NIMBY means "not in my backyard".
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Ok, I've heard of that. Never seen the acronym. (Too many acronyms in the world to keep track of.)
Thanks.
Thanks.
The theme could also be the same as that of most other stories where a person is offered immortality and turns it down. I call it the "Death is Good" trope, and it's nothing new... Ulysses walked away from an immortal life with Calypso in "The Odyssey".
Only Picard does it one better and he makes the decision for millions of people.
Only Picard does it one better and he makes the decision for millions of people.
It kinda loses something when it's middle-class white people being forcably moved, though.
Oh no, those poor people living in paradise who have never known hardship!
Close, it was a Banana Republic store (but it is still owned by GAP, inc.)
The Trek universe has produced several ways for people to be potentially immortal, sometimes at the expense of others (Ira Graves is such an example) and other times not ("Rascals" comes to mind). It's just that nobody ever acts on it.
The natural immunity on Omega IV being another, impractical to outsiders since only the native civilizations were affected due to their ancestors' catastrophic bacteriological warfare. McCoy, Kirk and Tracey found out too late that it would all be worthless to the Federation.
Yeah. The Ba'Ku pretty easily stand in for a few dozen entitled wealthy people on large-lot suburban homes who don't want their views ruined by a new highway...or public housing.
"You're a warp capable culture. Just...go. Save yourselves the trouble. If the Federation don't relocate you the Son'a will do worse."
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree. That may be how they come off in the half-baked or three-quarters-baked story that we got, but the intention was clearly to present the Ba'ku as victims of exploitation and manipulation. The existence of the holoship in the story specifically indicates that their way of life is being stolen from them. If the Federation really did have something analogous to right of way, i.e. if they did have the right to displace the Ba'ku, then there would have been no need for covert action and Admiral "Milton Krest" could have just ordered a regular Starfleet fleet in to do the job. But I'm not going to defend INS as a masterpiece of storytelling, because it's anything but that.
Even the Son'a weren't completely, 100% in the wrong. The Ba'ku even admit they banished them from their society to punish them for pursuing different ideas that the Ba'ku found improper.
Star Trek very much focuses on the rights of the few or even the individual over the needs of the many. Remember that in "Man of the People", Picard was ready and willing to sacrifice thousands of people to the meat grinder of endless war, just to save one person. It's the same principle: 600 Baku keep their home, and millions miss out on the benefits their world can provide.
Ira Graves provided a proof of concept - that transferring a consciousness from a human to an android body is possible.
All the UFP would need to do is develop its own androids and just use the same procedure to transfer the consciousness of individuals who wish to live indefinitely into Androids (pretty much like Picard's consciousness was moved from his dying body to an android one).
TNG Season 2 also showed us that transporters can reverse the effects of ageing.
Just save a pattern of a person from a specific year (when they were say 20 to 30 years of age), input it into the pattern buffer and the body will be repaired to reflect that pattern.
Again though... no one used this technique (that we know of)... because it kinda defeats the need for Insurrection movie in the first place (although UFP should have already been able to enable biological immortality long before the 24th century via say regenerative therapies, etc.).
Trek writers on the other hand don't like to change stuff like that it seems.
About the deaging through the transporter trick... if you go back too many years, wouldn't it alter memory engrams?
When Pulaski was beamed back, the hair from her brush was very likely from earlier that day, so no real change. But go back 10, 20, 30 years? That's a big change to your engrams, since transporters are bringing the older pattern.
Wouldn't that fundamentally change a person? Look at Will and Tom... 8 years apart, and they are VERY different people because of their experiences.
I would think that deaging this way would not be very welcome, as you lose so much of your life experiences.
When Pulaski was beamed back, the hair from her brush was very likely from earlier that day, so no real change. But go back 10, 20, 30 years? That's a big change to your engrams, since transporters are bringing the older pattern.
Wouldn't that fundamentally change a person? Look at Will and Tom... 8 years apart, and they are VERY different people because of their experiences.
I would think that deaging this way would not be very welcome, as you lose so much of your life experiences.
Contrary to what you see on Star Trek and Assassin's Creed, your memories are NOT stored in your DNA. They're stored in your brain.
Which is still a pattern from a specific point in time.
Are our brains the same at 10 years old as they are at 40? Definitely not.
Are our brains the same at 10 years old as they are at 40? Definitely not.
There would have to be two different protocols for preserving life thus.
1. Viroxic deletion: when you reach a certain age, you run through the transporter and get knocked back to age 12 or so. Your mind remains as it was before. You just have to deal with adolescence again...
2. Pattern storage: When going on a hazardous away mission, they keep a record of your pattern in the buffer. If you die, they dematerialize your corpse as raw material and use the stored pattern to reconstruct you as you were when you left the ship. Only downside is you lose the memories of the away mission, it's like loading a saved game.
1. Viroxic deletion: when you reach a certain age, you run through the transporter and get knocked back to age 12 or so. Your mind remains as it was before. You just have to deal with adolescence again...
2. Pattern storage: When going on a hazardous away mission, they keep a record of your pattern in the buffer. If you die, they dematerialize your corpse as raw material and use the stored pattern to reconstruct you as you were when you left the ship. Only downside is you lose the memories of the away mission, it's like loading a saved game.
Similar threads
- Locked
