Surviving Vulcan Elders.

[Dale Sams]

Regardless, re: how many Vulcans are left...

some 10,000. There are no colonies.

Old Spock: "I have already located a planet suitable for us to settle as a colony."

Makes sense. I think Enterprise said or implied that the Vulcans were content to just be minor explorers.

edit: Also having watched it again this afternoon, with time to pause and reflect...I'm more than prepared to upgrade the film from really really good to...'fantastic'.

[YARN]

Franklin wrote:

---

I think in the movie Spock Prime gave us a big hint of what he'd do with all his "special" information. He took a gamble (he called it an act of faith) when he chose not to aid in stopping Nero, even though he could've been of great assistance. In this case, he wasn't even holding any future knowledge of events. His intervention could have been justified even with a temporal prime directive. But he opted out.

He risked the fate of billions of people on Earth that Kirk and Spock would succeed without his aid, just so Kirk and Spock could see all that they could accomplish, together.

If he was willing to allow that, then -- .

Spock, as he is written in the film, certainly appeared to be more concerned with saving the bromance, than with saving Earth.

As I, however, am criticizing the presence of Old Spock in the old timeline as a narrative flaw, I am not committed to praising Spock as he is written in this film (indeed, I object to his very presence in the film! - I maintain they should have done a hard reboot). It is, simply, more evidence that the artwork is flawed. I am only committed to conceding Spock's rationality, as he is written in this film, if I am also committed to the overall quality of writing in the film. Since I am raising questions, I am clearly not committed to conceding this.

The only Spock I am committed to (as a normative example - something which sets a proper expectation by which we would judge the film) is Spock of TOS and the films. We cannot judge the film by Spock's assessment of rational choice in the film, because this would be circular reasoning.

And this Spock (TOS) would and did intervene to mend timelines and to make the world a better place. He did it in City on the Edge of Forever. He did in Star Trek IV. etc., etc.

[Dale Sams]

Franklin wrote:

---

I think in the movie Spock Prime gave us a big hint of what he'd do with all his "special" information. He took a gamble (he called it an act of faith) when he chose not to aid in stopping Nero, even though he could've been of great assistance. In this case, he wasn't even holding any future knowledge of events. His intervention could have been justified even with a temporal prime directive. But he opted out.

He risked the fate of billions of people on Earth that Kirk and Spock would succeed without his aid, just so Kirk and Spock could see all that they could accomplish, together.

If he was willing to allow that, then -- .

Maybe...but don't you think that decision was based on running into, of all people, Kirk, and Scotty?

Besides, if you follow this to it's 'logical' conclusion, then Romulus will be destroyed again.

edit: and re: above about Star Trek IV..."Go back in time, get some whales and bring them back to save Earth" Compared to 'levels of violation' I would call that almost Janewaysian or Kimsian. The only difference being how little time has passed.

[Nerys Myk]

He didn't mend any timelines in ST VI. There was no alternate reality or timeline in that film. He just helped relocate some whales from the 20th Century to the 23rd Century to save the Earth from being destroyed.

[Franklin]

YARN wrote:

---

What is more important? Ensuring the that your younger self has a bromance with your old captain, or saving billions of lives?

No temporal prime directive applies in this case. Spock is not from their future. This is a branching timeline, remember?

Well, Spock Prime chose bromance in the movie. Even Spock wondered why he didn't just beam aboard the Enterprise and explain things (which insinuates that must've been an entirely acceptable option).

What you're asking is a moral and philosophical question with no pat answer. There is a lot of ambiguity in the issue, as has been brought out in dozens of posts. You tend to be treating it as if there is one right answer, or that one should at least "play the probabilities" that divulging things will always turn out for better.

Even if someone from the future could've put a top on Kennedy's car in Dallas in 1963 as spared his life, what happens after the change is purely problematic. Who knows what would actually be better in one hundred or two hundred years? Or even ten years?

Maybe Spock Prime just doesn't want to be God.

[Dale Sams]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

He didn't mend any timelines in ST VI. There was no alternate reality or timeline in that film. He just helped relocate some whales from the 20th Century to the 23rd Century to save the Earth from being destroyed.

I know, that's why I'm saying...if we were to try and impose some sort of morality to each time they time-travelled...going back in time to pick up some damn whales is not nearly so morally clear as mending a timeline. Anything could have been changed.

I'm not saying they did the wrong thing of course, just that...well...let's just say, an unusual solution.

[Franklin]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

Maybe...but don't you think that decision was based on running into, of all people, Kirk, and Scotty?

Besides, if you follow this to it's 'logical' conclusion, then Romulus will be destroyed again.

edit: and re: above about Star Trek IV..."Go back in time, get some whales and bring them back to save Earth" Compared to 'levels of violation' I would call that almost Janewaysian or Kimsian. The only difference being how little time has passed.

There's absolutely no guarantee Romulus will be destroyed in this universe.

Also, as was pointed out by Nyrs Myk, no timeline was changed in TVH. It wasn't like the Earth was destroyed and Kirk went back in time to save it. He went back in time to acquire what was needed to save the 23rd century Earth from destruction. He essentially reentered the timeline (with the whales) at the spot from which he left it. He saved Earth in "real time."

[Nerys Myk]

I was actually responding to YARN's post.

[Franklin]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

I was actually responding to YARN's post.

I see that now, a bunch of posts went up pretty much at the same time, stepping all over each other. My bad.

[BillJ]

Franklin wrote:

---

Maybe Spock Prime just doesn't want to be God.

This was what I was trying to get at without actually saying it.

[Nerys Myk]

Spock has learned a thing or two about meddling in time, though. COTEOF and Yesteryear ended on some sour notes. After setting Kirk and Spock on the right path he may be content to let things flow as they will. Pulling resources to stop the Space Amoeba or the Doomsday Machine might do more harm than good.

[R. Star]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

Regardless, re: how many Vulcans are left...

some 10,000. There are no colonies.

Old Spock: "I have already located a planet suitable for us to settle as a colony."

Makes sense. I think Enterprise said or implied that the Vulcans were content to just be minor explorers.

edit: Also having watched it again this afternoon, with time to pause and reflect...I'm more than prepared to upgrade the film from really really good to...'fantastic'.

Sheer percentages would indicate more than 10,000 people were off planet at the time. Take... America today. Boom, blow it up. I guarantee there are more than 10,000 Americans alone outside of the country right now. Tourists, military personnel, businesses, foreign embassies, etc. And we're just 300 million as opposed to the 6 billion figure offered.

I think the 10,000 number was just survivors off Vulcan and that there had to be people off world, especially given it's part of the Federation. Especially when Enterprise establishes they have outposts and temples on other worlds. They probably have full fledged colonies too.

[Dale Sams]

BillJ wrote:

---

This was what I was trying to get at without actually saying it.

And we come full circle and fall into a PD discussion....zzzz

Well, how about a what would you do discussion?

If it were me AT THE LEAST...I would tell Starfleet all I know about the TOS threats we've discussed and let them deal with it.

If the Feds are the benevolent society we're supposed to think they are (despite Section 31) **** the balance of power. I'm telling them *everything*, consequences be damned.

If they're like the U.S.? Hell no. I wouldn't trust our government with a cure for the common cold.

[Dale Sams]

R. Star wrote:

---

Sheer percentages would indicate more than 10,000 people were off planet at the time. Take... America today. Boom, blow it up. I guarantee there are more than 10,000 Americans alone outside of the country right now. Tourists, military personnel, businesses, foreign embassies, etc. And we're just 300 million as opposed to the 6 billion figure offered.

I think the 10,000 number was just survivors off Vulcan and that there had to be people off world, especially given it's part of the Federation. Especially when Enterprise establishes they have outposts and temples on other worlds. They probably have full fledged colonies too.

If they have colonies, why do they need to establish a colony? Also Vulcan is a member of the Federation. Why would Vulcan have its own embassy on Qo'nos? And since places like Andor are fellow members, why would they have an embassy there also? Throw in some Vulcan xenophobia too.

Also remember Spock was supposed to be the first Vulcan in Starfleet (wasn't he?)

But for fanwank purposes, I can see your position being right also.

[Nerys Myk]

No, he was never said to be the first Vulcan in Starfleet.

Does Vulcan have an Embassy on Qo'nos?