Thread: Borg Theories
View Single Post
Old June 24 2009, 07:59 PM   #39
Fleet Captain
hyzmarca's Avatar
Re: Borg Theories

Sci wrote: View Post
If the Borg are victims of disaaster, that takes something away from them. If they are the product of the same sociological forces that shape and mold us, forces and are, in and of themselves, good, then we can see ourselves in them. And more importantly, they serve as body horror on a societal level, a dire warning of what our grandchildren's grandchildren may become as our society progresses.
In other words, a boring and predictable allegory unless it's in the hands of a particularly skilled writer. We've heard it all before -- "Be careful how we adapt new technologies or they'll adapt us!"
Then you're missing my point. I was trying to say "our society will change, and what it will become will most likely shock and horrify us, just as the society of today is likely to shock and horrify someone from the distant past. Our children will no more share our sensibilities than we share those of our parents, and their children will no more share their sensibilities than they share ours. Advances in technology only accelerate the rate of social change."

The Borg aren't wrong, they aren't evil, they're merely a different perspective, one that is antithetical to ours. They chose this perspective for themselves through centuries of social evolution. It isn't that their technology changed them, quite the opposite. They changed the way they used their technology as their society began placing less and less value on individuality and more on social harmony, knowledge sharing, and distributed problem solving, to the point that individuality just fell by the wayside.

It's no different from the ancient ancestor species of the Great Apes putting more emphasis on walking than on climbing through trees and gradually losing its tail.

Do you think that an fifteen million year old Hylobatidae would recognize humans as being related to it. Do you think it would believe that we strange furless tailless creatures are its n-th generation descendants? Of course not.

A man plucked out of time from the American South just a fifty years ago would not be comfortable living in a world in which Whites and Coloreds are allowed to use the same water fountain. That certainly doesn't make us wrong for permitting it any more than we are wrong for not having tails or for walking upright. But it does make us alien. We are ever so slightly alien to the man who grew up in a casually racist society. We are extremely alien to our ancient Lesser Ape ancestor who probably cannot even comprehend being such as ourselves.

Huge changes can take place in short time, and the more time passes the more alien a society becomes relative to a member of that society plucked out of time. The Borg aren't wrong, they're just alien, alien to us, and alien to the race that they once were.

Our n-th generation descendants will be just as alien to us as the Borg are and their n-th generation descendants will be just as alien to them. That cannot be prevented, it's just the way of things. The best, the very best we can do, is lay down a foundation of knowledge and of basic morality and hope our children maintain it and use it well, and pass it on to their children.

They'll inevitably change this foundation that we teach them and add to it, of course, and they'll do so in ways that we cannot predict long after we are gone. We can expect nothing less of them, it would be wrong of them to stagnate by clinging to our beliefs religiously, just as it would be wrong for us to cling to racism just because our recent ancestors believed in it.

But knowing this makes what they will become no less alien, and what values they may choose for themselves no less potentially horrific.

Sci wrote: View Post
Da'an wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post

They need both. There's no point in telling a plausible but uncompelling story.
Real life doesn't work like a TV show, that origin idea is good because it's so plausible.
Of course it doesn't.

But Star Trek is not real life, nor has it ever been particularly Realistic/Naturalistic. Star Trek, at its best, is a well-written Melodrama. And there's nothing wrong with that or dramatically inferior about that; Realism/Naturalism is not inherently superior to Melodrama.

But Trek's first obligation is to tell a good story, not to end up sounding like a newspaper article.
Unless Star Trek has reconnected All Good Things so that life on Earth was created by giant robots from the future fighting a war instead of appearing spontaneously from primordial ooze, it's difficult to complain. Genetic seeding and Preservers aside, practically every race in Star Trek has the generic "evolved naturally" origin.

If "evolved naturally" isn't dramatic, why is it that they can get away with having this plain undramatic origins but yet the Borg, in your opinion, cannot?

I'm pretty sure that I can guess at this one, because they never spend an entire episode just sitting around and watching primordial ooze bubble or lesser apes crawling along the ground. Because billions of years of natural evolution isn't worth dedicating an entire episode to, or an entire book.

And if the origin I gave were canon, they'd also not dedicate an entire episode to it. At best, they'd give a few lines of dialog and maybe thirty seconds of CGI. It isn't something sufficiently dramatic to carry a whole episode or a whole movie or a whole book, but neither is natural selection as proposed by Darwin. Both, however, a worthy of fifteen seconds or expository dialog, and put the proper context on things.

Last edited by hyzmarca; June 24 2009 at 10:25 PM.
hyzmarca is offline   Reply With Quote