing or some concept of wealth. They are Post-Economic Society. That means the means of obtaining "power" has to come from something other than money. Power differentials will ALWAYS exist, the mechanism of power's "currency", is all that changes. And what may look Utopian to use stuck in ANY form of Economic Society comes at the cost of something somewhere which, to some people, will feel Dystopian. After all Vash, Picard and Q's pseudogirlfriend, cares a lot about profit. She has things she "values" that the Federation - and especially obeying its rules - can not provide.

>you can express yourself however you wish in the federation. can I open a company in the federation? if I invent something, can i profit from it personally? Can I found a planetary colony on my own accept the federation charter for protection but be the king? The people who want to found the colony with me are fine with me being the king, they just like monarchy and they trust me. Can I found a colony on religious grounds?

If you areacommi then the ST future is awetdream

actually, history is full of benevolent dictatorships... it's usually how one person gets all the power, because he's a great guy (very few women were given unilateral power) who takes care of his people. The problem is he eventually dies and his son takes over, and the son isn't as virtuous as his dad

Laudable aims in print within the original charter could never be realised in reality out there in the galaxy. I think the founding members knew this when they added the lines to the charter that constituted section 31. They knew that some aims could never be achieved if some of their citizens didn't get their hands dirty. This came to a head during the Dominion war with the virus and its source being revealed. I am sure if the founders had died off including Odo with this fact never being known the Federation powers that be would have happily lived with the conceit.

TV, or should I say human artistic expression, has always been heavily influenced by the time and age it was created in. I think one doesn't need to look any further, as I also doubt that there isn't much creativity left in TV as of today's day and age. The 70s and especially the 80s were hopeful decades, something that started to slowly decline after the 2000s for several obvious and not so obvious reason I guess.

👍

And oh , glade to see your previous post was an April fools day joke

“JUST SO THEY COULD SURVIVE” huh… just to SURVIVE…..

"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the Villain." That's basically the story of the federation. Sooner or later any utopian society faces an existential threat, and they have to choose between sticking with their ideals, and perishing, or breaking from their ideals. They did it several times (in canon) and that's basically what keeps the shows interesting as well as keeping them around.

Hitting the nail on the head with this one. Sure Picard is dystopian, but it is hypocritical when the same people are dieheart fans of DS9.

I get that The Undiscovered Country is an analogy for the still-fresh death of the USSR, and that many Americans still harbored ill feelings for the former Soviets, but damn, Kirk went full-on white nationalist in the beginning of that movie.

as long as you dont ask how the cake is made, it will always taste good untill you ask whats in it.

Kirk’s bigotry against Klingons in Star Trek 6 is understandable (through not acceptable) and it’s a great addition to his character that makes him more of a real person. If you’d spent your entire career fighting an aggressive species focused on conquest, seen friends and colleagues killed by incursions, and THEN watched your son get brutally murdered by a bloodthirsty Klingon general…of course you’d hate Klingons. You’d have to be Data or Jesus of Nazareth to NOT harbor anger or hatred towards Klingons. Ask Ukrainians how they feel about Russians, specifically the Russian army right now. The beauty of Star Trek 6 is how Kirk OVERCOMES his bigotry and realizes it’s not something he wants to continue.

It shows humans coexisting peacefully, what do you think.

Hi

WELLP, GOD NEED THE ARCANGELS TO BEAT DEAMONS AND DEFEND THE HEAVEN

While I agree the Federation is pretty good, I don't remember anyone saying the UFP is a utopian society, just Earth was described that way. Possibly some others might be similar to Earth in that way. I enjoyed this video but I think there's some nuance that was missed or looked over. I think the better interpretation of evolved humans isn't biological but societal. Biological beings will fight to survive.

Sec 31 isn't part of the federation they're a rogue organization.... lol I love DS9 its the best series ever!

I never believed in the utopia. I DON'T think Picard is the poster boy for the Federation. I see him as the FAILURE of the Federation. The Federation had it too good for too long. They started to believe their hype and propaganda, despite having to know that is all it ever was. The creators of the Federation weren't looking, for, arguably didn't want, the "utopianist" drive of the TNG era. What they wanted was a union for the purposes of trade and military defence. In the end they got...Jean-Luc Picard. A superb diplomat, a leader - and a terrible starship captain. So caught up with ideals and ideology he couldn't see what was in front of his face. So worshipful of the cult of the Prime Directive he was perfectly willing to let an entire species die from a natural event, even knowing he could prevent that without ever revealing his ship's presence. So convinced of his own moral certainty that he would not take action against a species that had exterminated hundreds of others. So judgemental of his own people that when a disaster overtakes them and they lose their major shipyard, he condemns them for not saving another species first - a species that has been, since the very start of the Federation, it's mortal enemy. The Utopia didn't fail. It never existed in the first place. And after the Borg attacks and the Dominion War, the Federation and Starfleet woke up from the daydream and started dealing with real life again. Forgot about this drivel about a "more evolved" morality and acknowledged that the universe can be a dirty, unpleasant and dangerous place, and you just do the best you can.

Flawed life forms create flawed institutions. This is why the United States constitution talks about a more perfect union. We are allowed to grow and better ourselves or we can change for the worse. That's what freedom is all about. The ability to make the choices that determine our future. When we make mistakes, we can learn from them and that helps us grow. It's a process of evolution that is full of meandering.

I think there needs to be much more Federation explored rather than Starfleet and it's officers. We do not really see much on Federation citizens day to day, only as they interact with Starfleet. Starfleet is going to have rules, regulations, philosophies, outside of the Federation and the Federation with likewise have their own. We only get to see one small part of the Federation, really only one small part of Star Fleet for most of any of the series. Humans are not evolved in Star Trek, they are indoctrinated, evolving would take much more time.

Hi

Those are my biggest issues with Star Trek, they claim to not have a monitary system and to be a utopia while those sound great no people could survive having a society that had no monitary system.

The word utopia literally means "no place" or "nowhere". The Federation you imagine only existed in the minds of left wing script writers in Hollywood, and the dichotomy between what the script writers imagined, and how an interstellar governmental system would actually work were apparent from the very first series.

Being a Christian and not supporting universally powerful government is hardly confusing, but let's not argue. Excellent presentation as usual.

Ah , As a life long fan of trek , shows ,movies, games , et al. I must disagree with your rather broad statement that the Fandom Dislike for STD / Picard For the dystopian aspects of the stories. For many of us , it has more to do with the frankly horrible writing and the beat you over the head till you submit WOKEness of so many of the characters at the expanse of quality of story . as just two examples of really bad writing the Magic Spore drive of STD ( an alternative to warp drive that didn't relay on basically magic , was easy to come up with.While sonar in space .....really !?!?!?

😈 Star Trek: The Dark Side. 😆 But seriously, does this mean that (the old) Q had a point on humanity in the Federation? 🤔

thats why they had section 31

I will continue to defend Kirk in ST VI. I don't think he's racist. He's pragmatic. He's also NOT part of the cabal for war. Kirk's position is born out in the real world, just ask the Ukranians. It's also born out in Yesterday's Enterprise and DS9. BTW, your April Fools, so good.

The show doesn't really show the poor or less important work class.. Only that they have very small living places... In the early years the undesirables or nonconformists extra population.. mostly either went space trkin or colonized elsewhere . Without this war and instability would've continued

2:15 Which is a non sequitur, is what it is. You know damn well that's not an applicable comparison. I'd say nice try, but it really wasn't.

This is a pet peeve of mine: the characterisation of the Federations as a 'utopia'. I guess it is in the literal sense of the world, as a "nowhere place", but by that definition every piece of Fantasy and Sci-Fi is set in a utopia. If used to mean a place that is essentially perfect, I don't think that Trek has ever claimed to represent that. Every iteration of Star Trek from the very beginning has demonstrated that the Federation has flaws, and that the people within that society still have problems and struggles. The nature of those problems and struggles simply changes. What Star Trek does attempt to do is to imagine a world in which we can do better. To describe such a message as 'utopian' is remarkably defeatist, and against all evidence to the contrary. These cynical dismissals of the Trek universe being 'utopian' are just another iteration of either the conservative view that we've already moved beyond the state in which we're naturally comfortable, and that all further progress is essentially bad, or the neoliberal view that we've reached the end of history, and all we can do now is tinker. Both of these views are irrational, and the neoliberal view in particular is arrogant. If you're watching Star Trek and thinking its utopian, I think you're missing the point. If someone really thinks that we can't strive to be better as a society, then that's just depressing, as well as not reflecting reality.

Contemporary and Ancient Historians would see this as part of the natural cycle of Democratic governments. From Athens rise to fall into oligarchic/narrow conservative regimes after their defeat by Sparta to Weimer Republic of Germany, Democratic governments are not made for long and devastating conflicts. Even when a Democratic government wins its devastating war, like Rome did against Carthage in the Punic Wars, the next decades saw the fall of Republican institutions and social unrest due to Social Wars", famous for the slave Rebellion of Spartacus, and the Marian/Sulla Civil Wars that saw dictators become Consul, success breeds destructive ambitions to the very state that had created it. Only in a state of permanent peace can Democracies truly thrive and survive without issues, otherwise internal and external divisions will either destroy its will to survive or empower its most ambitious members into seeking more power, thus eroding the very institutions that created these individuals. Now on the counter-point, how can you fix this though in a future society? I'd argue you need to empower an extra-layer of government beyond Executive, Legislative, or Courts to maintain a 4th level of power to act in the interest of the Democratic state, countering ambitious individuals internally from rising, executing directives that a hung/factional legislature cannot, and prosecuting actions beyond legal frameworks of the society. Essentially, Section 31 in my view is what allows the Federation to survive for so long and thrive so well, just as Sloan had said that's the mission of Section 31 to keep men of ideals like Julian Bashir around, to maintain a Democratic society that cannot do what needs to be done for its own good. A 4th secret branch of government would be the only way to keep a balance of power. One has to wonder if the "maybe the conspiracy theories" actions about the secret societies and organizations existing outside the US government, acting in concert with its aims, aren't doing exactly the same thing Section 31 is doing in Trek Universe because maybe the truth is that in order for a purely Democratic society to exist a dark shadow is needed. Despite how ethically and morally wrong such groups maybe, they're existence is the price of freedom. Maybe you should consider that as a topic: The necessity of a secret branch of government to create a Utopia.

lore where are you? you don't cover the new seasons?

What you call Kirk's racism and bigotry, I would call an enemy nation with a track record and a high ranking officer responsible for the murder of his only child. He's understandably angry and in mourning. He feels how he does for good reason. He puts it aside and grows as a man. It's a beautiful thing.

A few points...1. Not entirely sure what your confusion about Christians is. 2. There have been in history benevolent dictators, Marcus Aurelius, Elizibeth 1, Richard the Lion Heart just to name a few. Our problem is we haven't seen one of them in our lifetime. 3. All governments, no matter how altruistic its founding may have been, will always fall into a quagmire of faceless bureaucracies. (That's an original from me, feel free to quote me)

The trouble with Star Trek: Picard is that it doesn't just represent a betrayal of what Star Trek promises us the future can be like, but that it throws out cultural elements that are not merely set dressing, but are called-out truths about the way the Federation sees itself, all within the same lifetimes of those who were saying those things about themselves. "WE don't swear!" they proudly declare, and then in ST:P they're dropping f-bombs left and right, even from the allegedly-civilized mouths of Starfleet admirals and Jean-Luc Picard. Picard's problems, aside from the plot holes and inconsistencies, arise because they're not telling us the dark story of a fallen Federation; they're telling us that the modern writers are more concerned with showing us that Star Trek is hip and dark and edgy now, and thus they're injecting modern real-world flaws rather than deriving Star Trek-appropriate flaws. It'd be like trying to show the collapse of the Mongol Empire, but instead of focusing on that, just showing a semi-modern Western culture in the worst possible light, with swearing and commentary on modern social ills done without the sci-fi high mindedness that Star Trek did so well before. All just wearing mongolian costumes, but having none of the culture and having the edge derive entirely from "ooh we're so edgy" rather than actually showing people who were hypocritically or bitterly rejecting standards they used to uphold while showing they still had the cultural inculcation to them. The trouble, in short, is that Picard doesn't take place in a setting that is believably shared with TNG. The cultural shift is too stark and too much a sign that different writers just rejected the previous work, rather than actually studying how the setting would fall into darkness.

Utopie isn't possible. Utopie for one is Dystopie for another. Only lobotomy, borg, psychosurgery, nanotechnologie, transhumanism or other kinds of horrible things can create "Utopie" for one group. If there is no observer or other being in the Universe, it's Utopie.

I'm in complete agreement. While I love the universe created by Gene Roddenberry, his whole vision of the "evolved human" is nothing but a fantasy that is very unbelievable. As a historian, looking back on humanity's history, and it's irritating bad habit of never changing, even as technology and the world changes, Roddenberry's vision is downright idiotic and laughable. Plus considering his track record as a human, I have to wonder about him as he was kind of a hypocrite, he was hated by screenwriters for a reason, and it wasn't his integrity. But, in the Trek universe, the idea, the belief that humanity has evolved and then they show they haven't, does make for interesting plot points.

Western viewers hate the idea of a benevolent dictator? That's actualy quite nice. Being east german i find it laughably naive.

If you have to choose between Utopia and Survival... A Utopia is worthless if it isn´t able to secure it´s own existence. Q worked really hard to hammer that fact into Picard´s head. Aren´t you criticizing Starfleet constantly for their naiveté during the golden era? You cannot have both - a highly armed Starfleet, able to deal with empires like the Dominion - and a utopian society. Your critcism is hypocritical and you know it. Starfleet didn´t get corrupted it got corrected and you know it. In other words: A society can be as utopian as it wants to be if their standards don´t hinder their ability to sustain that utopia. Then you get empires like the Roman empire in it´s prime or others that you wouldn´t call utopian in the first place but were by the standards of their time .

Lot of parallels to America but who wants to get into politics am I right 😔

Each time someone tries to create an utopia, a dystopia arises. Star Trek Federation is pretty much European Union, the same ideals, similar structure. Technically speaking, European Union is a confederation, but people who are in charge of EU are actively trying to transform it into a federation, without consent of member states, without necessary changes in treaties. TNG and Voyager were created by kind of idealistic socialist libertarians, so their vision was naive and idealistic. DS9 was created by more down to earth people, who had more understanding about reality and human nature, social democrats and maybe social liberals, certainly not by utopian socialists. Picard and ST Discovery are created by modern woke intersectionalists, and they are very similar to fanatics who started and implemented Maoist Cultural Revolution in China. So, creators of DS9 are like, of shit this utopia is actually dystopian hell, at least in some places, creators of DS9 knows that there is something wrong with vision of the Federation. Picard and Discovery creators are like "more purges". There is huge difference between creators of DS9 and creators of Discovery and Picard. You can't just say, this is dystopia and this is dystopia, hence equal. Differences are huge.

Thank you for commenting that the elements introduced in TNG and in DS9 can be found in the Star Trek properties today. It amazes me the self-delusion that many ST fans believe, and I think it comes down to our individual thoughts on Gene Rodenberry's original idea for Trek. While I thank him for creating the idea of Trek, I do not agree with his original "Utopian" idea for the Federation. While I do love the fact that humanity has progressed to a point where racism, sexism, and a bunch of other fears and hatreds no longer exist within our own race (being a tall brown man myself), I will never believe that the selfish and hateful tendencies of the human race will just disappear. Those tendencies can only be controlled, it's part of the human condition and unfortunately our modern society has nothing in place to control those tendencies hence all of our wars and divisions. But that's another topic entirely. Coming back to Trek, I am a HUGE fan of Picard, Discovery, and Prodigy. I can see the elements of all of the other previous shows within them and I can indentify the new pieces of story telling that each series writer's introduce in the series. I don't see this as bad, though I don't like some ideas, but like all Trek, it evolves over time. And that's good because it allows writers to tell new interesting and complex stories. Of course the idea behind everything should always be, "People trying their best, to overcome their own flaws." That's what I have always seen Trek as and what I admire in story telling. It's not about being a perfect individual or being the perfect society. It's about trying to do the right thing, and navigating those grey waters as best as we can. Cause sometimes there are no good choices.

Could you imagine if there was an alien "Federation" similar to our Federation only better, and people started leaving our Federation to join the other one.

i think youre in to deep. its a tv show, theres gonna be inconsistencies. but we all know a huge part of star treks message is to keep to your morals despite the struggles you might face, so i dont think actions like the never-deployed nanite virus form tng disprove the "utopia". we are still imperfect humans and have to fight our own instincts, which is a topic thats broadly covered in all of star trek, so i really dont understand how this is such a big deal for you. especially since the utopia you describe doesnt exist as some kid of perfect flawless society in star trek, as in it was never meant that way from a narrative standpoint as far as i can tell. the federation was always better than we were, but there were always episodes of admirals and captains engaging in immoral plots, and captains going off the deep end. even alll the way back in tos. further, defending your way of life does not represent failing to adhere to your own morals. common sense should always be applied, even when there is an ideological background, and in star trek thankfully it is. it wouldve been immoral of starfleet to refuse militarization to keep its current role as the scientific and exploratory arm of the federation, when it has to assume that this choice will lead to the destruction of the federation itself. lets not forget that starfleet was conceived as the military arm of the federation originally, since all the original space militias of the members got folded into it when the federation was created. starfleet through and through kept to its morals, and so did the federation, and in doing so kept its "utopia", which it never really was. it exausted every method of peace, and only gradually militarized during the war that was thrust upon it against its every effort, leading to much death. its contrived to call that a betrayal of everything starfleet stands for. the one point i will agree with is the one regarding the retrovirus. however, that was a project courtesy of section 31 with the help of admiral ross. one admiral and an elusive spy organization. not the federation, and not starfleet.

I always thought that Star Trek was more like Starship Troopers for its ‘Democracy’ I cannot imagine people.. based on my 20th century thinking.. voting for what actually happens…does service gives you citizenship.. If everything is free.. transport..housing..food…. How do you share it out. I would have a house in Florida for the winter.. then transport over to Australia for a few months.. but then you realise that millions must want to do the same.. so gets the penthouse.? Who gets the mansion.. do they exist ? Is every home the same… ? Why risk your life on a starship.. when everyone else is sat at home.. And what do people do.. Music doesn’t seem to exist.. Sports stopped.. movies don’t seem to happen. Do people actually have fun or is it a socialist utopia where everyone works for the start and is banned. Is it more like North Korea.. if they had unlimited resources and a benevolent leader… than America.. or the west..