Why do so many people rag on "Dear doctor"

[Dream]

WesleysDisciple wrote:

---

Would like to note Picard DID chose to allow a race to die out once.

But worfs brother prevented it.

Worf's brother didn't prevent anything. Only a single village was saved, the race will still die out after a few decades.

It was a badly written episode.

[Mach5]

Jeyl wrote:

---

And in Season 2's "Pen Pals", after much discussion with the crew, he decides to not let the race on the planet die out.

Pen Palls is some ways even worse than Dear Doctor. "We must not interfere with the natural development of primitive cultures, even if it meant letting them go extinct"... Yes, because when a civilization goes extinct, it continues to develop.

[Jeyl]

Mach5 wrote:

---

Pen Palls is some ways even worse than Dear Doctor. "We must not interfere with the natural development of primitive cultures, even if it meant letting them go extinct"... Yes, because when a civilization goes extinct, it continues to develop.

And this true philosophy that Picard preaches that there is only one decision to follow is all undone when he hears Sarjenka.

Picard: Your whisper from the dark has now become a plea. We cannot turn our backs.

And like that, Picard sticks to his saying from the Pilot.

Picard: If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are.

[CorporalCaptain]

"No hold on, this is not some species that was obliterated by deforestation, or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs, uh, had their shot, and nature selected them for extinction!"

— Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park (film)

Despite the fact that Jeff Goldblum's character made his remarks in the context of a confrontation with a demonstrably dangerous population of beings that were out of their natural time, that quote still seems rather apropos.

Here's the debate from TNG: Pen Pals:

Pen Pals wrote:

---

PICARD: It is no longer a matter of how wrong Data was, or why he did it. The dilemma exists. We have to discuss the options. And please talk freely.
WORF: There are no options. The Prime Directive is not a matter of degrees. It is an absolute.
PULASKI: I have a problem with that kind of rigidity. It seems callous and even a little cowardly.
PICARD: Doctor, I'm sure that is not what the Lieutenant meant, but in a situation like this, we have to be cautious. What we do today may profoundly affect upon the future. If we could see every possible outcome
RIKER: We'd be gods, which we're not. If there is a cosmic plan, is it not the height of hubris to think that we can, or should, interfere?
LAFORGE: So what are you saying? That the Dremans are fated to die?
RIKER: I think that's an option we should be considering.
LAFORGE: Consider it considered, and rejected.
TROI: If there is a cosmic plan, are we not a part of it? Our presence at this place at this moment in time could be a part of that fate.
LAFORGE: Right, and it could be part of that plan that we interfere.
RIKER: Well that eliminates the possibility of fate.
DATA: But Commander, the Dremans are not a subject for philosophical debate. They are a people.
PICARD: So we make an exception in the deaths of millions.
PULASKI: Yes.
PICARD: And is it the same situation if it's an epidemic, and not a geological calamity?
PULASKI: Absolutely.
PICARD: How about a war? If generations of conflict is killing millions, do we interfere? Ah, well, now we're all a little less secure in our moral certitude. And what if it's not just killings. If an oppressive government is enslaving millions? You see, the Prime Directive has many different functions, not the least of which is to protect us. To prevent us from allowing our emotions to overwhelm our judgement.
PULASKI: My emotions are involved. Data's friend is going to die. That means something.
WORF: To Data.
PULASKI: Does that invalidate the emotion?
LAFORGE: What if the Dremans asked for our help?
DATA: Yes. Sarjenka's transmission could be viewed as a call for help.
PICARD: Sophistry.
PULASKI: I'll buy that excuse. We're all jigging madly on the head of a pin anyway.
WORF: She cannot ask for help from someone she does not know.
DATA: She knows me.
RIKER: What a perfectly vicious little circle.
DATA: We are going to allow her to die, are we not?
PICARD: Data, I want you to sever the contact with Drema Four.
(Data goes to a wall panel and taps in commands)
COMPUTER: Isolating frequency.
SARJENKA [OC]: Data. Data, where are you? Why won't you answer? Are you angry me? Please, please, I'm so afraid. Data, Data, where are you?
PICARD: Wait. Oh, Data. Your whisper from the dark has now become a plea. We cannot turn our backs.

The viewpoint discussed here, that Federation interference to save a sentient species might be part of the natural order, is a product of 24th century philosophy in the Star Trek universe. Furthermore, the debate in Pen Pals is a direct challenge to the rationale of the non-interference directive prevalent in the 23rd century of TOS.

Therefore, it's far more consistent with the established parameters of Star Trek to have the 22nd century beings who will form the Federation adopt a stance more sympathetic to the idea of a natural order which would be interfered with, if, say, humans stepped in to save a species from extinction. Otherwise, you wreck the continuity of ENT with TOS, and you undermine the significance of the debate in Pen Pals.

It actually fits the in-universe history of Star Trek better, if you think that Archer is making the wrong choice.

[Mach5]

Cosmic plans, fate...

Jesus fuck...

[sonak]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

"No hold on, this is not some species that was obliterated by deforestation, or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs, uh, had their shot, and nature selected them for extinction!"

— Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park (film)

Despite the fact that Jeff Goldblum's character made his remarks in the context of a confrontation with a demonstrably dangerous population of beings that were out of their natural time, that quote still seems rather apropos.

Here's the debate from TNG: Pen Pals:

The viewpoint discussed here, that Federation interference to save a sentient species might be part of the natural order, is a product of 24th century philosophy in the Star Trek universe. Furthermore, the debate in Pen Pals is a direct challenge to the rationale of the non-interference directive prevalent in the 23rd century of TOS.

Therefore, it's far more consistent with the established parameters of Star Trek to have the 22nd century beings who will form the Federation adopt a stance more sympathetic to the idea of a natural order which would be interfered with, if, say, humans stepped in to save a species from extinction. Otherwise, you wreck the continuity of ENT with TOS, and you undermine the significance of the debate in Pen Pals.

It actually fits the in-universe history of Star Trek better, if you think that Archer is making the wrong choice.

and you're still returning to the "nature's plan" nonsense. I guess if nature says you should be near-sighted, you shouldn't correct your vision with glasses. That's blatant interference-who are to interrupt nature's plan for you that involves you bumping into furniture and being unable to drive or read street signs from a distance?

[BillJ]

I'm just disturbed when allowing people to die who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time or simply didn't develop fast enough is peddled as some kind of "enlightenment".

[CorporalCaptain]

sonak wrote:

---

and you're still returning to the "nature's plan" nonsense. I guess if nature says you should be near-sighted, you shouldn't correct your vision with glasses. That's blatant interference-who are to interrupt nature's plan for you that involves you bumping into furniture and being unable to drive or read street signs from a distance?

Actually, I'm pointing out the progression of philosophies debated and adopted by characters in-universe. If "nature's plan" is nonsense to you, take it up with Troi, Phlox, et al. They were the ones taking the idea seriously. What I'm saying is that in-universe there is clear progression over the centuries, in how the characters interpret the proper role of themselves within the context of a hypothetical "nature's plan". That should be clear from these and other episodes.

[Mach5]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

Actually, I'm pointing out the progression of philosophies debated and adopted by characters in-universe. If "nature's plan" is nonsense to you, take it up with Troi, Phlox, et al.

Just as Trek canon itself lacks consistency, so do in-universe philosophies. "Nature's plan" is a highly unscientific concept. It is in fact very close to creationism, which is basically a religious concept, and yet, in "Who Watches the Watchers" Picard dismisses religion almost with disgust.

[CorporalCaptain]

Mach5 wrote:

---

Just as Trek canon itself lacks consistency, so do in-universe philosophies. "Nature's plan" is a highly unscientific concept. It is in fact very close to creationism, which is basically a religious concept, and yet, in "Who Watches the Watchers" Picard dismisses religion almost with disgust.

Well, except that in-universe in Star Trek, there actually is evidence which people might misinterpret as evidence of a cosmic plan, such as that resulting from the activities of the Preservers and the ancient humanoids in TNG: The Chase. Even Q alluded to the idea that humanity's evolution consisted of a progression that the Q were monitoring.

Otherwise, I agree with what you're saying.

Now that having been said, as a rule, it's more interesting dramatically when characters have inconsistent beliefs, than not, because it's a source of conflict.

[sonak]

CorporalCaptain wrote:

---

Actually, I'm pointing out the progression of philosophies debated and adopted by characters in-universe. If "nature's plan" is nonsense to you, take it up with Troi, Phlox, et al. They were the ones taking the idea seriously. What I'm saying is that in-universe there is clear progression over the centuries, in how the characters interpret the proper role of themselves within the context of a hypothetical "nature's plan". That should be clear from these and other episodes.

oh, ok. If that's what you're saying, then I agree with you that "nature's plan" does have some onscreen support from various characters.


Unfortunately, it's an absurd and unscientific idea. It makes Phlox look more like a shaman or a crackpot mystic than a doctor with a background in science.

[The Overlord]

A problem is the pseudo science makes the supposed moral dilemma less gray and makes the main characters totally unsympathetic.

Its easy to see Phlox using eugenics to justify not helping the Valakians, on the basis that the Valakians are threat to the "natural development" of the Menk and the Valakians need to "go away" before the Menk can truly develop. That logic has some scary parallels to the real world.

Phlox doesn't come off as a alien who is applying different logic to see a situation, he comes off as a cruel and psychopathic monster who is using eugenics to justify letting billions of people die in a plague. I don't see why Phlox being an alien justifies any of that, the Cardassians are aliens and no one is going to say what they did on Bajor was okay because of that fact.