Was Picard wrong in I,Borg?

[Praxius]

In I Borg, no one even mentioned the possibility that the weapon wouldn't work. How is it that you know more about the Borg than Geordi Laforge or Jean-Luc Picard? They didn't think their use of the weapon would "provoke" the Borg, why do you? What makes you such an authority of the Borg? Once again, IF YOU HAVE A WEAPON THAT COULD DESTROY AN ENEMY HELL-BENT ON DESTROYING YOUR CIVILIZATION, YOU ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO USE IT!

I've heard what Anwar thinks, is there anyone else who disagrees with the above sentiment?

I do.... for the sheer and simple answer that you can not dictate what is moral or what people are "Morally Obligated" to do, since Morals themselves are subjective to the individual.

You may think I, Picard and others who'd make the same decision are immoral..... and in turn, I feel your view is equally immoral.

But neither of us are absolutely right or wrong, simply because it's based around morals and opinions..... which are never completely right or wrong.

I may see something as wrong or right..... you may see something as right or wrong.... but it's all based on our own pre-set morals that exist in our individual minds, and neither of us are the absolute rulers on what is morally right or wrong..... that's the problem I see in your argument.

Most in here are expressing their personal opinions on how they'd address the problem.... but you dictate what everybody should do and then fight tooth and nail to justify your reasoning in some attempt to force people to see things the way you do.

Which not only is impossible, but is where you fail in the argument.

I may not agree with your view on sending the virus, but I can respect your decision you made based on your morals...... and at the same time, you may not agree with my view on not sending the virus, but you can not tell me without a doubt in your mind that in fact, my decision is wrong..... simply because neither you or I know for a fact what outcome would have occurred until after the fact.

Because not sending the virus was the action taken, we know the out come..... but because that action was taken, the result of sending the virus is currently unknown and is left to speculation.

At the moment of making that decision, the person making that decision must make it based on their own individual understanding and their own subjective morals.

 

[Rojixus]

The fact that the Borg didn't send two cubes in FC proves my argument that the Borg cannot be antagonized. The number of cubes they send to a conflict appears to be completely random. Picard was wrong, he should have released the virus. There is no other way around it. You have no proof that the Borg can be antagonized, your entire argument has no foundation. In what way was the planet of 100,000 people more of a threat to the Borg than the Federation. Why didn't the Borg send a fleet of cubes to subdue the Federation. The Federation already destroyed two Borg ships, more than that other species. You keep giving me the runaround Anwar, I want straight answers!

Just to jump in here, while you speak of someone having no proof.... you yourself have no proof that the virus would have worked in the first place, other then Picard being convinced it would have worked.

Picard has been wrong before and is only human. Apparently his choice to not use the virus is proof enough that he makes mistakes, based on your own argument, therefore his assumption that the virus would have worked is no proof at all, since it'd be logical the Borg would have some sort of Norton Anti-Virus setup for such an attack

Perhaps Picard was wrong, but there is no proof to show it. From the way the episode was set up, the paradox weapon was almost guaranteed to work. Picard, who was assimilated by the Borg and should therefore have a decent understanding of the Borg, did not even mention the possibility of the weapon being ineffective. Those who say the weapon would not have worked are speculating. From Picard's point of view, he had a means of ending what Picard himself once said was the closest thing to pure evil once and for all and he didn't take it. In my book, that is the height of incompetence, cowardice, and hypocrisy. Picard is one of my favorite Star Trek captains, but he made the wrong decision in "I Borg".

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Praxius

First - the borg DO KILL - BILLIONS (genocide by ANY definition) and they assimilate the rest of the population OF THOUSANDS OF STARFARING SPECIES (which would number in the TRILLIONS).

Second - you repeated twice in your post - 'Hindsight 20/20'.

Unlike the politicians who favorized the appearance of nazi Germany, etc, etc, Picard knew FOR SURE that the borg will continue to kill and assimilate. There was nothing uncertain about this.
And Picard&crew also knew that the paradox was the only realistic option to take down the borg, that the individuality program was a long-shot.

Picard had two choices - either let the borg continue their genocidal ways, or stop them with the paradox. All other outcomes had neglijible chances of happening.

These certainties make Picard responsible for effectively condemning to death and assimilation TRILLIONS, just so that he can delude himself he always takes the perfectly moral choice.
Their death and suffering is partly his responsibility, because he could stop it and didn't. Their blood stains his hands, too.

 

[Praxius]

Praxius

First - the borg DO KILL - BILLIONS (genocide by ANY definition) and they assimilate the rest of the population OF THOUSANDS OF STARFARING SPECIES (which would number in the TRILLIONS).

Technically it's not genocide as the Borg was not eliminating their culture or it's people entirely, but instead integrating them into their own culture and using their culture, knowledge, abilities, & technology to better themselves as a whole, and in turn, bettering those they assimilate with the technology and knowledge they already have.

I'm not saying it's right, but it's not the same as Genocide.

Genocide would relate to say for example, all the Native Americans being wiped off the planet / exterminated, just to take their lands and "get rid of a problem" (which almost did happen)

Assimilation is when, as an example, the British won in Canada, and France gave up Quebec to the British. Not only did the British attempt to assimilate the Natives into British culture, but they also attempted to Assimilate the French in Quebec and try to make them adopt the British way of life.

^ That is not Genocide and it is because of this, the show/Borg were particular in using the term "Assimilate"

Your view on what the term "Genocide" means is faulty. Both the French and British were at war many many times over the centuries.... countless amounts of people died along the way, many wrongs were done.... but neither country actually set out to wipe out and kill every living person in either culture.... they each wanted to conquer one another..... when you wipe out an entire civilization, there is nobody remaining to conquer, because you just committed genocide.

In this situation, the Borg were not committing genocide, but if Picard did carry out the action of infecting the entire collective, Genocide would have existed and he would have committed it.

Second - you repeated twice in your post - 'Hindsight 20/20'.

Unlike the politicians who favorized the appearance of nazi Germany, etc, etc, Picard knew FOR SURE that the borg will continue to kill and assimilate. There was nothing uncertain about this.
And Picard&crew also knew that the paradox was the only realistic option to take down the borg, that the individuality program was a long-shot.

Picard had two choices - either let the borg continue their genocidal ways, or stop them with the paradox. All other outcomes had neglijible chances of happening.

These certainties make Picard responsible for effectively condemning to death and assimilation TRILLIONS, just so that he can delude himself he always takes the perfectly moral choice.
Their death and suffering is partly his responsibility, because he could stop it and didn't. Their blood stains his hands, too.

The problem I see with that, is that if this virus was indeed the best choice and it would have worked.... how come, through all the multiple opportunities that existed, nobody else bothered to use this virus against the Borg later on?

Did Picard/Crew destroy their work on the Virus so that nobody else could reproduce it? Normally that sort of stuff gets sent to Starfleet for their own files.

Nobody seems to want to speculate into that concept. Janeway and crew spent a few years traveling through Borg space and fighting them on and off.... you'd think of all people, Janeway & crew would have found through their records the Enterprises' idea of this virus and use it the first chance they got..... then it'd be smooth sailing through borg space and they'd be able to easily take Borg technology and head home in a snap.

The real core of the matter is that you are placing 20th century mentality to a 23rd century situation. Humanity at that time was beyond such acts.... Picard was beyond such acts. His emotions lead him to believe killing them all would be the best solution, due to being personally affected by the Borg over what they did to him, but his principles, the Prime Directive, the Borg's individuality and humanity that still existed and everything the Federation is supposed to be about, says committing genocide and wiping out an entire culture, no matter how evil, is simply wrong and allows the wheel to be turned so that it can be done again in the future..... because it sends the message that it's ok to commit Genocide.

Like I said, if you think committing Genocide is ok, that's your prerogative... however, I differ, and that's my prerogative.

 

[Praxius]

Perhaps Picard was wrong, but there is no proof to show it. From the way the episode was set up, the paradox weapon was almost guaranteed to work. Picard, who was assimilated by the Borg and should therefore have a decent understanding of the Borg, did not even mention the possibility of the weapon being ineffective

I, more or less, sum that up to the date in which the episode was made.... which was in 1992, which was before the internet and viruses/anti-virus programs existed on a large scale to know how all that works.

However, I'll ignore that aspect and go along with your argument that he'd know if it'd work or not.

Those who say the weapon would not have worked are speculating.

This entire topic is nothing but speculation on both sides..... and of course the effectiveness of this weapon is mere speculation, since it was never used to actually know in the first place, all one can do is speculate.

From Picard's point of view, he had a means of ending what Picard himself once said was the closest thing to pure evil once and for all and he didn't take it. In my book, that is the height of incompetence, cowardice, and hypocrisy. Picard is one of my favorite Star Trek captains, but he made the wrong decision in "I Borg".

Perhaps it was the closest thing to pure evil.... but I guess the bigger question that needs to be asked, is could you or I make that decision to commit Genocide if it was our responsibility to make such a decision?

Sure you could say yes, based on your previously explained reasons.... and I suppose right now, I could flip a coin and make a decision with little emotion on it..... but in reality? That's something none of us can truly answer until the moment arrives.

That's a big decision.... a bigger decision then whether or not to get married or have children.... it's a decision that will dictate the fate of an entire species through life or death..... one can not simply make such a decision quickly or take lightly and as proven in this thread and the episode, the answer isn't so simple. Whatever that decision is you make, it is a decision you will have to live with for the rest of your life and it is you who will have to face the consequences of that decision later on.

Picard made his decision after a lot of serious consideration and hearing the views of many he trusted, including the potential victim.... in the end, it could seem as though he made the wrong decision, however since the Borg never did take over the Federation and the Borg threat has ended, it's hard to say with certainty that it was the wrong decision, since in the end, the Federation still won without having to commit Genocide, therefore, it could equally be said that he made the right decision.

The bottom line is that there is no one simple answer to this situation, which was the whole point of the episode, and the point of the question of this thread.

"Was Picard wrong in I,Borg?"

No matter how long we all pick apart the limited information and subjective morals of this question and the episode, there is no one true answer.

It is all left to one's own moral view.

Some here think it was immoral for Picard to not use the Virus.

Some in here think it would have been immoral for Picard to commit Genocide.

That's about as far as the debate can really go, since all this really is is a battle between different moral perspectives.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

In I Borg, no one even mentioned the possibility that the weapon wouldn't work. How is it that you know more about the Borg than Geordi Laforge or Jean-Luc Picard? They didn't think their use of the weapon would "provoke" the Borg, why do you? What makes you such an authority of the Borg? Once again, IF YOU HAVE A WEAPON THAT COULD DESTROY AN ENEMY HELL-BENT ON DESTROYING YOUR CIVILIZATION, YOU ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO USE IT!

I've heard what Anwar thinks, is there anyone else who disagrees with the above sentiment?

I most definitely disagree.

I know my own personal code isn't perfect, but I believe in moral absolutes. There are certain things that you just don't do. Forcing a sentient being to become a vehicle for mass murder is one of these things. I don't care what's at stake - nothing would have justified using Hugh in that way. Hugh was an individual with innate rights and freedoms. He wasn't a drone - not anymore. As I said, the mere fact that it is possible to liberate a drone from the collective is proof that eradicating all Borg *is* genocide. And that is unacceptable under any circumstances. (Just ask Icheb. He was used in exactly the same way - his family bred him to contain a lethal virus that would have destroyed all Borg. That was genocide and so is this. )

Any culture which resorts to genocide does not deserve to exist. How could the Federation have lived with itself, with the knowledge that it had to destroy an entire race in order to survive? As I said, that's something that is just not done by civilized beings.

The moral thing to do is always the right thing to do, but it may not be the easiest thing to do.

 

[Praxius]

I most definitely disagree.

I know my own personal code isn't perfect, but I believe in moral absolutes. There are certain things that you just don't do. Forcing a sentient being to become a vehicle for mass murder is one of these things. I don't care what's at stake - nothing would have justified using Hugh in that way. Hugh was an individual with innate rights and freedoms. He wasn't a drone - not anymore. As I said, the mere fact that it is possible to liberate a drone from the collective is proof that eradicating all Borg *is* genocide. And that is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Any culture which resorts to genocide does not deserve to exist.

As I personally see it, I agree. When you consider Genocide as an option against an enemy, you take the battle to a whole new level.... a lower one. When it comes to the Federation and what they're supposed to represent, committing Genocide goes against everything they stand for.

And because they found the proof not just in Hugh, but Picard himself that one could be freed from the collective and gain their individuality back, that alone proved that there were more options available then to commit genocide in order to win.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Praxius

About genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

The extermination of the entire group is NOT necessary for the act to be GENOCIDE. Germans in WW2 did NOT kill all the jews.
Killing BILLIONS of a given group is MORE THAN ENOUGH for the act to qualify as GENOCIDE.

Furthermore, I question your affirmation that cultural assimilation as encountered in our history is remotely similar to the borg ideea of assimilation who was more than once decribed as worse than death, a living hell.

About Picard:
Whether the paradox would have worked or not is not even relevant when considering Picard's choice.

When he made his decision Picard WAS CONVINCED THAT THE PARADOX WOULD HAVE WORKED, and he KNEW THAT THE BORG WILL CONTINUE KILLING AND ASSIMILATING TRILLONS, that they are doing this even as he deliberates.
Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS! Picard INTENDED to let all those people die when he could save them! Picard intended to sacrifice those people die without lifting a finger when he could stop it - staining his hands with their blood!
All so he could say he's the perfectly moral guy - so he can delude himself that he is so - you see, genocide was upon him whatever his choice; he could only choose who will die: a genocidal army which brought horror beyond human comprehension upon the galaxy or countless civilizations, sentient beings.

"Like I said, if you think committing Genocide is ok, that's your prerogative... however, I differ, and that's my prerogative."

If you admit genocide is monstruous, then you admit Picard's decision was monstruous, Praxius.

About the paradox's objective chances:
The fact that Picard&co were certain the paradox would have worked is strong indication the paradox's chances of dismantling the hive ming were very high.

Furthermore, weapons who shared significant similitudes with the paradox were used against the collectice later on - most notably on VOY:Endgame.
Plus, the exact conditions from 'I, Borg' were never ecountered again - having access to a drone classified by the collective as still connected to the hive mind without the borg knowing about it.

 

[Praxius]

Praxius

About genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

The extermination of the entire group is NOT necessary for the act to be GENOCIDE. Germans in WW2 did NOT kill all the jews.
Killing BILLIONS of a given group is MORE THAN ENOUGH for the act to qualify as GENOCIDE.

I actually looked at that little Wiki before my last post, and one thing you decided to leave out from that link was:

While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Which basically means Genocide can mean all sorts of different things done to a particular "group" in a negative manner.

Since the Borg were for the most part, indiscriminate in their assimilation of alien species, they did not specifically target humans or the federation alone.

The problem I see is that you are subjectively putting a number into the equation to justify your own view on what Genocide means. You say it needs billions of deaths to qualify to be Genocide, yet I don't see that noted anywhere..... and I know "Billions" were not killed in the Rwandan Genocide or what happened in Darfur.... therefore your view on what is needed to be classified as Genocide is also flawed.

Furthermore, I question your affirmation that cultural assimilation as encountered in our history is remotely similar to the borg ideea of assimilation who was more than once decribed as worse than death, a living hell.

An opinion of one individual, where Seven of Nine seemed to have no issue about being a Borg for the longest time and noted many advantages of being a Borg..... so now we have one person saying one thing, and another saying another.

Your above argument and logic is now cancelled out.

About Picard:
Whether the paradox would have worked or not is not even relevant when considering Picard's choice.

When he made his decision Picard WAS CONVINCED THAT THE PARADOX WOULD HAVE WORKED, and he KNEW THAT THE BORG WILL CONTINUE KILLING AND ASSIMILATING TRILLONS, that they are doing this even as he deliberates.
Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS! Picard INTENDED to let all those people die when he could save them! Picard intended to commit genocide!
All so he could say he's the perfectly moral guy - so he can delude himself that he is so - you see, genocide was upon him whatever his choice; he could only choose who will die: a genocidal army which brought horror beyond human comprehension or countless civilizations, sentient beings.

The problem is that on one hand, you have him allowing more people to be assimilated by the borg.... and on the other hand, he could have uploaded the virus, destroyed the borg and thus killed every single captured individual in the collective, never even bothering to see if there's a chance to save them, which was proven time and time again, quite possible...... choose one form of "Genocide" for an even worse form, which would have been on his head, which later on through the ST seriesez, was proven not necessary in the first place.

If you admit genocide is monstruous, then you admit Picard's decision was monstruous, Praxius.

No I don't because Picard doesn't own the Borg, he did not give birth to the Borg, he did not invent the Borg.... he is not responsible for the actions of another except himself. (Not including Command/Crew Responsibilities of course)

About the paradox's objective chances:
The fact that Picard&co were certain the paradox would have worked is strong indication the paradox's chances of dismantling the hive ming were very high.

And as said before, there are many instances where the Crew and Picard thought something would work perfectly, but didn't.

Furthermore, weapons who shared significant similitudes with the paradox were used against the collectice later on - most notably on VOY:Endgame.

Still haven't gotten that far in the series, will let you know what I think when I do.

Plus, the exact conditions from 'I, Borg' were never ecountered again - having access to a drone classified by the collective as still connected to the hive mind without the borg knowing about it.

It would be easy to duplicate... heck they could have done it to Seven and sent her back.... the Collective seemed all up for getting her back..... also, I'm sure they'd find a way to kidnap, beam away a borg drone, upload the virus and send it back.

Either way, as I see it, this debate is kinda running around in circles and getting nowhere. It would seem all that needs to be said has been said.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Praxius

About genocide
Any serious definition - including the legal one, of course - only proves that what the borg are doing is genocide - they target specific groups (species), they intend to kill a large part of the group, etc.
What the borg are doing is just so clearly genocide.

O, and killing BILLIONS is not necessary for an act to be genocide - it just shows the SHEER SCALE OF THE GENOCIDE!

Apropos assimilation
7 of 9 - she was borg since a very early age - like Hugh; the hive mind is all they know.
But an adult person assimilated in the collective is just conscious enough to realise what's happening (see Picard) - a voice screaming in the dark. The TRILLIONS who were assimilated are in a living hell.

About saving drones
"never even bothering to see if there's a chance to save them, which was proven time and time again, quite possible...... "

It was proven theoretically possible.
Practically, it is impossible. When Starfleet is able to save BILLIONS of drones, then it would be possible.
Starfleet trying to stop the borg by saving drones will end in the federatioin being assimilated. Facing the borg and prevailing is already nearly impossible; facing them when encumbered by such a severe limitation will only end in your death.

And since you argue that Starfleet can't touch the borg because they can be saved, then you argue that starfleet had no right to touch a single jem'hadar during the dominion war - like the technologically conditioned drones, the jem'hadar were biologically conditioned, they also had no choice. Yes?

About genocide
"Picard doesn't own the Borg, he did not give birth to the Borg, he did not invent the Borg.... he is not responsible for the actions of another except himself."

Praxius, if you see a killer murdering a classroom full of children and you are certain you can stop this killer with no risk to yourself, and yet you don't lift a finger, just watching the scene, YOU ARE IN PART RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN'S DEATH, BECAUSE YOU COULD PREVENT IT AND YOU DIDN'T! You are monstruous!

"choose one form of "Genocide" for an even worse form"

Praxius, you can choose between either allowing countless civilizations to survive or allowing a monstuous army to, very likely, kill and assimilate the entire Milky Way galaxy (CAN YOU IMAGINE SUCH DEATH AND SUFFERING - I CAN'T) in a few thousand years.

You think allowing this genocidal army to survive - and sacrificing TRILLIONS of innocent beings - is the better option?

But, of course, if one watches 'I, Borg' one sees that Picard didn't even consider the death of all the drones, he didn't get so far in his thought process.
Picard sacrificed TRILLIONS, THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF CIVILIZATIONS just so he won't have to use Hugh, one person, to destroy his 'culture'.
It's even arguable that the paradox will only dismantle the hive mind, liberating the drones.

About the paradox's objective chances
"Crew and Picard thought something would work perfectly, but didn't."

Picard&crew BEING CERTAIN (not an everyday occurence) the paradox will work proves the paradox has a very high chance of working.

"It would be easy to duplicate... heck they could have done it to Seven and sent her back...."

This wouldn't have worked. The most important words in my phrase is 'without the borg knowing about it':
'Plus, the exact conditions from 'I, Borg' were never ecountered again - having access to a drone classified by the collective as still connected to the hive mind without the borg knowing about it.'

Edit
"which later on through the ST seriesez, was proven not necessary in the first place."
Where exactly in the ST series was that proven, Praxius?

 

[Rojixus]

In I Borg, no one even mentioned the possibility that the weapon wouldn't work. How is it that you know more about the Borg than Geordi Laforge or Jean-Luc Picard? They didn't think their use of the weapon would "provoke" the Borg, why do you? What makes you such an authority of the Borg? Once again, IF YOU HAVE A WEAPON THAT COULD DESTROY AN ENEMY HELL-BENT ON DESTROYING YOUR CIVILIZATION, YOU ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO USE IT!

I've heard what Anwar thinks, is there anyone else who disagrees with the above sentiment?

I most definitely disagree.

I know my own personal code isn't perfect, but I believe in moral absolutes. There are certain things that you just don't do. Forcing a sentient being to become a vehicle for mass murder is one of these things. I don't care what's at stake - nothing would have justified using Hugh in that way. Hugh was an individual with innate rights and freedoms. He wasn't a drone - not anymore. As I said, the mere fact that it is possible to liberate a drone from the collective is proof that eradicating all Borg *is* genocide. And that is unacceptable under any circumstances. (Just ask Icheb. He was used in exactly the same way - his family bred him to contain a lethal virus that would have destroyed all Borg. That was genocide and so is this. )

Any culture which resorts to genocide does not deserve to exist. How could the Federation have lived with itself, with the knowledge that it had to destroy an entire race in order to survive? As I said, that's something that is just not done by civilized beings.

The moral thing to do is always the right thing to do, but it may not be the easiest thing to do.

Picard's actions in Star Trek: First Contact indicate that being assimilated is worse than death. Are you telling me that you would rather condemn billions of innocent people to a fate worse than death than do whatever needs to be done to destroy the Borg? They are mindless automatons for God's sake. The possibility of liberating every last individual from the collective is virtually impossible. (Perhaps you would be more willing to use the weapon in I Borg if it simply disconnected all drones from the collective.)

 

[RAMA]

Praxius



When he made his decision Picard WAS CONVINCED THAT THE PARADOX WOULD HAVE WORKED, and he KNEW THAT THE BORG WILL CONTINUE KILLING AND ASSIMILATING TRILLONS, that they are doing this even as he deliberates.
Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS!

There was ALREADY evidence against this...the fact the Borg existed after Data made them sleep and destroyed their ship in BOBW would leave one to believe the Borg would not commit the fatal (and stupid--for any advanced race) mistake of having all their eggs in one basket..so to speak.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

In I Borg, no one even mentioned the possibility that the weapon wouldn't work. How is it that you know more about the Borg than Geordi Laforge or Jean-Luc Picard? They didn't think their use of the weapon would "provoke" the Borg, why do you? What makes you such an authority of the Borg? Once again, IF YOU HAVE A WEAPON THAT COULD DESTROY AN ENEMY HELL-BENT ON DESTROYING YOUR CIVILIZATION, YOU ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO USE IT!

I've heard what Anwar thinks, is there anyone else who disagrees with the above sentiment?

I most definitely disagree.

I know my own personal code isn't perfect, but I believe in moral absolutes. There are certain things that you just don't do. Forcing a sentient being to become a vehicle for mass murder is one of these things. I don't care what's at stake - nothing would have justified using Hugh in that way. Hugh was an individual with innate rights and freedoms. He wasn't a drone - not anymore. As I said, the mere fact that it is possible to liberate a drone from the collective is proof that eradicating all Borg *is* genocide. And that is unacceptable under any circumstances. (Just ask Icheb. He was used in exactly the same way - his family bred him to contain a lethal virus that would have destroyed all Borg. That was genocide and so is this. )

Any culture which resorts to genocide does not deserve to exist. How could the Federation have lived with itself, with the knowledge that it had to destroy an entire race in order to survive? As I said, that's something that is just not done by civilized beings.

The moral thing to do is always the right thing to do, but it may not be the easiest thing to do.

Picard's actions in Star Trek: First Contact indicate that being assimilated is worse than death. Are you telling me that you would rather condemn billions of innocent people to a fate worse than death than do whatever needs to be done to destroy the Borg? They are mindless automatons for God's sake. The possibility of liberating every last individual from the collective is virtually impossible. (Perhaps you would be more willing to use the weapon in I Borg if it simply disconnected all drones from the collective.)

Losing individuality may certainly make one think that...however, do you think Picard wants to take back his rescue, and subsequent life after assimilation? I think not..

RAMA

 

[Rojixus]

I most definitely disagree.

I know my own personal code isn't perfect, but I believe in moral absolutes. There are certain things that you just don't do. Forcing a sentient being to become a vehicle for mass murder is one of these things. I don't care what's at stake - nothing would have justified using Hugh in that way. Hugh was an individual with innate rights and freedoms. He wasn't a drone - not anymore. As I said, the mere fact that it is possible to liberate a drone from the collective is proof that eradicating all Borg *is* genocide. And that is unacceptable under any circumstances. (Just ask Icheb. He was used in exactly the same way - his family bred him to contain a lethal virus that would have destroyed all Borg. That was genocide and so is this. )

Any culture which resorts to genocide does not deserve to exist. How could the Federation have lived with itself, with the knowledge that it had to destroy an entire race in order to survive? As I said, that's something that is just not done by civilized beings.

The moral thing to do is always the right thing to do, but it may not be the easiest thing to do.

Picard's actions in Star Trek: First Contact indicate that being assimilated is worse than death. Are you telling me that you would rather condemn billions of innocent people to a fate worse than death than do whatever needs to be done to destroy the Borg? They are mindless automatons for God's sake. The possibility of liberating every last individual from the collective is virtually impossible. (Perhaps you would be more willing to use the weapon in I Borg if it simply disconnected all drones from the collective.)

Losing individuality may certainly make one think that...however, do you think Picard wants to take back his rescue, and subsequent life after assimilation? I think not..

RAMA

Unfortunately, not everyone can be rescued by the Borg, it is just not practical. It is better to kill all the Borg and prevent the future assimilation of billions.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Praxius



When he made his decision Picard WAS CONVINCED THAT THE PARADOX WOULD HAVE WORKED, and he KNEW THAT THE BORG WILL CONTINUE KILLING AND ASSIMILATING TRILLONS, that they are doing this even as he deliberates.
Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS!

There was ALREADY evidence against this...the fact the Borg existed after Data made them sleep and destroyed their ship in BOBW would leave one to believe the Borg would not commit the fatal (and stupid--for any advanced race) mistake of having all their eggs in one basket..so to speak.

RAMA

All this 'evidence' was known to Picard/Data/etc. And they also had an incomparably better understanding of borg tech than our shalllow information.
And yet, in 'I, Borg', Picard&co HAD NO DOUBT the paradox would have worked!

In his subjective forum, Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS, despite being certain that he can save them! Essentially, Picard intended to be accessory to GENOCIDE on an enormos scale!

All that so that he won't have to 'use' a single person, Hugh, to destroy his 'culture' - as I said, the episode could even be interpreted in the sense that the paradox would only shut down the hive mind, liberating the drones.
All that so Picard can delude himself, when he watches himself in the mirror, that he always took the perfect moral choice, choosing to ignore the blood of uncountably many that stains his hands, his conscience.

 

[RAMA]

Praxius



When he made his decision Picard WAS CONVINCED THAT THE PARADOX WOULD HAVE WORKED, and he KNEW THAT THE BORG WILL CONTINUE KILLING AND ASSIMILATING TRILLONS, that they are doing this even as he deliberates.
Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS!

There was ALREADY evidence against this...the fact the Borg existed after Data made them sleep and destroyed their ship in BOBW would leave one to believe the Borg would not commit the fatal (and stupid--for any advanced race) mistake of having all their eggs in one basket..so to speak.

RAMA

All this 'evidence' was known to Picard/Data/etc. And they also had an incomparably better understanding of borg tech than our shalllow information.
And yet, in 'I, Borg', Picard&co HAD NO DOUBT the paradox would have worked!

In his subjective forum, Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS, despite being certain that he can save them! Essentially, Picard intended to be accessory to GENOCIDE on an enormos scale!

All that so that he won't have to 'use' a single person, Hugh, to destroy his 'culture' - as I said, the episode could even be interpreted in the sense that the paradox would only shut down the hive mind, liberating the drones.
All that so Picard can delude himself, when he watches himself in the mirror, that he always took the perfect moral choice, choosing to ignore the blood of uncountably many that stains his hands, his conscience.

Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it are two different things...the very question is if he made the right choice, and quite frankly its "yes".

As I pointed out before...he could also very well have saved billions of future lives by making the choice..billions of assimilated lives.

RAMA

 

[ProtoAvatar]

There was ALREADY evidence against this...the fact the Borg existed after Data made them sleep and destroyed their ship in BOBW would leave one to believe the Borg would not commit the fatal (and stupid--for any advanced race) mistake of having all their eggs in one basket..so to speak.

RAMA

All this 'evidence' was known to Picard/Data/etc. And they also had an incomparably better understanding of borg tech than our shalllow information.
And yet, in 'I, Borg', Picard&co HAD NO DOUBT the paradox would have worked!

In his subjective forum, Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS, despite being certain that he can save them! Essentially, Picard intended to be accessory to GENOCIDE on an enormos scale!

All that so that he won't have to 'use' a single person, Hugh, to destroy his 'culture' - as I said, the episode could even be interpreted in the sense that the paradox would only shut down the hive mind, liberating the drones.
All that so Picard can delude himself, when he watches himself in the mirror, that he always took the perfect moral choice, choosing to ignore the blood of uncountably many that stains his hands, his conscience.

Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it are two different things...the very question is if he made the right choice, and quite frankly its "yes".

As I pointed out before...he could also very well have saved billions of future lives by making the choice..billions of assimilated lives.

RAMA

"Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it"
RAMA, Picard intended to do it and DID IT. This was NOT just a thought, it was materialized in his actions, RAMA.
Picard CONDEMNED TRILLIONS.
He refused to help then, even though he was certain he could have:
'If you see a killer murdering a classroom full of children and you are certain you can stop this killer with no risk to yourself, and yet you don't lift a finger, just watching the scene, YOU ARE IN PART RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN'S DEATH, BECAUSE YOU COULD PREVENT IT AND YOU DIDN'T! You are monstruous!'

'About saving drones:
It was proven theoretically possible.
Practically, it is impossible. When Starfleet is able to save BILLIONS of drones, then it would be possible.
Starfleet trying to stop the borg by saving drones will end in the federatioin being assimilated. Facing the borg and prevailing is already nearly impossible; facing them when encumbered by such a severe limitation will only end in your death.

And since you argue that Starfleet can't touch the borg because they can be saved, then you argue that starfleet had no right to touch a single jem'hadar during the dominion war - like the technologically conditioned drones, the jem'hadar were biologically conditioned, they also had no choice. Yes?'

 

[RAMA]

All this 'evidence' was known to Picard/Data/etc. And they also had an incomparably better understanding of borg tech than our shalllow information.
And yet, in 'I, Borg', Picard&co HAD NO DOUBT the paradox would have worked!

In his subjective forum, Picard INTENDED to condemn to death and assimilation TRILLIONS, despite being certain that he can save them! Essentially, Picard intended to be accessory to GENOCIDE on an enormos scale!

All that so that he won't have to 'use' a single person, Hugh, to destroy his 'culture' - as I said, the episode could even be interpreted in the sense that the paradox would only shut down the hive mind, liberating the drones.
All that so Picard can delude himself, when he watches himself in the mirror, that he always took the perfect moral choice, choosing to ignore the blood of uncountably many that stains his hands, his conscience.

Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it are two different things...the very question is if he made the right choice, and quite frankly its "yes".

As I pointed out before...he could also very well have saved billions of future lives by making the choice..billions of assimilated lives.

RAMA

"Intending to be an accessory and actually doing it"
RAMA, Picard intended to do it and DID IT. This was NOT just a thought, it was materialized in his actions, RAMA.
Picard CONDEMNED TRILLIONS.
He refused to help then, even though he was certain he could have:
'If you see a killer murdering a classroom full of children and you are certain you can stop this killer with no risk to yourself, and yet you don't lift a finger, just watching the scene, YOU ARE IN PART RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN'S DEATH, BECAUSE YOU COULD PREVENT IT AND YOU DIDN'T! You are monstruous!'

'About saving drones:
It was proven theoretically possible.
Practically, it is impossible. When Starfleet is able to save BILLIONS of drones, then it would be possible.
Starfleet trying to stop the borg by saving drones will end in the federatioin being assimilated. Facing the borg and prevailing is already nearly impossible; facing them when encumbered by such a severe limitation will only end in your death.

And since you argue that Starfleet can't touch the borg because they can be saved, then you argue that starfleet had no right to touch a single jem'hadar during the dominion war - like the technologically conditioned drones, the jem'hadar were biologically conditioned, they also had no choice. Yes?'

Obviously in a war, you accept morally that you have to kill to a certain extent...I would have no problem killing a large number of Borg, if there would be some sort of outcome that would also eventually help the assimilated races of the Borg. I can't accept that you have no rules in war...that would lead down a very dark path..

RAMA

 

[Rojixus]

It may lead down a dark path but I think you're ignoring the elephant in the room: War is supposed to be dark, that's why it is war and not a tea party. If we keep sticking to these "rules of war" nonsense, wars will only last longer and cost more lives. It is better for a war to be savage and short than for it to be long and genteel.

 

[RAMA]

It may lead down a dark path but I think you're ignoring the elephant in the room: War is supposed to be dark, that's why it is war and not a tea party. If we keep sticking to these "rules of war" nonsense, wars will only last longer and cost more lives. It is better for a war to be savage and short than for it to be long and genteel.

Um yeah...ok let's go nuke Afghanistan out of existence...

RAMA