View Single Post
Old March 12 2013, 01:40 AM   #35
Vice Admiral
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Questions on Insurrection, on the Baku

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post

Because he was a representative of the same people who came to move them? So what if he outwardly appeared genial and conciliatory? Should they be naive enough to take that at face value, after what they'd been through?

You are still harping on the Ba'ku being forced to leave, when that is absolutely not the only choice possible here.

The rings, we are told, regenerate constantly, or at least they will, until the collector sucks all the magic out of them for good, which will make the planet uninhabitable "for generations." So, the Federation would take what is apparently a renewable resource and turn it into a non-renewable one, in order to make it more convenient. That is worth questioning, too.

There's no indication given in the film that the Ba'ku would be against other settlements on the planet, as long as they respected the Ba'ku way, or at least didn't shit up the place too much. Locutus went into this in some detail so I'm not going to repeat him. Suffice it to say, making it a binary choice between "Ba'ku stay" and "Ba'ku go" ignores the other possibilities, and it's the only way to make your argument work.

They choose keeping their homes over helping billions of people they do not know and have no interest in.

Tell me, how much do you go without so you can help people you've never met? Would you give up your home for the benefit of strangers if asked? Would you be okay with being deceived into it? What about being forced to at gunpoint? Those are the scenarios you are promoting.

The group in question is not the issue. I wouldn't care if it's the Ba'ku, a tribe of Native Americans, or a colony of sentient garden gnomes. Forcing people to leave their homes to benefit others is wrong.

Seems kind of weird that they wouldn't recognize their own kin, but it's been a while since I saw the movie, so you may be right.

I'm just amazed at this notion that making someone move for a greater good is like one of the biggest rights violations out there. You must think that eminent domain and episodes like "journey's end" are just horrifying. And yes, I know, the difference is citizenship, but that's a legal distinction, not an ethical one. If the UFP granted automatic citizenship to the Baku retroactively and to be guaranteed after the relocation, would that change what's done? I guess it's just an unbridgeable gap in philosophy. To me, resettlement IF there's a legitimate greater good for doing it, is reasonable and acceptable.
How is it reasonable? They either take injections for the rest of their lives, destroying their culture of no technology, or they are moved off planet and given a death sentence. How is that a reasonable compromise?

er, because BILLIONS are going to get medical benefits from it? The Baku may not care, but that is part of the equation.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote