Strange New Worlds season 2 - SPOILERS

[Paul Farquhar]

I feel the attempt to defend the parents is the real heart of the allegorical problems.

It's wrong to defend people for acting in accordance with their religious beliefs?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've seen at least one trans reviewer call it one of the best and most important episodes in all of Star Trek, so at the very least that opinion is not universally held.

I'm sure it's not - no opinion is - but I've seen the opposite among trans people I know.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's wrong to defend people for acting in accordance with their religious beliefs?

It absolutely can be. There's not a society on Earth that allows totally unrestricted action in accordance with the very malleable realm of "religious beliefs" and a utopian society would absolutely have to have limits on that kind of action. We can't discuss RL religion in general but I can think of dozens of examples of religious practices that are illegal in even the most open-minded societies. Some forms of body modification, for example, are left alone primarily because they're not clear harm, but rather neutral changes - others are clear harm and made illegal.

It's even murkier with "cultural practices" - gigantic swathes of those are illegal, often for extremely good reasons.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm sure it's not - no opinion is - but I've seen the opposite among trans people I know.

It's a difficult square to circle, but I think its a matter of prioritising competing moralities, with "first do no harm" at the top.

There is nothing to suggest that the belief's of Una's parents where causing harm to others. And the Federation's aversion to Eugenics is also akin to religious.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's a difficult square to circle, but I think its a matter of prioritising competing moralities, with "first do no harm" at the top.

There is nothing to suggest that the belief's of Una's parents where causing harm to others.

I disagree, and so does the Federation, clearly. They're also questionable because they don't match up with the previous approach of the Illyrians, which was specifically to modify to fit environments - like inverse terraforming (a sci fi concept I first met in a videogame in the 1980s).

Edit - A further unexplored issue was whether the Illyrians on Una's planet wanted the planet to join the Federation. The general tone she uses and behaviour of the parents in passing seems to suggest yes, but it's unclear. If you're voluntarily joining a society by choice generally you expect to follow the rules of that society, especially extremely well-known and big deal ones like the Federation's outlawing of gene modding. Whereas if you're forced into something by a decision you disagree with things become more complex - Una implied those who disagreed left though.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I disagree, and so does the Federation, clearly. They're also questionable because they don't match up with the previous approach of the Illyrians, which was specifically to modify to fit environments - like inverse terraforming (a sci fi concept I first met in a videogame in the 1980s).

Edit - A further unexplored issue was whether the Illyrians on Una's planet wanted the planet to join the Federation. The general tone she uses and behaviour of the parents in passing seems to suggest yes, but it's unclear. If you're voluntarily joining a society by choice generally you expect to follow the rules of that society, especially extremely well-known and big deal ones like the Federation's outlawing of gene modding. Whereas if you're forced into something by a decision you disagree with things become more complex - Una implied those who disagreed left though.

I could point to several examples of unifications made for economic reasons that where not socially popular. It's rare that everyone agrees.

But really, looking at the details here is to miss the message.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I could point to several examples of unifications made for economic reasons that where not socially popular. It's rare that everyone agrees.

But really, looking at the details here is to miss the message.

Which brings me back to my core point - unnecessarily and frankly bad decisions re what details to include and focus on severely impair the message. In fact for me they destroyed it.

None of that had to happen. It is 100% on the writers of this episode attempting to broach a subject and episode style they were ill-equipped to deal with. Hardly a first for Star Trek but disappointing when SNW has otherwise done very well on virtually everything it attempts.

I didn't discuss S2E1, but I thought that was a much better example of knowing when to detail and when not, and when to kick the ball generally. It wasn't flawless but it worked way better than it might seem like it would, on paper. Some elements are questionable on analysis but they're just the "Hmmmm really?" (like building an entire large starship from nicked parts underground in a few months) kind not the "Opening up a whole ethical can of worms" kind.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Which brings me back to my core point - unnecessarily and frankly bad decisions re what details to include and focus on severely impair the message. In fact for me they destroyed it.

I think that's just you. The episode seems to have been generally well received.

One thing I find difficult, as an atheist, is to have to constantly remind myself to be accepting and tolerant of people of faith.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Kirk is a real time travel magnet. Also, apparently, a bullet magnet.

 

[Mort]

Kirk is a real time travel magnet. Also, apparently, a bullet magnet.

There's a reason Kirk's name is basically a swear word among the time cop guys!

I really liked this episode. Sure, especially as a time travel one, there are ENDLESS knits to pick. But, unlike (way too) many time travel focused episodes I felt this one had some heft and really resonated - even at the end.