Welcome to Star Trek Simulation Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest Professor Galen

*

In TNG's "Evolution" Dr. Stubbs says to Deanna, "My dear Counselor, no insult intended, but please turn off your beam into my soul."

 

Is it ethical for Starfleet to exploit the abilities of its telepathic officers?

 

In the TNG episode "The Price" Deanna finds out that one of the representatives negotiating the price of the wormhole has telepathic abilities and has been using them during the bargaining. She is disgusted and says that she would never do that.

 

On the other hand, Picard does make some large decisions on her senses, which, more often then not, aren't accurate. "I think...." or "I've never felt anything like this before..."

 

What always cracks me up is when you see someone really dodgy on the view screen, who is not only actually perspiring, but is obviously lying and she says, "I get the feeling his hiding something from us."

 

Always brings up the question, if you're going to have a telepath, can't you at least have a full one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Spock did to Lieutenant Valeris was one of the most violent moments in Star Trek.

 

Was it justified?

 

Yes.

 

 

 

In TNG's "Evolution" Dr. Stubbs says to Deanna, "My dear Counselor, no insult intended, but please turn off your beam into my soul."

 

Is it ethical for Starfleet to exploit the abilities of its telepathic officers?

 

Is it ethical to tell the telepathic officers to "turn their senses off"? Is it ethical to have and use better vision, hearing, taste or smell than another race?

Personally, the telepath should be allowed to be a telepath. From that point of view the abilities are not being exploited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it ethical to tell the telepathic officers to "turn their senses off"?

 

On Babylon 5, the Psi Corps (Earth's telepath regulation agency) does just that. People are extremely paranoid about having their innermost thoughts revealed to others, so they demand that telepaths be leashed. Human telepaths are prohibited from scanning someone without permission.

 

Deanna's a different case, though, since she's only an empath. Even on B5, telepaths accidentally pick up strong emotions, and no one makes a big fuss about it. It's a little different if you aren't actually digging secrets out of a person's mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If telepathy can be used to advance Star Trek missions and objectives then the exploitation is justified. Scientific advancement and evolution of the human society trumps the value of individual privacy, by a LARGE margin.

 

Also, in speaking of Spock, I have started recording only episodes lately since they are reaired daily and I don't particularly think that the character of Spock is written well in terms of his logic/intelligence, I find it to be rather weak.

Edited by The Strategy Expert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Babylon 5, the Psi Corps (Earth's telepath regulation agency) does just that. People are extremely paranoid about having their innermost thoughts revealed to others, so they demand that telepaths be leashed. Human telepaths are prohibited from scanning someone without permission.

 

Deanna's a different case, though, since she's only an empath. Even on B5, telepaths accidentally pick up strong emotions, and no one makes a big fuss about it. It's a little different if you aren't actually digging secrets out of a person's mind.

 

That's a case of telepaths from a typically non-telepathic species. It's another case dealing with telepaths from a telepathic race and culture. "Leashing" these telepaths would be saying the one culture's values are greater than the others.

 

Are the non-telepath's rights to privacy greater than the telepath's rights to expected information. They should be equal. Luckily most telepaths Star Trek has come across have been peaceful and willing to wave their own rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Spock did to Lieutenant Valeris was one of the most violent moments in Star Trek.

 

Was it justified?

 

--------------------

 

In TNG's "Evolution" Dr. Stubbs says to Deanna, "My dear Counselor, no insult intended, but please turn off your beam into my soul."

 

Is it ethical for Starfleet to exploit the abilities of its telepathic officers?

 

1.) Yes. First blood had already been shed when Chancellor Gorkon was assassinated; finding out the names of the conspirators as well as the location of the cloaked Bird of Prey via Valeris's mind was the logical counter move. Valeris knew the risks of being caught (or she should have, logically) when she threw her loyalties in with the conspirators.

 

2.) Maybe. Depends on the situation and officer as applied to the exploitiation; no one answer to this question, at least from my viewpoint.

 

- If the telepath is with Intelligence, that would be an exploitable talent, by all means.

 

- If a Medical Doctor telepath is dealing with a young child who can't speak yet, but is in pain, the telepath ability can be used to find out where the child hurts.

 

- If you're dealing with a rogue telepath, who mis-uses their powers to willingly hurt others (such as Spock/Valeris ??), then they are the ones exploiting. Yet, a counselor such as Deanna uses her telepathy to aid in her sessions.

 

It really does depend on the telepathic situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a case of telepaths from a typically non-telepathic species. It's another case dealing with telepaths from a telepathic race and culture. "Leashing" these telepaths would be saying the one culture's values are greater than the others.

 

Are the non-telepath's rights to privacy greater than the telepath's rights to expected information. They should be equal. Luckily most telepaths Star Trek has come across have been peaceful and willing to wave their own rights.

 

I can understand both of your statements here, but, as the writers of Star Trek learned, it's impossible to be completely consistent. While the writers made an effort to make Starfleet respectful of other cultures, it was not universal across the board. Starfleet had to make many values judgments. Take the borg, for instance. If Starfleet believed that the Borg's way of life was no less than their own, then on what grounds did they have to resist them? After all, the theory of evolution dictates that the strongest survive.

 

There is a distinction made, I think, between innate values and codified values. Codified values are those that have been developed over time that benefit society. In Star Trek, some of these values might have been the elimination of money, a "federation" as a ruling body, the banning of WMDs, etc. Innate values, or as some like Thomas Aquinas would describe as "natural rights," are values that individuals are born with and that transcend time and societies. While not overtly, Trek recognized some of these values and responses to resist other cultures were largely made on them. Some of the values included the sacredness of all life, the innate desire for freedom from tyranny and the care for the infirmed.

 

All that to say I think it's impossible to be completely neutral to all cultures and that right or wrong, sometimes values judgments are (and need to be) made.

 

I'm not sure about the right to privacy. I know in the U.S. it has never reached the level of a fundamental right (whereby the strict standard would be used). I would think that a non-telepath would have some relief from a telepath and that there would be certain regulations for their usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a case of telepaths from a typically non-telepathic species. It's another case dealing with telepaths from a telepathic race and culture. "Leashing" these telepaths would be saying the one culture's values are greater than the others.

 

Are the non-telepath's rights to privacy greater than the telepath's rights to expected information. They should be equal. Luckily most telepaths Star Trek has come across have been peaceful and willing to wave their own rights.

 

 

I disagree. Just because one citizen has the ability to invade anothers privacy doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it. With that logic I could say that just because I'm holding a phaser and have the ability to use it doesn't mean I have the right to shoot anyone I want. Any citizen has the right to privacy. However abilities can be used by law enforcement such as Starfleet because they are there to protect the citizen of the Federation and to protect the citizens rights. But between a telepathic citizen and a non-telepathic citizen I don't think it should be allowed because that puts the non-telepathic at a disatvantage, since he(or she) can't defend herself against thought reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are the non-telepath's rights to privacy greater than the telepath's rights to expected information. They should be equal. Luckily most telepaths Star Trek has come across have been peaceful and willing to wave their own rights.

 

I disagree. Just because one citizen has the ability to invade anothers privacy doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it. With that logic I could say that just because I'm holding a phaser and have the ability to use it doesn't mean I have the right to shoot anyone I want. Any citizen has the right to privacy. However abilities can be used by law enforcement such as Starfleet because they are there to protect the citizen of the Federation and to protect the citizens rights. But between a telepathic citizen and a non-telepathic citizen I don't think it should be allowed because that puts the non-telepathic at a disatvantage, since he(or she) can't defend herself against thought reading.

 

What about the onslaught of emotions to the telepath from the non trained and non telepathics? The telepath privacy is being invaded as well, so the mental road goes both ways.

 

A telepath would also have the rights to mentally defend themselves in this case, as well as be protected as a Feddy citizen if we really want to cover all aspects of this discussion.

 

What if another non telepath person willfully projected dark and murderous thoughts straight at a telepathic target? the flip side is if a telepath mentally projected dark thoughts to a non-telepath.

 

And what about a telepath slipping with their mental control? I sure wouldn't want all that mental energy slapping at me. What if a non telepath went "nuts" and had too much raw mental energy directed at a mental sensitive telepath?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. Just because one citizen has the ability to invade anothers privacy doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it. With that logic I could say that just because I'm holding a phaser and have the ability to use it doesn't mean I have the right to shoot anyone I want. Any citizen has the right to privacy.

 

If telepathic races existed, they would have an "inalienable" (pun intended) right to use their telepathy how and where they desired. Period. Some of this discussion errs in asserting the broadness of the right to privacy, which in the case of the U.S. Constitution is not even granted explicitly beyond the right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure. The "right to privacy" is a so-called "penumbra guarantee" that is based - at least in U.S. law - on preserving the reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, understanding the common desire for privacy, if a person conducts an action with a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Government must generally provide just cause to violate it. This cause can be pretty flimsy - they can ask how much money you make so they can tax you - not just reasons of security and law enforcement. If I know your name, I can Google you with no guilt or repercussions.

 

Anyone remember the original TOS episodes where you had to put your hand on a brightly-lit disc and promise to tell the truth or the computer would tell on you? I notice none of the later incarnations had it...

 

So, why my statement that they have a right to open use of telepathy? Consider: Starfleet encounters a species with an ability to see in wavelengths that happen to penetrate clothing. This ability may or may not be subject to toggle on/off. Must this species be restricted from using their normal "God-given/universe-evolved" X-ray vision ability because humans have a nudity taboo? Superman seems a fairly polite fellow, but he'll scan right down to your underwear if it suits his purpose - without a warrant. Consider the reverse: A color-blind species nevertheless reveals their emotional state by skin color. Are they allowed to walk around humans saying "Stop looking at me!"

 

(To be honest, this is like the two women who carried on a vocal, sexually explicit conversation next to me on the city bus, then seemed offended when I wondered aloud to a fellow student if we were getting Health class credit that day.)

 

In the instance of Spock / Valeris, we smash right into the conflict of rights versus security. Beyond telepathic concerns, this is the classic ticking bomb question: Is torture justified to prevent the impending deaths of others? In this instance, we're considering the forcible search and seizure of another telepath's intendedly private, self-incriminating thoughts. This would seem to violate telepathic ethics. Any such evidence obtained would probably not be admissible in prosecution. (But it's also the basis of every other episode of 24.) At least in the circumstances presented in ST:VI, Valeris has already admitted guilt, and Spock is seeking actionable evidence to prevent an assassination and potential war. But in the end, he gets only conspirator names, and Kirk must rely on Sulu to learn the conference location. So, the cause was just, the means were a violation, and they didn't even get the information. Justification is in the eye of the beholder.

 

At any rate, the phaser analogy is imperfect at best. Restricting telepaths completely is not a telling them to put away a phaser. It's putting out their eye with a sharp stick.

 

It would indeed be an interesting universe with such marvels as telepaths in it. But it would probably upend forever any expectation of privacy and probably alter life and law in culturally catastrophic ways. Star Trek is lucky theirs tend to be as polite as Betazoids or as tightly-protective as Vulcans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is invasion of privacy an inherently violent act?

 

Just look at the effect interactions with the Cairn had on Lwaxana Troi.

 

::zooms back from Trek Wiki also know as the Pit of Knowledge::

 

Given that the Cairn had no personal concept of privacy until the Federation came along and started diplomatic talks, I'd say that this particular case was not violent more of a misunderstanding.

 

Are you driving at any thing specific besides the Troi question Prof? I mean, are you asking about this from a Trek perspective or real life perspective? Both?

 

Either way (especially if it is more of a real life perspective question) the invasion of privacy as an inherent violent act is a pretty broad question, and you're going to get a lot of broad answers intermixed with strong personal opinions/rants. I mean, even with Trek discussions like this, people have pretty strong opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If telepathic races existed, they would have an "inalienable" (pun intended) right to use their telepathy how and where they desired. Period. Some of this discussion errs in asserting the broadness of the right to privacy, which in the case of the U.S. Constitution is not even granted explicitly beyond the right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure. The "right to privacy" is a so-called "penumbra guarantee" that is based - at least in U.S. law - on preserving the reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, understanding the common desire for privacy, if a person conducts an action with a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Government must generally provide just cause to violate it. This cause can be pretty flimsy - they can ask how much money you make so they can tax you - not just reasons of security and law enforcement. If I know your name, I can Google you with no guilt or repercussions.

 

This was the essence of a intramural moot court competition that I took part of as an undergraduate, is the right to privacy an implicit right. The case involved a sex offender who completed his sentence, but was still listed on the national sex offender list. The question was whether this violated his right of privacy (or whether such rights exist).

 

You're right, except for search and seizure provisions, the government needs only a rational basis to do so, slightly less than police's "probable cause." If the "right of privacy" was a fundamental right, then it would need to pass the strict scrutiny test (compelling government interest/least restrictive means).

 

Never though I would see the word pneumbera on these forums. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...as the writers of Star Trek learned, it's impossible to be completely consistent. While the writers made an effort to make Starfleet respectful of other cultures, it was not universal across the board... I think it's impossible to be completely neutral to all cultures and that right or wrong, sometimes values judgments are (and need to be) made.

 

A glaring example is the Deltans. According to ST:The Motion Picture, they're required to take an oath of celibacy just to join Starfleet. There's a unilateral solution if I ever heard one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this substitution to evaluate your answers: Torture in place of Telepathy. Don't limit yourself to the violent and painful tortures either. Ever tickle someone until they tell you what you want to know? I'd love to see that on some video out of Guantanamo Bay. It would make a great "Lil-Bush" cartoon episode, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I’m the Roddenberry idealist. A lot of folks are not going to approach things from the same slant. Still, I’d like to throw out another point of view.

 

In the political games I’ve played, the Prime Directive is not simply a Starfleet standing order, but built into the Federation Constitution. The TOS Tech Manual’s Federation Constitution (an all other Fed Constitution variants I’ve stumbled onto) is bused on the UN Charter. Neither the Assembly or the Security Council have police powers that apply on a member planet. The central government does not have the authority to attempt to alter local cultures. Doing so would be unconstitutional.

 

But as in the real world, the concept of human rights throws a curve ball into that. Members of the UN have signed human rights pacts. The US Bill of Rights implies the federal government should be protecting the rights of US citizens. The Federation of Planets has its Guaranteed rights of sentient beings. If a federal government has an obligation to protect the rights of citizens, must it not also have the police powers necessary to force a cultural shift on areas whose cultures do not fully embrace the applicable Bill of Rights?

 

Thus, in any debate involving a new planet joining the Federation, one of Joy’s strongest themes was making sure the new culture was fully compatible with the Guarantees. If not, she would strenuously object to membership. Membership would give every citizen of the new world the right to appeal to have their rights protected. This would obligate the Federation to step in and force a cultural change. This would be good for neither the Federation or the new member planet.

 

As an Idealist, I like to think that the US rights based on English Common Law and the 10th Amendment are explicit in the Guarantees. Thus, there would be a right to travel and a right to privacy.

 

But I don’t think the Right to Privacy is one size fits all. I believe different cultures might share some concepts of rights, but have different criteria for what ‘privacy’ or ‘self defense’ means. There might be a right to self defense, to respond with force when force is threatened, but I don’t believe every planet will interpret this as a right to carry weapons capable of lethal force. Some planets are just too pacifist for that. I don’t believe that a member of a warrior culture, who might have a right to bear lethal weapons on his home world, and might have a right to travel the Federation as a Federation citizen, would necessarily be able to carry lethal force wherever he wants.

 

Similarly, suppose a species I’ll call ‘the stinkers’ emits chemicals that smell bad to some races and are toxic to others. Would this not effect their right to travel? There is an informal principle, “your right to swing your fist around ends where my nose begins.” The right to do something in no way implies the right to harm another, or a right to infringe upon someone else’s rights. A stinker’s right to travel would well be limited by an obligation to wear isolation equipment. There would be no right to harm others, or to degrade other’s environment. On the other hand, if a member of another species were to visit the home world of the stinkers, the obligations would be on the visitor. Membership in the Federation should not require a world to turn themselves inside out and upside down for the convenience of visiting races. Membership in the Federation should in no way mandate that the home culture should be transformed.

 

That said, it might be accepted that there is a guaranteed right to privacy, but that different cultures interpret this right very differently. Mudd as I play it is a hive mind culture. They share all knowledge very freely. What one android knows, the others either know as well or can access very rapidly. Their notion of privacy is not the same as that of an organic being. Similarly, in a different way, privacy among a telepathic culture is apt to mean something very different than in a non-telepathic culture. Telepathy and empathy pull one towards a hive mind value set no less than Mudd’s wifi network. As with the stinkers, if one visits another culture, one would expect to have to accept the other’s world’s standards. As with the stinkers, membership in the Federation, or the possible presence of alien visitors, should not require a world to have to radically change its laws, cultures, and traditions.

 

A small example. A human male with no telepathic ability but an appreciation of the female form visits Betazed or Delta. There, his habit of ogling ladies and using his imagination becomes public knowledge. His emotions are no longer private, but can be shared by any near him. Among telepaths, there would be protocols and two way exchanges that govern sexual interactions. A human would be utterly incapable of participating in such a two way exchange. His unilateral emotions in no way reacting to the needs or desires of the other might well cause considerable distress. Should the female natives be expected to tolerate this? Is it not up to the visitor to avoid being disruptive?

 

Next, let the same hypothetical human male and the same telepathic female meet on Risa. On Risa, you have a culture of tourists ogling scantily clad females. It is a base part of the economy. Does the right to privacy mean the same thing on Betazed as it does on Risa? Should a female telepath who is not good with her shielding leave her own culture and go abroad? Should she not avoid Risa in particular?

 

I do think Starfleet would have to develop a one size fits all common Federation culture. On Excalibur, I’m playing Tia as a sight empath touch telepath without very good control. She notes that the vast majority of the crew are not telepaths, thus the non-telepathic standards of privacy should apply. If she learns or feels something that she shouldn’t really ought to have learned or felt, she feels an obligation to keep silent about it, to not share what she shouldn’t have, to not do anything that would make the non-telepath uncomfortable. (Well, if what she learned revealed a ‘clear and present danger’ to others, mission or ship, she’d have to reconsider, but that hasn’t come up yet.)

 

Excalibur at times can also be a very emotional place. She has been a times pounded by more emotions than she can easily tolerate. Again, as the odd telepath out, it would be her problem to adapt to the common culture rather than the common culture’s duty to comply with her. She is slowly improving her ability to shield. She may have to admit to weakness. She may have to request permission to leave highly emotional situations in order to unwind and cope.

 

On the other hand, touching is a big deal for touch telepath species. Vulcans tend not to shake hands, but make a greeting gesture, instead. Is it reasonable for a touch telepath to avoid touching? Tia is currently trying to avoid hand to hand combat training on that principle, and might suggest that if such training is considered absolutely necessary, that she take it on a holodeck. If the opponent has no mind, no problem. While the visitor might take the bulk of the burden of adapting to the local culture, should not the local culture make reasonable allowances for the special needs and limitations of aliens? Some flexibility seems appropriate?

 

OK. We’ve balanced the rights of the individual (Guarantees) against the limitations on the power of the federal government to alter local cultures (Prime Directive.) There is also the duty of the government to protect its citizens from violence and crime. Given probable cause, one might perform a search. Given a clear and present danger, one might declare a state of emergency or martial law that over rides the Guarantees.

 

As an Idealist, I’d like to think the Federation would respect the Guarantees and Prime Directive more than our current culture does. I’d like to think that forcing open someone’s mind would be a greater breech of privacy than scanning e-mails or opening letters. Star Trek generally pushes different themes than ’24,’ where there are terrorists with WMDs floating around in more episodes than not, and the need to torture to save lives is a common plot element.

 

But that’s just me. Everyone will want to explore different plot elements, and in that exploration advocate different values. I just find myself avoiding game environments where the themes and values are not consistent enough with my own that I can enjoy the game. A “Star Trek” culture where telepathy is commonly used to shuffle through the minds of unwilling others would just not be my thing. Non-telepathic cultures would still outnumber telepathic ones. I’d tend to think the non-telepathic version of privacy values would be more the norm. What a particular telepathic race does on its home planet would tend not to be the Federation's concern, though if the local standards of privacy are far enough away from the non-telepathic norm as to stress the Guarantees beyond tolerance, allowing membership in the Federation might not be prudent or wise.

Edited by Joy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A glaring example is the Deltans. According to ST:The Motion Picture, they're required to take an oath of celibacy just to join Starfleet. There's a unilateral solution if I ever heard one.

 

Though intercourse with a Deltan was also presented as being a major threat to the sanity of the Deltan's sexual partner. This might stand as an example of one's right to do something becoming void if doing so causes harm to others. I'm not sure that requiring that oath was the proper expression of the above principle, but Starfleet would have to be concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also an implicit assumption in what many of you are saying that the rules for Starfleet are the same as the rules for general citizens. Starfleet is a volunteer, (quasi-)military organization. Its officers are expected to follow rules that the general citizenry is not. As an extreme example, a Starfleet officer has to follow orders that will lead to his own death if his superior officer makes a lawful order to that effect. I doubt an average Federation citizen would have to obey the government under those circumstances.

 

So, back to the example of a Deltan -- for the average citizen, Federation sex-ed classes may teach about the dangers of intercourse with a Deltan, but leave it up to the individual humans and Deltans to make their own choices. In Starfleet, military discipline has to be maintained, and that is the responsibility of all officers. So, a Deltan has to take an oath of celibacy to join Starfleet. If they don't want to, they don't have to join Starfleet.

 

Similarly, regarding use of telepaths, Starfleet officers may be required to submit to telepathic examinations at the orders of their superiors. Incidentally, according to Mem Alpha, Valeris was convicted in a court martial (I haven't seen ST6 in a while, so, I don't know if that's canon). If true, that would tell us that the telepathic search and any evidence gathered from it was considered legally obtained.

 

How that extends to average citizens is not known. Otherwise, the government could root out criminal activity by sending telepaths around and conducting mind-searches. Come to think of it, Ferengi are resistant to telepathy. Perhaps that's one thing that's kept them able to sustain their commercial culture in a galaxy full of telepaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's also an implicit assumption in what many of you are saying that the rules for Starfleet are the same as the rules for general citizens. Starfleet is a volunteer, (quasi-)military organization. Its officers are expected to follow rules that the general citizenry is not. As an extreme example, a Starfleet officer has to follow orders that will lead to his own death if his superior officer makes a lawful order to that effect. I doubt an average Federation citizen would have to obey the government under those circumstances.

 

So, back to the example of a Deltan -- for the average citizen, Federation sex-ed classes may teach about the dangers of intercourse with a Deltan, but leave it up to the individual humans and Deltans to make their own choices. In Starfleet, military discipline has to be maintained, and that is the responsibility of all officers. So, a Deltan has to take an oath of celibacy to join Starfleet. If they don't want to, they don't have to join Starfleet.

 

Similarly, regarding use of telepaths, Starfleet officers may be required to submit to telepathic examinations at the orders of their superiors. Incidentally, according to Mem Alpha, Valeris was convicted in a court martial (I haven't seen ST6 in a while, so, I don't know if that's canon). If true, that would tell us that the telepathic search and any evidence gathered from it was considered legally obtained.

 

How that extends to average citizens is not known. Otherwise, the government could root out criminal activity by sending telepaths around and conducting mind-searches. Come to think of it, Ferengi are resistant to telepathy. Perhaps that's one thing that's kept them able to sustain their commercial culture in a galaxy full of telepaths.

I believe that it most likely would also apply to the average citizen, most likely on the circumstances that no harm shall be done to them in the process. It would be like taking a blood sample from suspects of a murder to compare it with the blood (of the injured murderer) on the weapon that they used (same for a hair, fingerprint, ect.).

~Ali

Edited by Aliana Lucindak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Similarly, regarding use of telepaths, Starfleet officers may be required to submit to telepathic examinations at the orders of their superiors. Incidentally, according to Mem Alpha, Valeris was convicted in a court martial (I haven't seen ST6 in a while, so, I don't know if that's canon). If true, that would tell us that the telepathic search and any evidence gathered from it was considered legally obtained.

 

How that extends to average citizens is not known. Otherwise, the government could root out criminal activity by sending telepaths around and conducting mind-searches. Come to think of it, Ferengi are resistant to telepathy. Perhaps that's one thing that's kept them able to sustain their commercial culture in a galaxy full of telepaths.

 

There is also a question on whether cultures remain aggressively competitive. The Ferrengi are presented as extreme capitalists, out to maximize their own profits at the expense of anyone and everyone else. Many of the militaristic races are also aggressively competitive, seeking victory, conquest or power.

 

This is again a distinction between Roddenberry Trek and Berman Trek. Roddenberry Trek races have near infinite energy, adequate territory and fascinating exploration and research tasks. You have Risa and their vacation spas, Vulcans with their science, and assorted highly sensuous races into social interactions. There would be no poverty, and no need for crime. Detention and rehabilitation facilities are built on South Seas paradise islands and more closely resemble modern resorts than modern prisons. This is an extension of the Golden Age science fiction tradition that science can make things better, that future cultures will be different from current cultures. More 'modern' fiction prefers to postulate that war and conflict will be perpetual. Sentient beings are after all sentient beings, and will inevitably be greedy and aggressive. Otherwise, it is difficult to come up with interesting story lines and compete in the ratings with more violent shows.

 

If there are sufficient resources to answer everyone's needs and most to any reasonable wants, where are the breeding grounds of crime and terror? What is the need for Mind Police? At what point did we stop writing anti-utopia stories like 1984 where authoritarian heavily controlling government was presented as a horrific danger? When did we start celebrating the need for the authoritarian draconic authority that was once feared?

 

But the future is far enough out there that it is possible to hypothesize any number of extremes. I am just more fond of the more optimistic possibilities. We have come far since the days when war of aggression against a neighboring major power was nigh on inevitable in Europe, when Bills of Rights did not exist, when disagreement on religion was a burning offense, and slavery was common. I'd like to think that the problems we have yet to overcome might be overcome, and would prefer to spend at least some of my fantasy time considering what it might take to make the ideals work. I'm not ready to give up on Democracy and Human Rights. I know my characters aren't.

Edited by Joy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES -he was justified for hurting his best friends in the world -he was really psssted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0