Please Explain The V'Ger-Borg Theory

[David cgc]

That was always my impression. The ship as we saw it wasn't what left the Machine Planet, but was the result of so many years of growth and advancement. V'Ger might've just been the original probe attached to it's stage when it first set off, and it gradually built up the ship around it.

 

[Christopher]

But our technological explosion--unlike anything the universe has seen as far as we know--is all we know...

Unless we study history. That "explosion" only began a few centuries ago with the Industrial Revolution. As I said, most of human history in most of the world's cultures has been characterized by stability and much more gradual progress.

Indeed, if anything, Star Trek's fetish for ostensibly humanoid species that have been in space for millennia or hundreds of millennia longer than we have--the Bajorans, the Vulcans, the Klingons--yet have technology so slow to advance that we can catch up and surpass them within fifty or a hundred years of heading into space shows a much more plain bias, a human chauvinism that would be offensive if a) humanoid aliens were real and b) the idea weren't so silly to begin with.

Actually it fits the historical pattern I'm describing quite well. As I said, progress is not a constant. It comes in relatively short spurts ("short" meaning a few centuries long) with long periods of stability between them. It's certainly possible that these older cultures reached a technological plateau long ago that humanity is "now" (in the Trek timeframe) racing to catch up with. There's precedent in Earth history. For most of the past two millennia, Asia and the Mideast have been far more advanced than Europe. But over the past few centuries, Europe has assimilated the knowledge of the East and used it to propel a burst of rapid progress, catching up with and surpassing those older cultures. Not because Europeans are smarter or more energetic, not because Asian cultures were "stagnant," but simply because the needs and circumstances of the respective cultures were different. China was the wealthiest and most advanced culture on Earth and entirely self-sufficient, so it was sitting pretty and didn't need progress; whereas Western Europe was comparatively lacking in resources, wealth, and global power and thus was strongly motivated to develop more advanced transportation (to acquire goods, materiel, and capital from overseas) and industrialization (to process those resources and profit from them), and to compete aggressively for political and economic power.

Alternately, to invoke a point we've already agreed upon, a Borg that had been evolving with its tech for thousands of centuries should be at least as powerful and advanced as Vejur.

My whole point is that I don't agree with that. It is a fallacy that evolution entails a constant, predictable rate of forward progress. Progress is the exception; stability is the norm. Punctuated equilibrium. Evolution is adaptation to suit your needs. If you're already perfectly adapted to your environment, change would be counterproductive. The Borg have found a niche that suits them, so they have little incentive for radical change. What need does an apex predator have to evolve further, so long as its environment doesn't change? Sharks have remained virtually unchanged since before the age of the dinosaurs.

The term singularity is getting thrown around a lot in this thread. Let me give it a toss: If a reputable futurist thinks we can go from Univac to the singularity in under a hundred and fifty years, I don't think I'm being too biased if I say that the Borg are a rather unimaginative* representation of a species that's been tech dominated for longer than we've been a species.

The concept of the Singularity is based on a lot of naive assumptions about progress, intelligence, biology, cybernetics, and so forth. It's really more an article of faith than anything else.

Though I'll agree that the Borg are not a particularly imaginative depiction of a cyborg race.

Maybe, maybe not. Lore's lost Borg embraced Lore's plan to remake the Borg as the Droid--that is, to make them wholly artificial. Maybe Lore gave them that aspiration, maybe it was there all along

Those were anything but conventional Borg. They were formerly mindless drones who'd been separated from the Collective, left to search for identity and meaning. They were vulnerable to any charismatic cult leader that came along, which is what Lore was (or at least was an allegory for). As an android, Lore naturally had a vested interest in believing that pure AI was superior to biology -- or at least in convincing the Borg of that in order to persuade them to follow him. Since they were blank slates (this was before the retcon that all Borg drones were assimilated rather than incubated as Borg), they believed whatever they were told, so long as it offered them a sense of guidance and meaning.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

The Borg had warp then transwarp drive meaning if they have been around for hundreds of thousands of years or longer, they should spread through the galaxy in a tiny fraction of the five million year figure cited above thoroughly enough to eliminate any civilizations inferior to them.

The only evidence we have that they've been around that long is one reference from Q, who is hardly a trustworthy source. Metatextually speaking, the concept of the Borg has been refined and modified continuously since their debut episode; many of "Q Who"'s assumptions about the Borg have been retconned away, and this is one of them. Later references suggest the Borg are far younger; for instance, "Dragon's Teeth" indicated that as of 1484 CE, the Borg controlled only a handful of systems.

True. They've been a hive mind without any distinction between the individual Borg and a collective with individual designations (7 of 9, etc.) In BoBW, Picard's assimilation's presented as if he's being cut apart, having bits grafted on where later in FC, etc. much of the process is handled by nanites, something Beverly never could have corrected with microsurgery. Had the Borg been thought of as using nanites at that time, I doubt the writers would have suggested using them as a weapon against the Borg though that nanite-on-nanite battle would have been awesome.

The Destiny novel trilogy pegs the date of the Borg's origin as 4527 BCE, about 6000 years before the date referenced in "Dragon's Teeth" and about 6900 years before the TNG era. If you accept that, it suggests that either the Borg needed a very long time to achieve warp travel or that they were beaten back several times over the course of history.

I think argument can be made to support either of those possibilities if not a little bit of both.

What I disputed, perhaps not clearly enough, was your dismissal of any Borg interest in the Machine Planet's purely technological civilization--

Originally Posted by Christopher
The Borg's idea of perfection is about fusing the organic and the technological -- "the best of both worlds." V'Ger is pure technology, without a trace of anything organic, without any interest in anything organic. So V'Ger is nothing like the Borg's idea of perfection.

-- hence my citation of Q above supporting their potential interest in the Machine Planet.

Huh? I only said that the Machine Planet did not represent their idea of perfection. That is not at all the same thing as saying that they would have no interest in it. I mean, they have plenty of interest in humans despite considering them highly imperfect. In fact, I'm fairly certain I did say at some other point that I agreed they would find the Machine Planet interesting, if they ever encountered it. I have no problem with that hypothetical; I simply don't wish it to be mistaken for endorsement of the inane idea that there's some familial or procreative connection between the Borg and V'Ger.

As I wrote, on that we agree. I like to toss GR's "Machine Planet made the Borg" on the same trash pile as his "The E-A was the Yorktown" notion.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I know my history--I have a degree in it--and, though I may have muddied my own argument by invoking Prometheus, my point still stands: our species' technological growth has been virtually exponential since at least the 1940s. Since we are the only technological species we know of and since Trek's technological species are all just modeled on our own, it's not bias to point out that the aliens in Trek tend to be stagnant or, at least, retarded.

Besides, your argument invokes the fallacy of equating blind, natural selection with the consciously guided advancement of a species actively seeking to improve their technological reach and grasp, as humans and the Borg are both intent upon doing. This is intelligent design in the only sense that makes any sense and yes, it does tend to progress.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

This theory annoys me. Just leave V'Ger alone! It was unique and beyond explanation!

Actually, it's not TOO much beyond explanation. Let's assume that the people who found it after its black hole slingshot did take its programming literally. Now, let's assume they did NOT make the VGer that appears in TMP.

No. They upgraded some routines, added a sophsticated learning AI and a repair and upgrading system and sent it along its merry way. Things that we may now even consider minor for our tech, but could spiral 'out of control' after the many years in the interim. All the while that VGer was recording, it TOO was improving and assimilating.

What reaches Earth in TMP was neither Voyager 6, nor was it the damaged time-lost probe. It was simply a simple probe, augmented with some self-improvement tech, sent along its merry way for far too long.

Now this is an idea I like--I've always suspected as much, though I never quite developed the idea as eloquently as what you present here.

 

[Christopher]

I know my history--I have a degree in it--and, though I may have muddied my own argument by invoking Prometheus, my point still stands: our species' technological growth has been virtually exponential since at least the 1940s.

Which is hardly a long time in the grand scheme of things, so it would be unreasonable to expect that pattern to continue indefinitely.

Since we are the only technological species we know of and since Trek's technological species are all just modelled on our own, it's not bias to point out that the aliens in Trek tend to be stagnant or, at least, retarded.

And those are both very ethnocentric and judgmental terms for it. Just because a culture is in an equilibrium state doesn't mean it's "stagnant" or "retarded." It just means it's reached a level that works well for it and doesn't have an economic, cultural, or material incentive to change. If anything, it's a sign of greater maturity in a culture; the cultures that are racing forward are the adolescent ones, striving to catch up with those that have achieved a comfortable maturity. (Degrees of "maturity" being relative, of course; a culture that's mature in one cycle of history may be left behind in a later cycle and need to start catching up again.)

Besides, your argument invokes the fallacy of equating blind, natural selection with the consciously guided advancement of a species actively seeking to improve their technological reach and grasp, as humans and the Borg are both intent upon doing. This is intelligent design in the only sense that makes any sense and yes, it odes tend to progress.

I disagree that the Borg are consciously seeking to advance. That's their pretense, but as I believe I said, their tendency is to discard or crush anything that they don't already consider worth having. So their only "progress" is in the direction of more rigid adherence to their existing dogma; innovation in any meaningful sense is prohibited. If any civilization (and I use the term loosely) could be legitimately called "stagnant," it's the Borg.

And a "species" doesn't seek to improve its technology. A culture does, and a culture is a temporary thing. It's illogical to assume that a culture's priorities and goals would remain unchanged indefinitely, or that the same culture would remain dominant within a species indefinitely.

 

[thew40]

The V'Ger/Borg theory was a favorite of mine when I was younger, but now . . . definetly not. As others have said, V'Ger is far more superior than Borg.

I'm fairly certain the Borg wouldn't stand much a chance against V'Ger (unless it was a whole damn fleet of cubes). Assimilating V'Ger would probably be boarder-line impossible.

They'd probably view V'Ger the same level they view the Omega Particle, which is something near perfection. If the Borg are able to judge whether or not a species is "worthy of assimilation," then they're probably capable of knowing when a species (or suped-out old Earth probe) is superior. While they may lust after V'Ger, I can't imagine a cube being able to adapt to V'Ger weapons any time soon.

I've often wondered what happened to the robot planet that V'Ger got pimped out at. I would have liked to have seen that -- though I can't imagine any one series being able to give it justice.

Nor Sargon's people, the Preservers, and the ancient humanoids from The Chase.

*deletes entire "Preserver Saga" fanfic*

 

[Brutal Strudel]

This species does, regardless of culture--from stone knives to the very devices we're using now, once we hit on technology, we've developed it: slowly, perhaps, but we have. There may be a human culture that does not use technology but I for one can't think of it. Even "primitive" hunter-gatherers use tech to a degree unprecedented elsewhere in the animal kingdom.

Human exceptionalism (what I'm getting at here) is really just American exceptionalism.

If it means anything, though, I think you're probably right about the singularity--probably.

 

[Maurice]

I don't think it's reasonable to assume V'ger started as a slightly modified/spruced-up Voyager 6. It's already unbelieveable that V'ger cou'd make it's epic discoveries in 300 years, not even accounting for the time it would take to reach the Machine Planet in the first place. For V'ger to have had to build itself from a smallish probe to this immense monstrosity would take even longer.

Finally, Spock saw V'ger's planet in the mind-meld. Near the climax, he said, "The machines interpreted it literally. They built this entire vessel so that Voyager could actually fulfill its programming," implying the machine planet built all of V'ger. Perhaps he was hypothesizing, but it's not like Spock to state supposition as fact.

 

[Timo]

If we are unhappy with the timescale of these events, we can just as well ditch it. After all, what would be more natural in the Trek universe than a little bout of time travel when one hits an Object Formerly Known as Black Hole? (Hell, you got that as default in TOS!) Voyager 6 might have arrived at the machine planet a million years ago for all we know.

I agree that Spock would have known what he was talking about when saying that the machine planet built V'Ger. Or at least that this was the official history programmed into V'Ger. However, Spock's ability to divine the motivations of the machine planet would be lacking, and indeed he refrains from speculating.

We probably shouldn't think that the planet would be some sort of an idiot automaton that upgrades a probe because the probe's repair manual says so. There should be method to the planet's apparent madness - perhaps a grander scheme where V'Ger plays only a minor part. But none of that is apparent from TMP alone. Perhaps tying the story with the Borg one would be worth the while after all, in giving the planet a motivation of some sort. Such as "be mechanically apt and increase in number" or "let there be light, to which end thou shalt develop technology to reverse entropy, recreate the universe, and generally improve upon things here". The Borg could be just one stumbling step on the planet's (or its background forces') road to that.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bones2]

As I wrote, on that we agree. I like to toss GR's "Machine Planet made the Borg" on the same trash pile as his "The E-A was the Yorktown" notion.

The Borg being involved with V'Ger may be fairly questionable, but what's wrong with the E-A being the Yorktown? (Sorry to stray a little off-topic, but really...?)

 

[Christopher]

This species does, regardless of culture--from stone knives to the very devices we're using now, once we hit on technology, we've developed it: slowly, perhaps, but we have.

What the hell are you on about? The issue isn't use of the existence of technology. I have no clue where you got that, since it doesn't have even the remotest connection to anything we've been discussing. The issue is the rate of progress. What I'm saying is that the kind of exponential progress our culture is experiencing today is not a universal constant; that over the course of human history, it has been far more common for the level of technology to remain stable or advance very, very slowly than it has been for it to go through an exponential growth spurt. Therefore, it is naive to assume that there is a single fixed rate of progress and that an older society must be proportionately more technologically advanced than a younger one. It is entirely possible for one society to remain at a fairly steady level of technology for a very long time and for another, younger society to catch up with it and outpace it in a far shorter time. That's what happened with China and England a few hundred years ago. So there's no reason it couldn't happen with Vulcan and Earth, or with the Borg and the Federation.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Just because a culture is in an equilibrium state doesn't mean it's "stagnant" or "retarded." It just means it's reached a level that works well for it and doesn't have an economic, cultural, or material incentive to change. If anything, it's a sign of greater maturity in a culture; the cultures that are racing forward are the adolescent ones, striving to catch up with those that have achieved a comfortable maturity. (Degrees of "maturity" being relative, of course; a culture that's mature in one cycle of history may be left behind in a later cycle and need to start catching up again.)

Christopher, I agree with your argument that cultures evolve in a "punctuated equilibrium" pattern, not exponentially.

However, if a culture doesn't change technologically and socially, then this culture is by definition technologically and socially "stagnant".
The term "stagnant" may not be "politically correct" enough for you; that doesn't change the fact that it applies.

About China - your real-world example of a "stable" culture" - I seriously doubt the technicians who lived during China's "stable" period, who only used what their ancestors left them, without any innovation, were of the same caliber with the scientists/inventors who actually created the hardware.
This is not "stagnation" or "stability" - this is regress.

Besides, your argument invokes the fallacy of equating blind, natural selection with the consciously guided advancement of a species actively seeking to improve their technological reach and grasp, as humans and the Borg are both intent upon doing. This is intelligent design in the only sense that makes any sense and yes, it odes tend to progress.

I disagree that the Borg are consciously seeking to advance. That's their pretense, but as I believe I said, their tendency is to discard or crush anything that they don't already consider worth having. So their only "progress" is in the direction of more rigid adherence to their existing dogma; innovation in any meaningful sense is prohibited. If any civilization (and I use the term loosely) could be legitimately called "stagnant," it's the Borg.

And a "species" doesn't seek to improve its technology. A culture does, and a culture is a temporary thing. It's illogical to assume that a culture's priorities and goals would remain unchanged indefinitely, or that the same culture would remain dominant within a species indefinitely.

The Borg are a special case. Socially speaking they are stagnant, rigid, without any chance of this changing.
Technologically speaking - not so much. Yes, they don't develop technology on their own - apparently, they lack the flexibility/creativity for that - but they assimilate the scientific achievements of the conquered species. This may result in a steeper technological advancement curve than even the Federation's, for example.

 

[Timo]

What I'm saying is that the kind of exponential progress our culture is experiencing today is not a universal constant

Umm, the maths on this would probably support the notion that flint axe -> better flint axe in 10,000 years and vacuum tubes -> quantum computing in 100 years fit on the exact same exponential growth curve just fine.

About China - your real-world example of a "stable" culture" - I seriously doubt the technicians who lived during China's "stable" period, who only used what their ancestors left them, without any innovation, were of the same caliber with the scientists/inventors who actually created the hardware. This is not "stagnation" or "stability" - this is regress.

Indeed, it can't really be argued that China "volunteered" to stop advancing in the 15th century. The leadership of China was forced to scale back when natural disasters coincided with poor planning and grossly misjudged infrastructure investments. China nearly died of the effort of moving the capital from the pre-Mongol Nanjing to the Ming Beijing, and of wars in/with its distant holdings such as the much-abused Annam in the south or the northern Mongol resisters. A period of distress / stagnation until the arrival of the colonial powers was quite understandable here, and not a "cultural choice" by any means.

Perhaps Borg history is one of constant setbacks like that? I do rather prefer the idea that equilibria can work, or can be made to work, as the natural state of existence, though; probably these periods of fast growth are even considered "setbacks" in the greater scheme of things, for their major disruptive effect.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Perhaps Borg history is one of constant setbacks like that? I do rather prefer the idea that equilibria can work, or can be made to work, as the natural state of existence, though; probably these periods of fast growth are even considered "setbacks" in the greater scheme of things, for their major disruptive effect.

Timo Saloniemi

One possibility is that borg-like species evolved repeatedly during galactic history. This could reconcile Q's statements from "Q who" with Voyager (and TrekLit "Destiny"), who make the borg a lot younger.
These borg cultures found the same ecological niche, occupied it for a time, then were destroyed, changed into something else or assimilated into other, cooler/more powerful borg species.
This means, of course, that the borg we saw in star trek are only the latest iteration of many similar cultures - some of which were alluded at in trek canon/literature.

Also - in "Q who", Guinan said that ~"the borg never do anything in a hurry".
Perhaps the borg take their time at assimilating the Milky Way species/cultures, allowing them to mature before they are "harvested".
This explains why the borg haven't assimilated the entire galaxy already.

They could turn their attention primarily to species proximate to their space.
Which explains why they only sent one-cube reconnaisance missions to Federation space (until "Destiny") - the Federation was so distant that it only warranted a marginal and sporadic interrest.

In any case, the borg/the other intelligent species from the Milky way are NOT in a state of equilibrium.
Such a state would be achieved when the borg assimilate the entire galaxy, when other sentient species residing in the Milky way subdue the borg (either destroy them or eliminate their aggressive instincts/behaviour) or when a stalemate would be achieved between the borg/the other Milky way inhabitants (this would be a highly unstable equilibrium).

 

[Timo]

Well, all equilibria are just illusions, achieved by squinting so that the microscopic dynamics of a "steady state" are obscured...

By squinting right, any "punctuated equilibrium" in turn becomes a somewhat uneven but still constant dynamic curve.

Mankind's history is too short to be established either way: we may be on a steady curve, with a few confusing outliers, or then the outliers may be the meat of the issue and the curve is but an illusion. Borg history is supposedly much longer, which gives more statistical validity for arguing that its shape definitely differs from that of the human development curve. Alas, Borg history is also more unknown.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kai Winn]

v'ger must have been build at roughly the same time of the shadow war, maybe the machine planet left the galaxy alongside the vorlons and shadows. or how about, it's from the future of the borg, when they finally did away with the organic stuff, accomplished perfection, and sent the ship back in time to collect whatever they missed in the past? or we simply regard the motionless picture as an anomaly from the time when canon was no issue yet. it's no more than a recycled tos episode anyway.

 

[placebonation]

The Borg's idea of perfection is about fusing the organic and the technological -- "the best of both worlds." V'Ger is pure technology, without a trace of anything organic, without any interest in anything organic. So V'Ger is nothing like the Borg's idea of perfection.

So you are saying V'ger is BSD?

 

[Pauln6]

It's silly to suggest that V'Ger could have amassed all its knowledge without ever having encountered carbon life forms before. We know that V'Ger can pattern and store life forms and then replicate them as probes to obtain further information. We know that V'Ger is capable of communicating over vast distances like the Collective (e.g. Spock).

It's possible that one or more V'Ger probes on different planets in different time periods could have been the forerunners of the borg queens. Maybe as the probes wore out, they implanted key systems into suitable carbon units with a program to replicate themselves and their components to prevent them wearing out coupled with V'Ger's desire to learn and store data. This interpretation could have been corrupted over time to involve physical assimilation and a collective consciousness rather than data storage. The levels of technology that the probe-queens could produce would be based on the original probes' level of programming so the technology gap need not be so odd.

I don't think that V'ger needs to be involved with the borg at all but it's not so far fetched.

 

[Christopher]

It's silly to suggest that V'Ger could have amassed all its knowledge without ever having encountered carbon life forms before.

It was never claimed that V'Ger hadn't encountered organic life forms -- just that it had no interest in them. It dismissed them as an infestation and saw no practical use for them. It didn't understand that they were intelligent beings. Which can't be reconciled with the Borg Collective, which assimilates organic beings and makes use of them on a regular basis. Anything created by the Borg would not be as clueless about organic life as V'Ger was canonically shown to be.

I don't think that V'ger needs to be involved with the borg at all but it's not so far fetched.

In a vast and possibly infinite universe, it is indeed highly far-fetched that any two given entities with one or two minor similarities would be directly related, especially when there are many clear differences between them.