Surviving Vulcan Elders.

[YARN]

[QUOTE=BillJ;7476922]

YARN wrote:

---

Well, Spock was the very first character to warn us of the dangers of contaminating the timeline back in 1966 with Tomorrow is Yesterday.

But that was a closed timeline where you could create causal paradoxes by killing your grandfather or breaking up mom and dad in 1955. With a branching timeline there are no dangers to the original timeline, because you're not in it anymore - indeed the only person in the nu-Trek verse who ever was is old-Spock.

[BillJ]

YARN wrote:

---

But that was a closed timeline where you could create causal paradoxes by killing your grandfather or breaking up mom and dad in 1955. With a branching timeline there are no dangers to the original timeline, because you're not in it anymore - indeed the only person in the nu-Trek verse who ever was is old-Spock.

Which is why the rest of my post was the way it was.

[Arpy]

Some things about altering the timeline:

1) Spock can't alter it too much to one party's advantage or others would do it too. I.e. Sure he can warn the Federation about the destruction of the Deneb colony, but he'd also have to warn the Klingons about the loss of their Ch'whatsit colony by the flying killer brains of Jabnab IV.

2) He can't give the Feds too much in the way of weapons knowledge or the Klingons would have a fit and send their own emissaries back in time or creating alternate timelines/dimensions - possibly ones that would come to the aid of their brothers in this one.

3) If he told everyone about the loss of the E-C saving Narendra III, would the Klingons believe him securing peace earlier; would pro-war parties in their government make a war happen sooner not wanting peace with the Feds; would the Romulans strike early?

4) Even giving medical knowledge to everybody he could remember, what if the Tzenkethi got all pissy their diseases weren't remembered and started a war over it. Or if the Sheliak found the spreading such knowledge as dangerous as the proliferation of WMD and started a war over that?

All that said, I don't know I wouldn't spill everything I knew were I in the position to do so, hoping that the info I spread would be used for the best. Still, for the entertainment franchise that is Star Trek, it can't be changed so much that it's unrecognizable to its fans/profitable.

[Arpy]

^ Just saw your sig, BillJ. Wonder what those reasons would be...muhahahahahahaaaa

[Dale Sams]

With an advanced knowledge of the politics of the time, he might be able to broker peace and save countless lives.

[YARN]

Arpy wrote:

---

Some things about altering the timeline:

1) Spock can't alter it too much to one party's advantage or others would do it too. I.e. Sure he can warn the Federation about the destruction of the Deneb colony, but he'd also have to warn the Klingons about the loss of their Ch'whatsit colony by the flying killer brains of Jabnab IV.

Then he has a moral obligation to do both. Share as much information as he can about avoidable tragedies.

Arpy wrote:

---

2) He can't give the Feds too much in the way of weapons knowledge or the Klingons would have a fit and send their own emissaries back in time or creating alternate timelines/dimensions - possibly ones that would come to the aid of their brothers in this one.

This is the same Spock who was willing to break treaties and violate the neutral zone with Kirk to steal just one cloaking device. There's no need now as Spock can discretely disclose to the Federation how Klingon cloaks work. And that means that the Federation does not need to risk a war.

If Spock, as you say, should be concerned about the balance of power, his superior information would allow for a much less risky balancing of power.

Arpy wrote:

---

3) If he told everyone about the loss of the E-C saving Narendra III, would the Klingons believe him securing peace earlier; would pro-war parties in their government make a war happen sooner not wanting peace with the Feds; would the Romulans strike early?

He's not obligated to give everyone all the details. He is, however, obligated to the mission of the United Federation of Planets. He's in a new timeline, so he can't be entirely sure that things will play out to the advantage of the Federation, so he should do what he can to make sure that delicate causal nodes in history don't tip the wrong way (e.g., the Enterprise Incident).

Arpy wrote:

---

4) Even giving medical knowledge to everybody he could remember, what if the Tzenkethi got all pissy their diseases weren't remembered and started a war over it. Or if the Sheliak found the spreading such knowledge as dangerous as the proliferation of WMD and started a war over that?

This seems much less plausible. Medical knowledge would simply be welcomed. And the UFP doesn't have to tell everyone how they found it.

If certain medical knowledge is dangerous, he might hold that knowledge back.

Arpy wrote:

---

All that said, I don't know I wouldn't spill everything I knew were I in the position to do so, hoping that the info I spread would be used for the best. Still, for the entertainment franchise that is Star Trek, it can't be changed so much that it's unrecognizable to its fans/profitable.

Which is why this is a nice little tension in our new universe. The very existence of old Spock in this universe means that someone who knows the spoilers details of the original 5 year mission (and much more!) of the Enterprise is there to tell them

*He's not a Greek God. Refuse to worship him and he'll lose his power.

*Give the Defiant a wide berth.

*Yes, it is vampire cloud monster. Here is how you kill it.

*The Gorn believe that these planets are theirs. They will totally kill anyone who tried to settle here.

*The horta is not your enemy.

But look at it from another angle! Old Spock is now a reason why they can have totally new adventures. He can warn them off of needless dangers so that they may face different challenges.

[Sindatur]

I don't think there's a reason to fear someone else will go back in time and try to give their side an advantage, because, for one, blowing up a star with Red Matter and traveling back through the wormhole isn't exactly the safest method of Time travel, plus, it would result in the Traveler being sent to another alternate branch.

However, there is a risk of making of things worse. For instance, let's forget Prime Spock for minute, who could share more advanced tech, but, let's say someone else traveled back and prevented the encounter with the Borg at Wolf 359. If the Federation hadn't been devastated by the Borg, they wouldn't have ramped up their military tech, and therefore, would've been conquered by the Dominion, because Wolf 359 put them on a footing where they were able put up a good fight. Or maybe stopping the Doomsday Device 3 years earlier, prevents it from destroying a Civilization that rises up to eventually destroy the Federation. Even saving someone, could result in the saved ending up leading to a threat down the road.

[The Mirrorball Man]

... and it's the Temporal Cold War again.

[YARN]

Sindatur wrote:

---

However, there is a risk of making of things worse. For instance, let's forget Prime Spock for minute, who could share more advanced tech, but, let's say someone else traveled back and prevented the encounter with the Borg at Wolf 359. If the Federation hadn't been devastated by the Borg, they wouldn't have ramped up their military tech, and therefore, would've been conquered by the Dominion, because Wolf 359 put them on a footing where they were able put up a good fight. Or maybe stopping the Doomsday Device 3 years earlier, prevents it from destroying a Civilization that rises up to eventually destroy the Federation. Even saving someone, could result in the saved ending up leading to a threat down the road.

With all due respect, this is a weak argument.

[Sindatur]

YARN wrote:

---

With all due respect, this is a weak argument.

Eh, tell that to any Science Ficton story that subscribes to "don't step on a butterfly". The odds are pretty even, if you cure a plague, that one of those who died in the time line, lives in this timeline and grows up to become he next Hitler and is personaly responsible for the death of just as many millions as were saved by curing the plague. We have to look no further than Edith Keeler herself, it was a good honorable, noble thing, and dfinitely the right thing to do to save her life, but, look what she went on to cause when she wasn't killed. So, I assume you believe City on the Edge of Forever is a weak episode, since it is TOS and uses the very same argument?

[King Daniel into Darkness]

Look at what Daniels' attempt to protect Archer caused in "Shockwave" or Braxton's attempt to fix history in "Future's End". Look what happened after "Endgame" in the novelverse.

Say Spock warns Starfleet about the Borg. Starfleet investigates a century earlier than the Hansons' did in the Prime universe and try something Kirk-like and reckless which brings the collective down on an unprepared Federation. Say he warns them about the Bajoran wormhole, which leads to an earlier Federation/Cardassian war. Say he warns Deneva about the parasites, and a century later a survivor's child starts experimenting with the omega and renders the entire alpha quadrant impassable to warp ships.

I'm not saying Spock 100% shouldn't interfere, but I can see why he may choose not to.

[YARN]

Sindatur wrote:

---

Eh, tell that to any Science Ficton story that subscribes to "don't step on a butterfly".

You're not thinking about this straight. Suppose a butterfly landed on your nose in a moment. Now, I imagine that you probably would not kill it, if you could resist reflect impulse, but you would not do so for some irrational fear that your destruction of one insect would destroy future civilizations. And yet, we must grant that it is possible that killing a butterfly in the present could have the same effect on some far of future as some far past butterfly might have on our present.

So why wouldn't you worry about killing a butterfly today?

Well, for one, you're already here, so killing the butterfly would not retroactively end the world as you know it. For another, although such impacts are possible, they are highly implausible, and impossible to know. Indeed, maybe NOT killing the butterfly, or not buying an Ipad, or not ordering a bacon double cheeseburger would have the same effect on some poor future civilization. Your epistemic vantage point is so weak that you have no grounds to kill an insect or save an insect solely on the grounds of concerns for far off future civilizations.

You should recall that the nu-Trek universe is a tangent universe. There is no future to destroy here and the future it would have had has been radically altered by Nero.

Spock, if he is logical, must consider that giving or withholding his knowledge could have grave impacts, and he should do a risk analysis to best determine which alternate future facts to share with the UFP.

Not sharing anything via the butterfly principle, however, is irrationally conservative and neglects the fact that not sharing is also an act. Now given that Spock know that bad things will happen to Deneva if he doesn't speak up (i.e., the whole colony will be wiped out) and tell them to protect themselves with UV light. He has a known HORRIBLE negative outcome involved with NOT acting, and no information about would happen if he helps out. Indeed, his only concern with acting can be "unforseen future ramifications" of the variety that all our acts have. The only logical course of action for Spock is to warn Deneva.

Sindatur wrote:

---

The odds are pretty even, if you cure a plague, that one of those who died in the time line, lives in this timeline and grows up to become he next Hitler and is personaly responsible for the death of just as many millions as were saved by curing the plague.

This is not only ridiculous, but morally repugnant. It is, in fact, shameful. By your reasoning, we should not cure treatable diseases today, because hey, it's even money that the next Hitler will die prematurely if we do nothing.

If we really thought this way, we would simply assume that all future consequences are equal and simply do nothing to help other human beings.

Sindatur wrote:

---

We have to look no further than Edith Keeler herself, it was a good honorable, noble thing, and dfinitely the right thing to do to save her life, but, look what she went on to cause when she wasn't killed. So, I assume you believe City on the Edge of Forever is a weak episode, since it is TOS and uses the very same argument?

You couldn't have it more wrong.

The Edith Keeler argument counts in my favor. They have knowledge of what will happen if she does not die. It is because they have certain knowledge that they are compelled to act. Certain knowledge means you are bound to act. In this case they know what will happen in either case (letting her live or die), so the only tension has to do with the moral problem of suffering an innocent.

Spock has solid knowledge of BAD things that will certainly happen if he does not act, so he is bound to share at least some of his knowledge. On the other side, there are mere butterfly possibilities that would prevent him from doing this. The weight of the impact combined with the certainty of it happening as opposed to the unknown weight of non-action with unknown, means that he acts. For all I know, walking to work today will someday cause a war on Mars, but I don't sweat that mystery detail because I know that if I don't go to work, I will most certainly be fired.

[Franklin]

King Daniel wrote:

---

Look at what Daniels' attempt to protect Archer caused in "Shockwave" or Braxton's attempt to fix history in "Future's End". Look what happened after "Endgame" in the novelverse.

Say Spock warns Starfleet about the Borg. Starfleet investigates a century earlier than the Hansons' did in the Prime universe and try something Kirk-like and reckless which brings the collective down on an unprepared Federation. Say he warns them about the Bajoran wormhole, which leads to an earlier Federation/Cardassian war. Say he warns Deneva about the parasites, and a century later a survivor's child starts experimenting with the omega and renders the entire alpha quadrant impassable to warp ships.

I'm not saying Spock 100% shouldn't interfere, but I can see why he may choose not to.

I'd think of it as a matter of risk. You've described risky scenarios where the payoff could be either great good or disaster on a galactic scale. So yes, it's probably not good to interfere, here.

Now if V-ger shows up at Earth's doorstep, or the whale probe does, and the threat is immediate and time is short, I could see Spock Prime saying, "I may be of some assistance, here."

Spock Prime could be like a firefighter helping put out fires when the occur, rather than the cop on the beat, trying to prevent or deter things from happening.

[Dale Sams]

So long as it's Old Spock making the choices. Let the other Vulcans in on things and they'll be debating for centuries exactly as in this thread.

[Sindatur]

YARN wrote:

---

You're not thinking about this straight. Suppose a butterfly landed on your nose in a moment. Now, I imagine that you probably would not kill it, if you could resist reflect impulse, but you would not do so for some irrational fear that your destruction of one insect would destroy future civilizations. And yet, we must grant that it is possible that killing a butterfly in the present could have the same effect on some far of future as some far past butterfly might have on our present.

So why wouldn't you worry about killing a butterfly today?

Well, for one, you're already here, so killing the butterfly would not retroactively end the world as you know it. For another, although such impacts are possible, they are highly implausible, and impossible to know. Indeed, maybe NOT killing the butterfly, or not buying an Ipad, or not ordering a bacon double cheeseburger would have the same effect on some poor future civilization. Your epistemic vantage point is so weak that you have no grounds to kill an insect or save an insect solely on the grounds of concerns for far off future civilizations.

You should recall that the nu-Trek universe is a tangent universe. There is no future to destroy here and the future it would have had has been radically altered by Nero.

Spock, if he is logical, must consider that giving or withholding his knowledge could have grave impacts, and he should do a risk analysis to best determine which alternate future facts to share with the UFP.

Not sharing anything via the butterfly principle, however, is irrationally conservative and neglects the fact that not sharing is also an act. Now given that Spock know that bad things will happen to Deneva if he doesn't speak up (i.e., the whole colony will be wiped out) and tell them to protect themselves with UV light. He has a known HORRIBLE negative outcome involved with NOT acting, and no information about would happen if he helps out. Indeed, his only concern with acting can be "unforseen future ramifications" of the variety that all our acts have. The only logical course of action for Spock is to warn Deneva.

This is not only ridiculous, but morally repugnant. It is, in fact, shameful. By your reasoning, we should not cure treatable diseases today, because hey, it's even money that the next Hitler will die prematurely if we do nothing.

If we really thought this way, we would simply assume that all future consequences are equal and simply do nothing to help other human beings.

You couldn't have it more wrong.

The Edith Keeler argument counts in my favor. They have knowledge of what will happen if she does not die. It is because they have certain knowledge that they are compelled to act. Certain knowledge means you are bound to act. In this case they know what will happen in either case (letting her live or die), so the only tension has to do with the moral problem of suffering an innocent.

Spock has solid knowledge of BAD things that will certainly happen if he does not act, so he is bound to share at least some of his knowledge. On the other side, there are mere butterfly possibilities that would prevent him from doing this. The weight of the impact combined with the certainty of it happening as opposed to the unknown weight of non-action with unknown, means that he acts. For all I know, walking to work today will someday cause a war on Mars, but I don't sweat that mystery detail because I know that if I don't go to work, I will most certainly be fired.

I strongly disagree that Spock should just out and start playing God and saping the universe in his own image, nothing could be more foolish.

As Franklin says, each piece of information should be weighed. You don't give a Caveman a cache of M16s or Nuclear Weapons and expect anything other than chaos to result, because the Caveman didn't earn the Technology by evolving and learning it on their own. Just as the Vulcans in Enterprise didn't just hand over everything about Space Travel to Earth and The Prime Directive says you don't do things like that.

I never meant to imply that Spock shouldn't share anything of his knowledge of the future, I'm just saying he shouldn't have verbal diarhea and spit out everything he knows, plus, as you point out, the prior history is not written in stone, the action that should have been taken in the Prime Time Line, could now lead to horrible circumstances. What Spock shares, should be carefully parsed out after consideration and weighing.