What's your "controversial" Star Trek opinion?

[Romulan Patriot]

By controversial, I don't mean "in the fandom" or "in real life" but in the Star Trek universe.


My "controversial opinion" is that I do not think that Androids, Robots or Holograms should be given the same rights as humans, they're not any more alive or sentient than Siri on my iPhone, and thus I thought that the "moral of the story" in the TNG episode Measure of a Man and the Voyager episode Author, Author were really ridiculous, even though I think that the execution of Measure of a Man was well done.

I think that the fact that they used what are essentially nothing more than high tech tools as some sort of allegory for equal rights, is actually pretty offensive to races, religions and nationalities that have actually been oppressed.
My people were oppressed in our country for our language until the 1970s-80s, so a robot is equal to me?


I said this on the Reddit Star Trek forum, and people treated me like I'd praised Hitler, even though that's a pretty standard and reasonable opinion in the real world.



(I want to note that I'm 17, and hadn't ever watched Star Trek until last year, I'm not an expert or the biggest fan of the show and I've never watched Enterprise)

 

[UnknownSample]

If androids have the same level of thought and experience and awareness as us, beings who "are" as we are, then of course they have rights, recognized or not. That's the problem with all the people who are devoted to creating artificial intelligence, just to have it jammed into useful devices to serve US. We're all salivating SO much for the time we get slaves we don't have to care about...

If the AI is no more advanced than your phone, it's not AI yet. It is, however, a very valid question to ask, as to when or how we can tell for sure we're dealing with real, full intelligence and awareness... "beingness". Could a program simulate self awareness perfectly?

Computers may not lead to AI. Maybe we misunderstand what thought and awareness are.

 

[Romulan Patriot]

If androids have the same level of thought and experience and awareness as us, beings who "are" as we are, then of course they have rights, recognized or not. That's the problem with all the people who are devoted to creating artificial intelligence, just to have it jammed into useful devices to serve US. We're all salivating SO much for the time we get slaves we don't have to care about...

If the AI is no more advanced than your phone, it's not AI yet. It is, however, a very valid question to ask, as to when or how we can tell for sure we're dealing with real, fill intelligence and awareness... "beingness". Could a program simulate self awareness perfectly?

I don't think that how intelligent it is, is the point. It could be on the level of my phone or it could be able to fly a plane and perform a C-section at the same time, the point is that it is artificial. That's the line, the fact that a human built it and programmed it to be smart and capable or not is irrelevant.


You talk about it like it's a bad thing, the entire utility of AI is that you get the benefits of what are free, expendable labour, which are numerous, without the fundamental evil that enslaving a human being entails. There are no drawbacks, because they aren't real. Their intelligence isn't real intelligence, it's programming that simulates human intelligence, and don't give me that whole "well the body is just an organic machine and your human instincts are basically just programming" spiel, because it's incredibly ignorant of biology and ignores what really makes living things alive, it's not just flesh and blood it's out nous, the metaphysical aspect of us that can't be replicated artificially because it is intangible.



I don't really want to have this argument, what's your controversial Star Trek opinion?

 

[The Wormhole]

what's your controversial Star Trek opinion?

My controversial Star Trek opinion is a topic that has been run into the ground and at least two threads on the matter have been locked in the past year. So it's best not to go there.

 

[Tosk]

I don't really want to have this argument

Then you shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.

 

[UnknownSample]

I don't think that how intelligent it is, is the point. It could be on the level of my phone or it could be able to fly a plane and perform a C-section at the same time, the point is that it is artificial. That's the line, the fact that a human built it and programmed it to be smart and capable or not is irrelevant.


You talk about it like it's a bad thing, the entire utility of AI is that you get the benefits of what are free, expendable labour, which are numerous, without the fundamental evil that enslaving a human being entails. There are no drawbacks, because they aren't real. Their intelligence isn't real intelligence, it's programming that simulates human intelligence, and don't give me that whole "well the body is just an organic machine and your human instincts are basically just programming" spiel, because it's incredibly ignorant of biology and ignores what really makes living things alive, it's not just flesh and blood it's out nous, the metaphysical aspect of us that can't be replicated artificially because it is intangible.



I don't really want to have this argument, what's your controversial Star Trek opinion?

Sorry, I'm not quite done talking about it yet. What Star Trek has said about this has entirely flown over your head. Calling people ignorant is the argument of someone who has no argument. It's a matter of human decency and respect for others. Granted, it's going to be a problem telling sometimes which is a legitimate being, and which is a toaster. Your absolute conviction that they're all toasters, however, is a personal prejudice, which you're covering up with bluster. And I don't want my personal metal butler whom I get to kick in the behind if I want to, because he's not "real".

 

[C.E. Evans]

Mine is that while it isn't perfect by any means and that there are times when it totally seems wrong, the Prime Directive has probably done more good than harm since its inception.

 

[Blamo]

Replicators were a bad idea. They made sense as a logical progression of transporter technology, but they effectively killed a lot of potential drama, especially when it came to Voyager.

The Klingon-Federation peace treaty shouldn't be treated as if it were this perfect ray of hope. It was an understandable compromise to prevent a devastating war. The Klingon empire was after all an expanding empire that brutally conquered other species, some of whom probably saw the Federation as their one hope of freedom. As much as I love ST6 it REALLY avoids this topic.

Seriously, if Cartwright and Valeris had brought *that* up instead, they would have been far more sympathetic than simply being war mongers afraid of change. They'd still be villains because of how they acted, but it wouldn't have been so black and white.

 

[Michael]

And I don't want my personal metal butler whom I get to kick in the behind if I want to, because he's not "real".

Indeed. Because at a certain point the question really becomes, what it says about a person if they're harming an artificial lifeform. If you have a sufficiently convincing artificial being, there just comes a point where it doesn't really matter if the intelligence or the consciousness is really existent or merely simulated, because for all intents and purposes it appears as a real lifeform. It should matter how you treat it, because it reflects back on you and your behavior. There are some interesting philosophical discussions going on about artificial intelligence, even really simple simulated ones in video games, for example, where the question being discussed is, if we really should kill them just because we can.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

My "controversial opinion" is that I do not think that Androids, Robots or Holograms should be given the same rights as humans

Androids are very rare and would need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, just as happened with Data. But I agree with you on robots and holograms, given how common and easily programmable they are then they are nothing more than tools.

VOY trying to make 'holographic rights' an issue was just dire!

 

[1001001]

Their intelligence isn't real intelligence, it's programming that simulates human intelligence, and don't give me that whole "well the body is just an organic machine and your human instincts are basically just programming" spiel, because it's incredibly ignorant of biology and ignores what really makes living things alive, it's not just flesh and blood it's out nous, the metaphysical aspect of us that can't be replicated artificially because it is intangible.

This is not a promising beginning. "Don't give me that..." and "Incredibly ignorant" are unnecessarily hostile. Dial it back, please. I'd suggest taking a few moments to review the posting rules of the board.

https://www.trekbbs.com/rules/#post-11662568

I don't really want to have this argument, what's your controversial Star Trek opinion?

Then you shouldn't have raised the argument in the first place.

This thread will be on a tight leash.

 

[galad2003]

I don't know if it is controversial but I sided with the Marquis. The Federation left it's citizens high and dry by signing a treaty with Cardassia and ceding to them worlds settled by Federation citizens.

i think the biggest issue is Cardassia didn't seem like that big of a threat to the Federation and the Federation just seemed like wimps for signing the peace treaty and ceding worlds. Maybe if the Cardassians seemed like a bigger military threat the compromise would make more sense.

The Federation should have not handed those worlds over to Cardassia and stopped doing so much to appease the cardassiansin order to keep the peace.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Then you shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.

On the other side of the coin, saying something isn't a defacto position that the person who said it now has to have a conversation.
Also, it can turn into a never-ending rabbit hole, considering how many folks can leap in, how often they keep responding, and that they can keep coming back until hey stop and the thread reaches a point where it's too old and resurrecting it is frown upon.

The Federation should have not handed those worlds over to Cardassia and stopped doing so much to appease the cardassiansin order to keep the peace.

Seconded.



I don't know if it's controversial, but I don't like how the Federation thinks it just can not only violate the sovereignty of a pre-warp race, but spy on them.

 

[Mojochi]

My controversial opinion, that gets brought up now & then, is that Riker is flat out wrong about everything in "Chain of Command", from the very 1st to the very last opinion to exit his face, backed up by intolerable insubordination.

Also... The Borg are not a race or a "people" & thereby ought not be accorded the same respect as one. When they found Hugh? leave or kill it & stage it to look accident related, IF you think doing so is worthwhile in your circumstance. If they are to be compared to or considered as anything, it should be a blight

 

[Mysterion]

1. Spock should have stayed dead after TWoK.
2, Saavik is full Vulcan - everything else is off-screen nd conjectural at best.
3. The crew of 1701-D (especially Riker) was in the wrong in Chain of Command, and Jellico was right.

 

[Energizer]

My controversial Star Trek opinion is a topic that has been run into the ground and at least two threads on the matter have been locked in the past year. So it's best not to go there.

If some people are still interested in discussing it, then there should be zero issues with what is a Star Trek-related topic on the relevant Star Trek sub-forum. You have a free will not to participate in the discussion instead of trying to force others "not to go there" or implying that it should be locked. It's really that simple.

 

[BillJ]

Tuvix should have been allowed to live.

Phlox should have given the Valakians the cure to their DNA plague.

 

[Kor]

Spock should have stayed dead, and TWOK would have been a glorious end to the Trek franchise.

Kor

 

[The Old Mixer]

I'm starting to wonder how this thread is different from this one.

 

[The Wormhole]

3. The crew of 1701-D (especially Riker) was in the wrong in Chain of Command, and Jellico was right.

Jellico probably should have reined himself in a little, but I do agree that Riker and the rest of the D crew were being whiny bitches in that episode.