this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
475 points (93.3% liked)

TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name

3751 readers
665 users here now

/c/TenFoward: Your home-away-from-home for all things Star Trek!

Re-route power to the shields, emit a tachyon pulse through the deflector, and post all the nonsense you want. Within reason of course.

~ 1. No bigotry. This is a Star Trek community. Remember that diversity and coexistence are Star Trek values. Any post/comments that are racist, anti-LGBT, or generally "othering" of a group will result in removal/ban.

~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen both on lore and preferences. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.

~ 3. Use spoiler tags. This applies to any episodes that have dropped within 3 months prior of your posting. After that it's free game.

~ 4. Keep it Trek related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.

~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love Star Trek stuff but 3-4 posts in an hour is plenty enough.

~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.

~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon'

~ 8. No Political Upheaval. Political commentary is allowed, but please keep discussions civil. Read here for our community's expectations.

Fun will now commence.


Sister Communities:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Want your community to be added to the sidebar? Just ask one of our mods!


Honorary Badbitch:

@[email protected] for realizing that the line used to be "want to be added to the sidebar?" and capitalized on it. Congratulations and welcome to the sidebar. Stamets is both ashamed and proud.


Creator Resources:

Looking for a Star Trek screencap? (TrekCore)

Looking for the right Star Trek typeface/font for your meme? (Thank you @kellyaster for putting this together!)


founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 day ago (10 children)

Here is my take, assuming:

  • We have the ability to remove all birth anomalies
  • It is safe and effective, i.e. not an experimental technique
  • It is not controversial, i.e. curing sickle cell is just the done thing\
  • Scanning tech is much better than today

Situation 1:
Woman learns she is pregnant, say week 6. Gets a routine scan on the embryo. She discovers it has a genetic disorder. That will cause it to not be able to breathe well, running and playing will not be an option for your baby, they will survive; sweet no brainer there; splice in the fix doc. Correction is spliced in the next week, monitoring for rest of normal pregnancy.

Situation 2:
Woman learns she is pregnant, say week 6. Gets a routine scan on the embryo. Doctor says, looks like there is a genetic defect, the audio nerve is not going to develop normally, your baby will hear badly at birth, and then over the next two years will go permanently deaf. Implants could fix this issue after birth, and living as a deaf person is not difficult. However we can ensure that the nerve develops normally and your baby will have perfectly normal hearing.

In situation 1, the obvious answer is to fix the issue, having life long breathing difficulties that could easily be avoided would be cruel.
In situation 2, in my opinion it would also be cruel to impose on a kid; hey we could have fixed your hearing in a safe and effective way, but we decided for you before you were born that you would be "special".

I get where people are coming from, but they are looking at it with 2024 eyes, not 2424 eyes. Why would you impose on a kid, who has no say in the matter, a disability? Because that is the choice you are making, you are imposing a disability on a child that does not need to be there.

We currently give women folate, to protect against neural tube defects; along with a bunch of other interventions. We are already "interfering" with the "natural" progress of pregnancy and birth, we are only going to get better at it.

And also the conflating of eugenics and fixing birth defects is completely off base. These are only related by the fact that breeding is involved; they have nothing in common beyond that. In the same way that my kitchen knives would make great stabbing weapons, but cooking and stabbing only really have the tools in common.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Fetus is developing normally, except it has no ocular nerves. There is no cure for this. Baby is born and neural interfaces are implanted, along with a device for feeding EM sensory data directly into the brain.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

And also the conflating of eugenics and fixing birth defects is completely off base

It's not off base and what you're describing is called liberal eugenics, or new eugenics.

[...] some critics, such as UC Berkeley sociologist Troy Duster, have argued that modern genetics is a "back door to eugenics".

I'm sure the laws set in place after the eugenics wars would be strict enough to not leave such wiggle room.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 109 points 2 days ago (9 children)

I mean, in response to the last one, the Federation does allow (and sometimes advocates) for the correction of birth defects.

Julian: DNA resequencing for any reason other than repairing serious birth defects is illegal. Any genetically enhanced human being is barred from serving in Starfleet or practising medicine.

Deep Space Nine, "Doctor Bashir, I presume"

Doctor: Yes. It's a girl. And aside from the deviated spine, she's healthy.

Paris: Will she need surgery?

Doctor: Fortunately, we've advanced beyond that. Genetic modification is the treatment of choice.

Voyager, "Lineage"

So I imagine plenty of disabilities do end up being erased, it's just that being disabled is also socially accepted to a much greater extent than today.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 2 days ago (1 children)

To add here, not everyone is born with disability but sometimes shit just happens

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Yeah, I think for Geordy his eyes just got consistently worse until he was blind without a visor. On Ba'ku his eyes recovered briefly.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

He was born blind and remained blind until he got his first VISOR at 5 years old. It's in the TNG episode Hero Worship. His optical nerve was regenerating on Ba'ku but whatever his disability, it would eat away at it once he left the planet.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago

“DNA resequencing”

If someone in Star Trek is born with a bum knee, they just laser surgery the knee. Deformed backbone, replicate a new backbone. A lot of defects and disabilities can be solved by 24th-century medicine without involving genetics.

McCoy gave that old lady a pill and she regrew her kidney using her own aged body inside of an hour. Apparently, fixes of that type are an over the counter prescription and don’t run afoul of the eugenics laws either.

Approved genetic modifications is more for things like conjoined births or fetal organ failure. Too many toes? Here’s some special shoes, carry on.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

This is a stupid take as well. There is also evidence that the federation does practice the correction of birth defects and disabilities when appropriate.

And why would they not? Allowing such impairments to exist when the medical technology to prevent it is available seems insanely unethical to me. Like breeding pugs because if people stopped doing that the breed would cease to exist, ignoring the fact that being a pug is a miserable existence for the animal.

I believe the most sensible policy for the federation (and us in real life) would be to correct any and all birth defects, disabilities and impairments wherever possible, while accommodating and fostering compassion and acceptance for the cases where it is not possible.

Disabled people are not lesser than anyone else and should have the same capacity to participate in society, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try everything to prevent people from being disabled.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Allowing such impairments to exist when the medical technology to prevent it is available seems insanely unethical to me.

There's a not insignificant minority of the deaf population who believes that there should be no "cure" to deafness researched or put into practice because they believe it will destroy their community to have children receive this cure at birth. They literally want to deny children the ability to hear, even though we might be able to cure deafness with genetic engineering or other tech

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am aware of that sentiment and consequently find it selfish and ethically objectionable. While I understand that a special bond is formed this way, that happens anyway between halfway decent parents and their offspring because they love each other.

That is not a good enough reason to deny your child one of its senses.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ok, but I think speaking people need to understand the Deaf perspective as more than just “community” but as also being informed by speaking people, especially experts and medical professionals routinely disregarding the needs and wants of Deaf people to force us into their society. After all CODAs are Deaf too.

For context, I’m a hard of hearing woman who was, at the suggestion of experts, “mainstreamed” (ie my parents were told not to learn sign language or teach it to me because I might prefer it to spoken language), my mother and grandmother also had that experience. I feel cheated out of community, culture, and communication. I learned some sign as an adult but it should’ve been a native language because it’s a language I don’t need assistive devices for

Cochlear implants are great! They’re also uncomfortable to learn to use and painful at first even for adults. But when the question comes up as to whether young children should get them we’re treated as crazy for saying that the child should be taught sign language and given a choice. But instead hearing parents of deaf children usually don’t bother learning sign language.

We might start trusting y’all when you start demonstrating that you care more about what’s best for us than what makes us easier to deal with for y’all.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago

Plus in Geordie's case, his visor gives him better than normal sight. He can look at parts of the electromagnetic spectrum other than the visible wavelengths, so restoring his natural sight would have been giving him a handicap rather than removing one.

Also the whole "that disability is a part of who they are" sounds a lot like reducing people to their disabilities. Like it's one thing if there's nothing that can be done or if the best we can do isn't enough to cause it to no longer be a disability, then they should be accepted disability and all. But it's another thing if the disability could be corrected or made redundant (like Geordie's visor giving him better than normal vision).

I don't think the timing will work out for me, but if cybernetics get going during my lifetime, I'd consider getting augmentations. A coprocessor and memory expansions would be great, though I'd probably need tin foil hats or a magneto helmet to protect from solar flares and EMPs.

It's crazy to me that some people think improving people's capabilities, disabled or not, is unethical. No one bats an eye if someone gets a broken arm set properly to avoid it becoming a disability.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

This is the breath of fresh air this dumb post made me need. Thank you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 63 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My only problem with this is that Geordi made it clear more than once that not only would he rather just be able to see, but that his VISOR caused him constant pain. I wouldn't really call that accommodating for his blindness if that's what was required to get into Starfleet later.

And, of course, that was what made it so impactful when he finally had eyes that worked.

And then there was Melora on DS9. Starfleet could have done so many things to fulfill her dream of traveling the stars without having her be stuck in the chair in near-1g environments or accept Bashir's treatments. In fact, the only reason so few Elaysians ever left their homeworld was that everyone else was fine with 1g and no one gave a shit about their needs.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Geordi made it clear more than once that not only would he rather just be able to see, but that his VISOR caused him constant pain

it was also suggested that his visor was "superior to human eyes". star trek is habitually inconsistent about its world and sometimes it is better not to think about it too much.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 days ago (8 children)

I don't think that's contradictory at all though.

Geordi wanted to be able to see [naturally], but his visor is superior to human eyes in that it can see things that humans can't naturally see.

To put it a different way: a person with advanced bionic legs that never tire, could run far faster than any natural human, and bend in ways that human legs can't, would have superior legs. But there wouldn't be anything wrong with their stance if they said "yeah but I just want normal human legs".

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Geordie's new eyes were still bionic though weren't they? It's been a while, but I'm sure I remember him using them to search for someone in the movie.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

Yes, they're still bionic

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

https://youtu.be/bqm_Iq8rFeg?t=16

"Surely by the 24th century, they would have found a cure for male pattern baldness." Gene Roddenberry had the perfect response.

"No, by the 24th century, no one will care."

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Let it be known, however, that Gene did say this after aggressively petitioning against Patrick Stewart as Captain. His baldness was specifically mentioned. According to Patrick anyway

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

well, he didn't mention that in the bloody video. I blame Patrick Stewart for making me look like a fool.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Patrick has been telling this story for a while at the panels, Frakes and others will tell it too. Sometimes it comes with that caveat and sometimes not. I'll see if I can find the clip where he talks about that.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Meanwhile Shatner was stealing half a dozen of Kirk's toupées every season...

[–] [email protected] 46 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"curing at birth" != "Eugenics"

Still, the spirit of accommodation is spot on.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

They're not totally wrong either, just missing a step and leaving a gap.

Genetic engineering is strictly outlawed in the UFP which came about from the Eugenics wars.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago

The point about accomodation is the key here.

If being born without functioning legs isn't actually an impediment or challenge because society makes allowances for people without legs, then it's no longer a handicap!

If a blind person has options beyond merely having their sight "restored" to that of the baseline "normal", then they have options that might open up paths that regularly sighted people don't have, in which case their unique trait of being blind becomes an asset.

There's the secret to the utopia Star Trek positsv not that we try to "cute" everyone born different, but that we instead create opportunities for them to thrive as they are. In the future of Star Trek, the word "disability" is probably alien to them. Rather, they would describe someone in our time with such challenges as "disenfranchised" because we don't offer them opportunities.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I see names being mentioned and It’s problematic when someone assumes disabilities by armchair diagnosing characters with a disability and then defend it as if it were true.

“I assume normies would find this character annoying as they have some quirky, slight misunderstandings of personal boundaries so I’m going to attribute them with ‘being on the spectrum’”

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That isn't happening though.

Geordi is blind, Julian was genetically engineered to remove a learning disability and Tilly is stated as having special needs while being aggressively autistically coded.

The only one that doesn't have something directly pointing towards it is Barclay but that man is the textbook definition of Aspergers Syndrome and people have been saying it for decades. It's not like his issues are minor either. They're a significant core component of the character.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago

Just FYI, "Asperger's Syndrome" is no longer used as a medical term and some ND people do not care for it being used at all because it divides people on the autism spectrum unnecessarily, especially since there's no real separation in terms of symptoms. Everything falls under "autism spectrum disorder" (ASD) now.

https://www.healthline.com/health/autism/why-is-the-term-aspergers-no-longer-used#the-removal-of-aspergers

(I realize you didn't mean to offend, just letting you know.)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago

Very few characters are ever seen wearing glasses.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Why the fuck is Julian mentioned here along with the actually differently abled characters? He was genetically enhanced as a youth because his parents thought he was a little slow.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well... you just sort of answered why.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I just feel like, at best, he's more of an example of the other camp. He didn't have anything wrong with him, his parents just wanted him to be more.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

In Bashir's own words:

"Small for my age, a bit awkward physically, not very bright. In the first grade, while the other children were learning how to read and write and use the computer, I was still trying to tell a dog from a cat, a tree from a house. I didn't really understand what was happening. I knew that I wasn't doing as well as my classmates. There were so many concepts that they took for granted that I couldn't begin to master and I didn't know why. All I knew was that I was a great disappointment to my parents."

When he talks to his parents about it they talk about how they saw him "fallling farther behind each day" and that's why they did the treatments. They loved him and did want him to be more, but the cause was quite clearly a learning or mental disability of some variety. The treatments started at 7 years old and first grade would have been at 5 or 6. If you're not able to tell a tree from a house at 5 or 6 then there's something far more wrong than simply being slow.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›