TNG - The Masterpiece Society

[Frustration]

Most attempts to start alternative societies in the real world failed, and the reason seems to be that when it comes time to make major compromises to maintain that society, it's usually easier to bail and go back to the mainstream. Only when people have powerful religious beliefs that aren't compatible with the mainstream will they buckle down.

It's not quite that simple - the founders of alternate societies tend to have strange and error-ridden beliefs about human motivations, and their designs would probably break down no matter what. This fictional society seems to have actually worked internally, its people were pretty content. But it was also isolated for a good reason: anyone leaving would cause the system to start to break down, causing ever-increasing social failures. It was a 'hothouse' civilization, capable of existing only in specific and highly limited conditions.

Has SF Debris ever covered the TNG episode with the primitive people whose world is being destroyed and are rescued by Worf's foster brother? That would seem like a much better case to argue about the merits and interpretation of the Prime Directive.

[CharlesPhipps]

I think that's a bad case because its obvious there's no benefit to not intervening. One of them commits suicide but that's because they screwed it up.

[CrypticMirror]

Has SF Debris ever covered the TNG episode with the primitive people whose world is being destroyed and are rescued by Worf's foster brother? That would seem like a much better case to argue about the merits and interpretation of the Prime Directive.

AKA The worst episode Trek ever produced, and which ought to be ejected from the canon and wiped from existence entirely. It was bad on every level. Trek has done bad episodes before, and boring episodes, and offensive, and episodes with contradictory character and world building portrayals, but that was bad and boring and offensive and broke characterisation and world building all in a single episode.

[Frustration]

Worse than "Threshold"? I don't think "Homeward" (that seems to have been the title of the episode) was particularly bad; I do recall it induced a lot of fan argument.

Perhaps I just find philosophic arguing more interesting than you do.

[CrypticMirror]

Threshold has a certain camp value to it, I mean giant newt sex... How can you not at least appreciate the absurdity to that. Homeward is just offensive and dull. It harms the canon just by its very presence, and it harms the fandom by enabling the asshole wing of it to harp on about it too.

[Frustration]

I think that's a bad case because its obvious there's no benefit to not intervening.

If you can't imagine anyone arguing an opposing view, that is precisely why it's important to invite opposing views. 'Cause I for one think you're wrong.

[Riedquat]

Threshold has a certain camp value to it, I mean giant newt sex... How can you not at least appreciate the absurdity to that. Homeward is just offensive and dull. It harms the canon just by its very presence, and it harms the fandom by enabling the asshole wing of it to harp on about it too.

I don't even remember that episode. Personally speaking the most offensive episode of Trek for me was Dear Doctor.

[AllanO]

It’s funny how a supposedly happy and perfect society, which during the crisis The Enterprise would have had very limited contact with the population considering how anal the leadership was about isolation, thousands of its “happy” and “content” citizens immediately said “screw this place I want asylum” the instant an alternative was presented.

I mean this probably just reveals bad world building but according to the episode 23 colonists are leaving at the end not thousands. However apparently the society is so carefully constructed that even losing 23 is a serious threat. Whether such a delicate society makes any sense as I say I am not sure, it has to have been a robust enough society to last 100+ years but also so fragile that a small lose like that might be fatal?

I would say that I think indeed the point is that societies change, humanity went through all the transformations you mention. There is evidence that at one point in humanity's past only a few thousand individuals, at that point an alien visitor might have concluded our society was a failure and decided to save us and replace our doomed civilization with something better then they would have saved those thousands of humans but destroyed all subsequent human accomplishment. I think the people of the colony in the Masterpiece Society have as good odds as that ancient human bottleneck (if it existed) of surviving and developing into something else. Presumably building the community the Enterprise finds took time, it did not go from colony ship in orbit, to the same biodome for 100+ plus years with no intermediate stages in between, the society prized stability I see no evidence they did not change at all or were never going to again (then again as I said this society may just not make any sense). Perhaps in a few decades they would have decided to rejoin the galaxy anyway in order to expand their horizons and realize their ideals, perhaps they would have decided to use genetics to breed a race of augmented super warriors and conquer the galaxy Eugenics War II: Electric Boogaloo.

[pilight]

I suspect Conor is exaggerating the harm losing a couple dozen colonists leaving will do in an effort to persuade Picard to refuse them passage. He didn't seem overly alarmed when talking to Troi about it afterwards. They can breed new scientists, after all.

[CharlesPhipps]

If you can't imagine anyone arguing an opposing view, that is precisely why it's important to invite opposing views. 'Cause I for one think you're wrong.

Allow me to elaborate.

It's a bad example because in "Homeward" the choices are:

1. We possibly freak them the fuck out because aliens are real.

2. They all die ignorant.

Extinction is pretty hard to argue against as the worst option there.

It's often considered to be the worst episode of Star Trek by many because it basically has Sir Patrick putting the Prime Directive over the people it's supposed to protect. If the Prime Directive is about avoiding exploitation, leaving people to extinction is the worst possible interpretation.