Borg Theories

[Sci]

hyzmarca wrote:

---

Any nanotech origin for the Borg comes pre-Jossed. The Borg got their nanotech from Species 149. Assuming that there numbering scheme makes any sense, that was early in their carreer but still well after they started doing their Borg thing.

According to Memory Alpha, they didn't get their nano technology from Species 149, they got their procedure for reviving dead drones using nanoprobles from them.

I prefer the gradual transhumanist explanation, because it's so believable. Start with one small neurological implant that becomes ubiquitous due to it's utility, perhaps a wireless DNI that allows one to operate a computer and access the internet with thought alone. From there, you start adding features and designing new implants. Practically everything that the Borg has is of serious utility value to an individual. most woundly want all the implants, but many would want at least one or two. The DNI is a no-brainer, and super strength is nice, too.

Now, the problem comes in which the DNI implant starts being used for P2P chatting rather than just as a fancy keyboard and moniter. At first its no problem, because the brains remain seperate. But firmware updates that allow more inttimate mind sharing are inevitable, untill you end up mini-collective clusters,

Fascinating drama you have there.

Jono wrote:

---

Complete agree.

That's one of the major reasons why I don't like the Destiny novels.

I think you should consider forgiving the "Destiny" trilogy. For one, Humans weren't the first Borg -- a small number of temporally-displaced Humans were the first victims of the Borg. Secondly, having Humans as the first victims of the Borg gives the trilogy a thematic symmetry as a meditation on how one reacts to one's impending death that it would lack if the first victims were some other species. Thirdly, it nicely explains both why the Borg are referred to by a contraction of the English name for cybernetic organisms AND why the Borg were irrationally fixated on Humans throughout VOY.

I'm not normally a fan of making Humans the center of the universe, either, but in the case of the "Destiny" trilogy, it works.

[SilentP]

Ooo, btw, Sci, thanks for recommending the Destiny trilogy, very engrossing Just finished the second one last night.

[hyzmarca]

Sci wrote:

---

According to Memory Alpha, they didn't get their nano technology from Species 149, they got their procedure for reviving dead drones using nanoprobles from them.

Fascinating drama you have there.

Origin stories don't need drama, they need plausibility. How did humanity come into being? Evolution via natural selection over millions of years. Klingons? Same thing. Vulcans? Same thing.

Besides, it's very frightening and very poignant to understand how minor sociological and technological changes over time can end up transforming a race much like us into something that is totally alien in its mindset. If the Borg are victims of disaster, 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.

Really, Evil Being X transforming an entire race into drones is cliche and it's safe. Space Hitler is always a great villain, not just because one can hate him without feeling bad about it, but because he assures us that it really can't happen here.

But a series of decisions, a series of transformations, each of which were individually good and right and widely accepted, producing something so horrible, that at least makes you think, which Star Trek is supposed to do. Everyone knows that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but sometimes it is paved by good actions, too. We cannot know how our decisions today will impact the society of a thousand years from now. And it's hard to come up with something far more frightening than that. It's not just that the Borg are genocidal conquerors from our point of view, but that we may very well become like them in a few thousand years time.

[Jono]

Sci wrote:

---

I think you should consider forgiving the "Destiny" trilogy. For one, Humans weren't the first Borg -- a small number of temporally-displaced Humans were the first victims of the Borg. Secondly, having Humans as the first victims of the Borg gives the trilogy a thematic symmetry as a meditation on how one reacts to one's impending death that it would lack if the first victims were some other species. Thirdly, it nicely explains both why the Borg are referred to by a contraction of the English name for cybernetic organisms AND why the Borg were irrationally fixated on Humans throughout VOY.

I'm not normally a fan of making Humans the center of the universe, either, but in the case of the "Destiny" trilogy, it works.

Well, I don't think I have to forgive the novels for going along a plot line that I don't agree with, I know they aren't written just for me. Have to say in the ranking of my problems with the novels, that would be on the lower side of things. The fact I skipped around 1/3 of the series due to a certain plot line would be the main reason I only rate it as an average series.

hyzmarca wrote:

---

Origin stories don't need drama, they need plausibility. How did humanity come into being? Evolution via natural selection over millions of years. Klings? Same thing. Vulcans? Same thing.

Besides, it's very frightening and very poignant to understand how minor sociological and technological changes over time can end up transforming a race much like us into something that is totally alien in its mindset. 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.

Really, Evil Being X transforming an entire race into drones is cliche and it's safe. Space Hitler is always a great villain, not just because one can hate him without feeling bad about it, but because he assured us that it really can't happen here.

But a series of decisions, a series of transformation, each of which were individually good and right and widely accepted, producing something so horrible, that at least makes you think, which Star Trek is supposed to do. Everyone knows that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but sometimes it is paved by good actions, too. We cannot know how our decisions today will impact the society of a thousand years from now. And it's hard to come up with something far more frightening than that. It's not just that the Borg are genocidal conquerors from our point of view, but that we may very well become like them in a few thousand years time.

That is pretty much how I like to view the origin of the Borg.

[Sci]

hyzmarca wrote:

---

Origin stories don't need drama, they need plausibility.

They need both. There's no point in telling a plausible but uncompelling story.

Besides, it's very frightening and very poignant to understand how minor sociological and technological changes over time can end up transforming a race much like us into something that is totally alien in its mindset.

It can be, if you have a good writer. But so can telling the story about how a group of people facing imminent death choose to react to their own mortality. By making the origin of the Borg a question of individual conscience, the themes of life, death, and how we create meaning in our lives is brought into much starker focus.

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!"

Really, Evil Being X transforming an entire race into drones is cliche and it's safe. Space Hitler is always a great villain, not just because one can hate him without feeling bad about it, but because he assured us that it really can't happen here.

Luckily, that is by no means what happens in Destiny.

[Myasishchev]

hyzmarca wrote:

---

Origin stories don't need drama, they need plausibility. How did humanity come into being? Evolution via natural selection over millions of years. Klings? Same thing. Vulcans? Same thing.

Besides, it's very frightening and very poignant to understand how minor sociological and technological changes over time can end up transforming a race much like us into something that is totally alien in its mindset. 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.

Really, Evil Being X transforming an entire race into drones is cliche and it's safe. Space Hitler is always a great villain, not just because one can hate him without feeling bad about it, but because he assured us that it really can't happen here.

But a series of decisions, a series of transformation, each of which were individually good and right and widely accepted, producing something so horrible, that at least makes you think, which Star Trek is supposed to do. Everyone knows that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but sometimes it is paved by good actions, too. We cannot know how our decisions today will impact the society of a thousand years from now. And it's hard to come up with something far more frightening than that. It's not just that the Borg are genocidal conquerors from our point of view, but that we may very well become like them in a few thousand years time.

Personally, I like this a lot better than the origin in Destiny. It's far more interesting. The origin in Destiny is more like the origin of a supervillain. Whereas this is more like actual hard science fiction.

Not that I blame Mack. Making the Borg interesting, in the confines of continuity, is a quixotic quest.

[Da'an]

Sci wrote:

---

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. It doesn't need drama because the more fantastical and contrived a situation is, the less realism it has.

[Sci]

Da'an wrote:

---

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.

ETA:

Myasishchev wrote:

---

Personally, I like this a lot better than the origin in Destiny. It's far more interesting. The origin in Destiny is more like the origin of a supervillain.

I don't think that's an accurate characterization. It's not the origin of a supervillain so much as it is an examination of how existential angst can mutate into pure nihilism because of our choices. There's a reason the Borg were born in the unforgiving winter of an arctic circle -- it's about the loneliness of facing your own imminent death and how you choose to react to it.

Do you accept that all things, even yourself, must come to an end? Or do you cling to life against all else, putting aside questions of morality or honesty or decency or compassion? Do you recognize that it is better to die alone but with integrity, or do you choose to victimize others in an attempt to cling to life and avoid the loneliness that results from that choice?

For my money, that's far more meaningful than yet another tired allegory about the dangers of society abusing technology that I've seen five million versions of.

[hyzmarca]

Sci wrote:

---

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:

---

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.

[SilentP]

hyzmarca wrote:

---

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.

I apologise in advance for what will probably be a very poorly articulated argument.

I would have thought the nature of the Borg is what would dramatically prevent them from just being another 'naturally' evolved race. We can easily imagine a race like the Klingons (aggresive, war mongering) or say the Cardassians (racist, smug, ruthless) since these are things that we can easily see in ourselves (a naturally evolved race), so a radial origin story isn't required.

The Borg on the other hand are much more...primal force. It's so far out of what most of us can percieve as happening to any species like us naturally. The total surrender of individuality, the enslavement to a singular will, completely alien for most of us, to a force that has a singular motivation that most of us would neve conciously consider.

Again, that's probably not really described well what I'm trying to explain here, but hopefully something will sink in there....

[Sci]

hyzmarca wrote:

---

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."

No, I understood it, I just felt it made for a bad story.

The Borg aren't wrong, they aren't evil, they're merely a different perspective, one that is antithetical to ours.

Um, no. They are wrong. They are evil. They're the very definition of an aggressive, expansionist, megalomaniacal intelligence.

As I and others argued in the thread "The Borg, a defence:"

Their entire "culture," such as it is, is built around violating the rights of sentient entities, engaging in the crime of aggressive war, conquest, and the invasion and subjugation of others' minds. Their entire goal in life is to gain power over everyone else rather than respect anyone's rights.... If anything, the Borg are more authority-driven than any other culture we've encountered, because they cannot abide the idea of any species not under their control exists; everything either has to be assimilated or exterminated to their mind. They're the most megalomaniacal, power-hungry force in the entire Trekverse.... That emergent consciousness [the Collective] tends to force itself upon others, violating their minds and enslaving people without their consent. It's the single most authority-driven, slavery-driven culture in the entire Trekverse.

The Borg aren't wrong, they're just alien, alien to us, and alien to the race that they once were.

That would be true if they were simply a society that had renounced the concept of individuality for itself. They are not. They are a society that has renounced the concept of individuality for itself... and which imposes that choice upon unwilling foreign cultures. This makes them more than just "alien" or "different." It makes them actively hostile and immoral, violators of the rights of other cultures to self-determination.

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.

Because Star Trek has only needed the evolution of lifeforms to tell a story twice. And both times, it turns out that evolution in the Trekverse is a bit different than it is in real life -- the ancient Progenitors seeding humanoid life in "The Chase," and Humans evolving into salamanders in "Threshold."

I would certainly hope that if the story of the Borg were ever canonically told, more effort would be put forth to it than was put forth in "Threshold."

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?

Because no one's telling a story about how Cardassians came into being, or how Bajorans came into being. But if you're doing an origin story, you should make it more than just a textbook.

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.

Fair enough as fifteen seconds of exposition. But the Borg deserve an actual origin story, not an origin exposition dump. The very fact of how different they are from any biological species demands a story to itself.

[hyzmarca]

Sci wrote:

---

Um, no. They are wrong. They are evil. They're the very definition of an aggressive, expansionist, megalomaniacal intelligence.

As I and others argued in the thread "The Borg, a defence:"

You are assuming that aggressive expansion has negative moral value. This may not be the case. Morality is a matter of perspective. From the Borg perspective, their actions have positive moral value. It is unfortunate that their values are incompatible with ours, but this does not make them evil any more than being individuals makes us evil.

Because Star Trek has only needed the evolution of lifeforms to tell a story twice. And both times, it turns out that evolution in the Trekverse is a bit different than it is in real life -- the ancient Progenitors seeding humanoid life in "The Chase," and Humans evolving into salamanders in "Threshold."

Funny enough, Threshold was actually realistic, super-fast single-generation adaptation notwithstanding.

[Sci]

hyzmarca wrote:

---

You are assuming that aggressive expansion has negative moral value.

Yes. I am arguing from the premise that all cultures have a right to self-determination and that aggression, conquest, and enslavement are immoral.

This may not be the case.

You be sure to tell that to the victims of the Third Reich.

Morality is a matter of perspective.

In many areas, yes. In the area of the right of cultures to self-determination? No. That is a natural right, and it is universal.

From the Borg perspective, their actions have positive moral value.

No they don't. The Borg simply do not care about morality one way or the other. The Borg Collective is sociopathic.

It is unfortunate that their values are incompatible with ours, but this does not make them evil any more than being individuals makes us evil.

I don't consider the fact that they lack individuality to be the thing that makes them evil. The Bynars aren't what we would call individuals, but they're not in any sense evil. I consider the fact that they invade and enslave others to their way of life to be the thing that makes them evil.

And, yes, enslaving foreign cultures is immoral. Period. That's a matter of fact, not of debate.

Funny enough, Threshold was actually realistic, super-fast single-generation adaptation notwithstanding.

"Threshold" was not the least bit Realistic. Evolution does not have a set "path" that one can fast-forward an organism towards, as "Threshold" implies. Evolution is simply the emergence of species-wide traits that developed randomly and then spread to subsequent generations then they turn out to have been beneficial to survival and reproduction.

[hyzmarca]

Sci wrote:

---

Yes. I am arguing from the premise that all cultures have a right to self-determination and that aggression, conquest, and enslavement are immoral.

Since you are arguing from that premise, I must ask you to prove that it is correct.

[Sci]

hyzmarca wrote:

---

Since you are arguing from that premise, I must ask you to prove that it is correct.

Ask the victims of the Nazi invasions of Poland and France. I'm sure they'll be able to tell you.