Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x06 - "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach"

[AllenPCarlson]

So, I rewatched the episode and i liked it slightly more the second time. Might be worthy up bumping up my rating of it to an 8.

Still annoyed that Pike doesn't push back at all on the idea of poverty and suffering for children in the Federation. But by his expression he does seem, as other posters indicated, to be rather resigned to just not arguing with Alora about it.

Ways the episode could have been improved:
- Give some follow-up on the dropped plot thread where Number One is annoyed that there is no way to communicate with Pike, before he suddenly flips open his communicator and says "now, number one". It seems like there must have been a deleted scene where they reestablish comms and Pike sets up a "beam me out immediately, when I signal it" plan.
- They shouldn't have made the whole thing a mystery box. Without it we could have better explored the whole "sacrifice as a central part of their society" thing. Made it a little more integral to the storytelling and would have enhanced Pike's own consideration of his future sacrifice. Upon the rewatch, the episode plays better anyway when you are not trying to figure out the rather pedestrian mystery. And the second attack ship: what, was it on remote when they faked the death of the prospective first servant? or did that whole crew sacrifice themselves for the fake out?
- It's a nitpick, but La'an saying that accessing the data tapes from the downed attack frigate would have "taken weeks" through normal channels is rather silly. When has anything like that ever been the case especially when investigating and attacker? There was no larger story point about it (for instance, neither Uhura nor La'an got in trouble; it was never even mentioned again). La'an should have just said, "I took these to analyze. But they were erased by the data wipe and further damaged in the crash, but i figured with your linguistics expertise you might be able to salvage something the computer hasn't been able to."

But like I said, it played better the second time when I was more able to concentrate on the themes being covered than the kind of boring "mystery" elements.

The Federation is huge. There aren't some planets within the Federation that are completely utopian? That also doesn't account for sickness too. The alien civilization has figured all of that out.

I rather like that La'an breaks the rules in this regard. Probably an unpopular opinion, but sometimes you have to break well intentioned and important rules to do the right thing.

 

[Mudd]

Very young. By the looks of it, under 10.

Yes. They're not volunteers. They're innocent victims.

 

[cooleddie74]

You can never tell me a child that young can give proper consent for something like that. They were manipulated and taken advantage of.

 

[Charles Phipps]

You can never tell me a child that young can give proper consent for something like that. They were manipulated and taken advantage of.

I’m reminded of the controversy of THE LAST OF US ending that will come up here as there’s essentially two kinds of people who respond to the ending of that and I suspect will have the same reflection in the fandom here.

1:] “What a fascinating moral dilemma! The needs of the many versus the needs of the few. Is it justified or not?”
2:] “These child killing sickos should be nuked from orbit.”

To go with The Last of Us example, one of the things that the developers found out was the younger fandom were all about the belief Joel did something terrible and was selfish. While the older fandom generally reacted with the view Joel did nothing wrong except not telling Ellie about killing the Fireflies.

Especially if they were parents.

Ellie, despite being fourteen, was too young to give consent to die.

 

[AllenPCarlson]

Going on the topic of consent. I'll buy that the sacrificed child does not give consent. However, do the other children and people of that society give their consent for disease, famine, poverty, abuse, and all the other things the sacrificed child is preventing?

Obviously not. Would anyone like to elaborate on why the consent of the child sacrifice is more important than the consent of the rest of society in this regard?

 

[Mudd]

Going on the topic of consent. I'll buy that the sacrificed child does not give consent. However, do the other children and people of that society give their consent for disease, famine, poverty, abuse, and all the other things the sacrificed child is preventing?

Obviously not. Would anyone like to elaborate on why the consent of the child sacrifice is more important than the consent of the rest of society in this regard?

This spectacularly and obtusely misses the point of doing this story to begin with. And this conversation is therefore a waste of my time.

 

[Kor]

I'm coming to this discussion late, as I just got caught up on the last couple episodes. To me, this episode didn't seem quite as strong as the others. I thought Pike was a little too trusting of his old 'friend' he hadn't even seen in years.

They weren't able to save the First Servant. There's something that I haven't seen discussed in this thread at all... Alora twice speaks of the First's Servant's "Ascension to the throne." That word usually refers to both the physical chair that a ruling monarch sits in as a symbol of authority, and as a figure of speech, to the role and position of monarchy itself. So that, along with the talk of "sacrifice" sounded like he was going to be put in a restrictive and demanding life of duty in a long-term role as their king (something like Salia in TNG The Dauphin?), perhaps with a regent and councilors doing the heavy lifting until he's older and ready to take on more responsibilities. Some "throne" that turned out to be in reality. What an odd euphemism for the Majalans to feel better about what was happening. Or maybe the universal translator was malfunctioning.

It's horrific, and it shows that Starfleet doesn't always succeed and they can't always save people. But I can't help but wonder if Pike could have prevented it and forced them to find alternatives Kirk-style, if he had been more skeptical or if he had pushed harder for Alora to explain how the fate of the planet rested on one child.

As mentioned upthread, I also like to think that there's some kind of connection between this ancient technology and that on Sigma Draconis VI, the planet of the Eymorgs and the Morgs. The way it works certainly leaves a number of unanswered questions. But that's just how things work; we don't always get answers.

Alora: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Pike: Is that really the hill you want to die on Alora?

Alora: It's the hill your friend Spock will die on.

There was an old website that analyzed this and found that the only woman Kirk ever actually had s-- with in TOS was Deela from Wink of an Eye, after she more or less coerced him I think? I can't find the website now.

A few others have been mentioned in this thread, including Drusilla in "Bread and Circuses." They kiss and then the camera tilts up so they are no longer in view, presumably as they are getting more intimate that what could be shown on 1960s network television. In principle it's rather problematic in regard to Kirk's character, as she was a slave "ordered to please" Kirk, and not there of her own free will. But perhaps that is a topic for another thread.

Kor

 

[Ometiklan]

The Federation is huge. There aren't some planets within the Federation that are completely utopian? That also doesn't account for sickness too. The alien civilization has figured all of that out.

I rather like that La'an breaks the rules in this regard. Probably an unpopular opinion, but sometimes you have to break well intentioned and important rules to do the right thing.

I don't require that every single planet and every single child be totally cared for, but the push back should have been that the Federation is trying. It may not succeed in 100% of cases, but it is trying. It doesn't accept that any child anywhere has to suffer - that is basically the opposite of the Federation's whole mode of operation. The lady might have a point if there was suffering and the Federation ignored it for the greater good, but that is explicitly not the case.

As for La'an breaking the rules, I totally agree that breaking the rules when necessary is totally appropriate and right (see the "Boimler Effect"). But in this case that Starfleet would have a rule that you can't grab some data tapes from an abandoned wreck of a starship that attacked you to determine who attacked you - without it taking literal weeks of bureaucracy - is just stupid and not in line with how Starfleet would operate. My objection is on the level of a nitpick, about the same as a comment that a black hole doesn't have a physical event horizon barrier that prevents starships from escaping (like in VOY's Parallax). It could either be fixed by making a better rule to be broken or, as per my initial suggestion, drop the rule and focus on relevant character traits (i.e., linguistics skills being helpful for detective/security work).

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

To quote someone else it is better for one to due than a whole nation to perish.

Caiaphas. (speaking about Jesus)

 

[Mudd]

I don't require that every single planet and every single child be totally cared for, but the push back should have been that the Federation is trying.

That would have been totally wrong for the story.

Look, all this "Star Trek is aspirational/a better future/yada yada yada" is lovely, reassuring, and kind of superficial stuff. But there's something more fundamental involved in these narratives.

Which is...we as the viewers are invited to identify with the series protagonists - "Our people," as they say. In this or any other story, Pike is us. Spock is us. Whoever the story is about, is our guy, dealing with the other guys.

Whether you liked the episode or not or whether you think it worked or was well or badly written, whatever, the point is that this story was an explicit appeal to the viewer's conscience. That was its only point. If you want to read it as an indictment of the way we live, well, that's a somewhat harsher way of putting it...right? Why do we let people suffer for our way of life, and why do so many of us try so hard to rationalize or not think about it?

The writer isn't having Alora ask Pike what his culture does so that Pike can assure the folks at home that, hey, we're better than that. That's a cheat. It's soporific for Pike to offer some defense or reassurance in this instance. It lets the viewer off the hook. The story isn't meant to let the viewer off the hook.

So like the story or don't, just stop insisting that it was right for Pike to offer some balm for our primitive consciences or reassure us that things are going to get a lot better, someday, if we just keep making progress. That some of us live as well as we do is both the consequence and cause of a tremendous amount of suffering - and we don't tolerate it because we need to live this way but because we like to live this way, just as was true of the Majalans. And the Federation is us. That's what the story was about.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Going on the topic of consent. I'll buy that the sacrificed child does not give consent. However, do the other children and people of that society give their consent for disease, famine, poverty, abuse, and all the other things the sacrificed child is preventing?

Obviously not. Would anyone like to elaborate on why the consent of the child sacrifice is more important than the consent of the rest of society in this regard?

Because its torture and murder of a child for personal gain.

Everyone who lives on the planet agrees to it except the people who prefer a harsher life that doesn't involve child murder.

 

[Mudd]

Because its torture and murder of a child for personal gain.

Everyone who lives on the planet agrees to it except the people who prefer a harsher life that doesn't involve child murder.

Exactly so.

 

[cooleddie74]

This is a deeply dysfunctional society that pretends to be noble and progressive. No world that hooks a child to a machine and kills them to run their society is a healthy one.

 

[AllenPCarlson]

Because its torture and murder of a child for personal gain.

Everyone who lives on the planet agrees to it except the people who prefer a harsher life that doesn't involve child murder.

I feel like this is a more complex and interesting question than you're giving it credit for.

Circling back around to the trolley dilemma, when faced with an out of control trolley that will surely kill 10 people if you do. You pull the breaks, but nothing happens. Your only option to save them is to switch tracks which will surely kill one person. What's the most moral decision to make?

That's the essence of the show here. If the net amount of misery and suffering is greatly decreased by the intentional suffering and misery of one person, is that moral? Is consent a greater moral virtue than a great decrease in suffering? If so, why or why not?

 

[Charles Phipps]

I feel like this is a more complex and interesting question than you're giving it credit for.

I feel like you could look at it that way. I also feel like you're also dismissive if someone states that it is flat out a line that crossing is unforgivable. You can certainly argue that it is moral to do what they did in pragmatic terms but I also believe you can argue that it is an atrocity. This is not the sort of issue where you can take a centrist stance.

Circling back around to the trolley dilemma, when faced with an out of control trolley that will surely kill 10 people if you do. You pull the breaks, but nothing happens. Your only option to save them is to switch tracks which will surely kill one person. What's the most moral decision to make?

There's a video game called Frostbite where you can save the last population of Earth at the end possibly only by sending some kids in to repair a machine to get through the Long Winter that kills them. This can result in the happy ending. A youtuber playing the game said, "My view is the guy I'm playing puts a gun to his head after this and pulls the trigger. I view that as what I'd do and justice."

Which is to say that you can view it in strictly utilitarian terms but if you do, some audience members will view the person as a monster.

That's the essence of the show here. If the net amount of misery and suffering is greatly decreased by the intentional suffering and misery of one person, is that moral? Is consent a greater moral virtue than a great decrease in suffering? If so, why or why not?

And the additional caveat, "And if this situation is done, is it possible the people are monsters?"

Which is where I brought up The Last of Us where the developers of the game said there was a sharp divide on age lines among "Was Joel right?" In that case, being whether killing a little girl might save humanity from extinction.

 

[Mudd]

The point of the episode was that what the Majalans were doing was wrong, period, full stop. It was intended to confront the audience with the ways in which we tolerate the same evils, through our identification with Pike.

If you think the story was meant to invite debate on the virtues of child sacrifice for the greater good, you flunked the exercise.

 

[jackoverfull]

On the contrary: a few weeks ago someone said “Trek is back” and here we are debating morality.

I’m not 100% sure that what they are doing, saving countless lives at the expense of one, is wrong. I’m not sure it’s right either. I’m having plenty of fun, though.

 

[AllenPCarlson]

I feel like you could look at it that way. I also feel like you're also dismissive if someone states that it is flat out a line that crossing is unforgivable. You can certainly argue that it is moral to do what they did in pragmatic terms but I also believe you can argue that it is an atrocity. This is not the sort of issue where you can take a centrist stance.

It seems like you agree that this is an interesting question that deserves more than a one sentence answer: "Murder and torture = bad." Thank you for a well written response.

I think there's an interesting argument to be made that there are lines that can not be crossed, because it opens up unjustified abuses in the future. Or that the line of consent and innocence can not be cross as it's a fundamental lynchpin to our society and has far reaching consequences if that's tugged upon.

It seems like the majority opinion would be that switching tracks to kill the one is worse than doing nothing and killing ten in the trolley dilemma. Let me give a more immediate situation, if we take murder without consent as an uncrossable line then it would seem as though all wars would be uncrossable. Would the civil war or WW2 be unjustified as deeply immoral acts were committed? Or are they justified, because the heinous acts committed by the confederacy and the Nazi's unacceptable?

 

[AllenPCarlson]

The point of the episode was that what the Majalans were doing was wrong, period, full stop. It was intended to confront the audience with the ways in which we tolerate the same evils, through our identification with Pike.

If you think the story was meant to invite debate on the virtues of child sacrifice for the greater good, you flunked the exercise.

OK, I hear your opinion.

Just our of curiosity, could you give an example of a nuanced moral situation that has more than one side that may both be valid and is intellectually vigorous to explore the idea of?

 

[Sci]

You're making the opposite of the point you think you are, here. One out of four in any population is huge, suggesting that people are reasonable in seeing a correlation.

Sure there's a correlation. It is not surprising that someone suffering such a fundamental, all-encompassing trauma as homelessness might develop a mental illness! But correlation is not causation, as indeed the fact that so many housed people suffer serious mental illnesses also demonstrates.

Homelessness is primarily a result of how wealth is distributed.

Due to underresourcing and other issues, many available shelters in many large communities are not regarded as safe places by many people, who are hesitant to make use of them except under the most extreme of conditions.

On this we agree.

I never said that they are the majority nor that those were the root causes of their homelessness.

That was certainly how your comments came across. "Lift Us Up..." was about the idea that a social structure deliberately causes harm to some people in society in order to benefit the rest of society -- it is about the idea that structural violence causes suffering. You responded to someone comparing the alien society in "Lift Us Up..." (in terms of deliberately harming some people in order to give wealth to others) to modern America (via the ways in which U.S. society inflicts homelessness on people) by saying, "many homeless people have other issues than just homelessness and often choose not to accept public services and instead panhandle."

When you respond to comparisons of the ways in which modern society (i.e., capitalism) inflicts violence upon some people in order to enrich others by talking about the individual problems of the victims of structural violence, this creates the impression that you are attempting to minimize the role of structural violence.

I repeat, again: Homelessness is in the overwhelming majority of cases caused by how wealth distributed.