What of the Husnock?

[CorporalCaptain]

Thank you.

However, I don't believe any of those criticisms I quoted qualify as such a straw man argument. I can assure you I wouldn't have quoted them if I thought they did.

Even as a neutral observer, I think the concern, that radical changes in the course of history may result if states such as Iran get the bomb, is a legitimate one. I think it's also fair to question whether Pinker's measure of the level of violence is the right one, especially since the number of victims of violence is in fact increasing.

 

[Christopher]

Even as a neutral observer, I think the concern, that radical changes in the course of history may result if states such as Iran get the bomb, is a legitimate one.

Of course it is, but there's nothing in Pinker's argument (as far as I understand it) that says localized increases in violence can't happen. His argument is statistical, about the overall trend through the course of human history.

I think it's also fair to question whether Pinker's measure of the level of violence is the right one, especially since the number of victims of violence is in fact increasing.

That's true, but the human population is also increasing at an even greater rate. So you could just as validly say that the number of people who are never victims of violence is increasing, and that number is increasing faster than the number you cite. It's not that the former fact isn't true, it's that too many people fixate on it and ignore the latter fact and its ramifications. If the overall percentage of humans affected by violence is diminishing, that means the increase in number is not evidence that humanity as a whole is getting more violent, just that it's getting more numerous. Pinker isn't saying the fact isn't true, just that it gets misinterpreted because people overlook the broader context it's part of.

So the point is, even though violence is still a very real problem that needs to be addressed, there is reason for hope, because an increasing number of humans manages to avoid it. And if we want to solve the problem of the violence that still exists, it can be useful to study the mechanisms that have spared so many people from violence and see if they can be spread further.

 

[Sci]

Thank you.

However, I don't believe any of those criticisms I quoted qualify as such a straw man argument. I can assure you I wouldn't have quoted them if I thought they did.

Even as a neutral observer, I think the concern, that radical changes in the course of history may result if states such as Iran get the bomb, is a legitimate one. I think it's also fair to question whether Pinker's measure of the level of violence is the right one, especially since the number of victims of violence is in fact increasing.

But the absolute numbers are meaningless except in terms of their context. If the context is that the percentage of the population suffering from violence is constantly decreasing, then that supports the hypothesis that the human race is becoming less violent. Percentages are often far more important than absolute numbers.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So the point is, even though violence is still a very real problem that needs to be addressed, there is reason for hope, because an increasing number of humans manages to avoid it. And if we want to solve the problem of the violence that still exists, it can be useful to study the mechanisms that have spared so many people from violence and see if they can be spread further.

These points are good and true.

Even as a neutral observer, I think the concern, that radical changes in the course of history may result if states such as Iran get the bomb, is a legitimate one.

Of course it is, but there's nothing in Pinker's argument (as far as I understand it) that says localized increases in violence can't happen. His argument is statistical, about the overall trend through the course of human history.

However, this point does not inspire confidence, because it completely ignores the point of the reviewer. The point of the reviewer is that we are in a phase of human history where the disparity between the technological level of weaponry and the technological level of the living conditions of those who may wield them is significantly greater than it ever has been in history. The point is simply, therefore, that historical trends may not hold any predictive power. We should be prepared for the possibility that they won't, lest we be lulled into thinking that what's over the horizon is "just a local variation in a statistical trend". The fact that situations today and tomorrow are and will be so clearly different from the way they have been in history is not just a spurious reason to suspect that Pinkier's trends may not lack predictive power.

I believe this criticism was levied by the reviewer more to encourage caution than actually to refute his thesis.

 

[Christopher]

Well, it's valuable to be cautious, but it's just as valuable to believe in the possibility for improvement so that we can work toward it. Granting that the dangers you cite exist, that makes it all the more important to understand the mechanisms by which we can regulate and diminish violence.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Absolutely.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

The Husnock kind of remind me of another extinct fictional species, the Pitar, in Alan Dean Foster's Humanx Commonwealth milieu.

The novel, Dirge, chronicles the Pitar-Humanx War, but the conflict, and the race, had been mentioned in earlier books, possibly (I honestly don't remember) all the way back to Foster's first opus, The Tar-Aiym Krang.

It seems that on First Contact, the Pitar (who appeared to be a race of idealized Humans) were friendly. Until Human colonies started disappearing without a trace, and one surviving witness from such a disappearance is able to provide a visual record of the Pitar massacring the Human population, and doing unspeakable things to the bodies of the women.

The Pitar were psychologically incapable of understanding such concepts as mercy, or equality, or peaceful coexistence, and deemed all sentient species other than themselves to be abominations to be exterminated.

 

[Lonemagpie]

I saw the title of this thread and could just hear somebody like Simon Callow as Charles Dickens in DW exclaiming "What the Husnock!?"

I am *so* putting that line in the next SF thing I write, whatever it may be...

 

[Jedi_Master]

I saw the title of this thread and could just hear somebody like Simon Callow as Charles Dickens in DW exclaiming "What the Husnock!?"

I am *so* putting that line in the next SF thing I write, whatever it may be...

Nice to see a sense of humor on this somewhat serious thread.

It is obvious that we don't have enough new Star Trek material out there if we are dredging up this stuff.

Nonetheless IMHO it is impossible to determine what the Husnock were with any sort of accuracy, seeing as the only statements as to there existence is a being that is becoming unhinged with regret and pain.

It may be interesting to

Spoiler: Original story ideas hidden

have the origins of the Husnock (and maybe even a few survivors) be discovered by the Titan or some other exploring Star Trek vessel.

 

[JB2005]

I saw the title of this thread and could just hear somebody like Simon Callow as Charles Dickens in DW exclaiming "What the Husnock!?"

I am *so* putting that line in the next SF thing I write, whatever it may be...

Nice to see a sense of humor on this somewhat serious thread.

It is obvious that we don't have enough new Star Trek material out there if we are dredging up this stuff.

Nonetheless IMHO it is impossible to determine what the Husnock were with any sort of accuracy, seeing as the only statements as to there existence is a being that is becoming unhinged with regret and pain.

It may be interesting to

Spoiler: Original story ideas hidden

have the origins of the Husnock (and maybe even a few survivors) be discovered by the Titan or some other exploring Star Trek vessel.

Spoiler: Story Idea

Survivors misses the point of the episode. He killed them all.

 

[rfmcdpei]

It may be interesting to

Spoiler: Original story ideas hidden

have the origins of the Husnock (and maybe even a few survivors) be discovered by the Titan or some other exploring Star Trek vessel.

Spoiler: Story Idea

Survivors misses the point of the episode. He killed them all.

Spoiler: Story Idea

That could also mean individuals or groups who survived the Husnock attacks.

 

[Jedi_Master]

^ I agree

Spoiler: Original idea

The words of an unbalanced alien may not be reliable. And what if there are Husnock who somehow were shielded from his view? Or Husnock who had mated with other species and produced mixed race children?

 

[Timo]

Spoiler: Original idea

On the other hand, the story might be all the more tragic if there really was absolutely nothing left of the Husnock culture and species - and then it turns out that they had been pretty decent folks after all, as their life story unfolds through discoveries made by our heroes. And they had just discovered the cure for cancer, solved Fermat's last theorem the way Fermat did it, and located Jimmy Hoffa's body...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I see no reason to doubt Kevin's views of the Husnock. They were most likely as vicious as he said they were. Otherwise, why would they have wiped out his adopted colony like they did? With absolutely no survivors except him?

As for the possibility of surviving Husnock, I doubt it. Kevin seemed too powerful to let that happen, even by accident.

 

[Sci]

^ I see no reason to doubt Kevin's views of the Husnock. They were most likely as vicious as he said they were. Otherwise, why would they have wiped out his adopted colony like they did? With absolutely no survivors except him?

Obviously! Also, all Germans are monsters who know nothing but aggression and violence; otherwise, why would they have tried to wipe out the Jewish people? And all Hutu are aggressive monsters who know nothing but aggression and violence; otherwise, why would they have tried to wipe out the Tutsi people? Oh, and all Spaniards, because otherwise why would they have driven the Taíno people into extinction. And all Turks, 'cos of the Armenian genocide. And all Americans, because of Indian removal and the Indian Wars.

I mean, unless you're going to acknowledge the possibility that a group engaging in an act of genocide does not mean that their entire culture and/or entire species is therefore guilty. But that'd just be silly, right?

 

[rfmcdpei]

^ I see no reason to doubt Kevin's views of the Husnock. They were most likely as vicious as he said they were. Otherwise, why would they have wiped out his adopted colony like they did? With absolutely no survivors except him?

Obviously! Also, all Germans are monsters who know nothing but aggression and violence; otherwise, why would they have tried to wipe out the Jewish people? And all Hutu are aggressive monsters who know nothing but aggression and violence; otherwise, why would they have tried to wipe out the Tutsi people? Oh, and all Spaniards, because otherwise why would they have driven the Taíno people into extinction. And all Turks, 'cos of the Armenian genocide. And all Americans, because of Indian removal and the Indian Wars.

I mean, unless you're going to acknowledge the possibility that a group engaging in an act of genocide does not mean that their entire culture and/or entire species is therefore guilty. But that'd just be silly, right?

I don't think that anyone's saying that what Kevin did to the Husnock was something the species deserved.

That said, the possibility does exist that Husnock culture was strongly biased towards that sort of xenophobic ultraviolence. Hints of this can be found not only in what the Husnock did to the planet but in what Kevin said about how his efforts to use his powers of illusion to keep the Husnock off only made them angrier and crueller.

 

[Sci]

^ I see no reason to doubt Kevin's views of the Husnock. They were most likely as vicious as he said they were. Otherwise, why would they have wiped out his adopted colony like they did? With absolutely no survivors except him?

Obviously! Also, all Germans are monsters who know nothing but aggression and violence; otherwise, why would they have tried to wipe out the Jewish people? And all Hutu are aggressive monsters who know nothing but aggression and violence; otherwise, why would they have tried to wipe out the Tutsi people? Oh, and all Spaniards, because otherwise why would they have driven the Taíno people into extinction. And all Turks, 'cos of the Armenian genocide. And all Americans, because of Indian removal and the Indian Wars.

I mean, unless you're going to acknowledge the possibility that a group engaging in an act of genocide does not mean that their entire culture and/or entire species is therefore guilty. But that'd just be silly, right?

I don't think that anyone's saying that what Kevin did to the Husnock was something the species deserved.

That said, the possibility does exist that Husnock culture was strongly biased towards that sort of xenophobic ultraviolence. Hints of this can be found not only in what the Husnock did to the planet but in what Kevin said about how his efforts to use his powers of illusion to keep the Husnock off only made them angrier and crueller.

You're trying to come to a conclusion about the general culture of 7 billion people on the basis of the actions of a single starship crew. That's absurd. It's like trying to come to a conclusion about what most humans are like on the basis of the actions of the 9/11 hijackers.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

the possibility does exist that Husnock culture was strongly biased towards that sort of xenophobic ultraviolence. Hints of this can be found not only in what the Husnock did to the planet but in what Kevin said about how his efforts to use his powers of illusion to keep the Husnock off only made them angrier and crueller.

Exactly. And unlike those examples Sci gave, the Husnock are a strictly fictional species - they are only what the writers make them. Hypothetically, the Husnock really CAN be exactly what Kevin Uxbridge said they were. And why should that be dismissed out of hand? Because it's not "realistic"? This is bloody *sci-fi* we're talking about here - that ship sailed a long time ago.

We are applying human standards as they exist in the real world to a species that can literally be anything. Having the Husnock be as bloody-minded as Kevin said they were, may not actually be realistic, but why is that important? Why should the moral relativism and (IMHO, excessive) ambiguity that applies to real cultures apply to fictional ones? So we can "relate" to them? The Husnock are all dead, there's nothing left to relate *to*. The function of the Husnock as a species, as characters, is NOT to be a fleshed-out race. We are not supposed to relate to them, or understand them, or to give a crap about them. Their usefulness to the plot, to the viewers, is to be the boogeyman, to be an absolutely single-minded threat. They fulfilled that function. They were only a plot device, nothing more. Once that was done, they became irrelevant.

As for a single starship crew: Is there any evidence that a single Husnock vessel was responsible for what happened at this colony? That's all that Kevin "sent" against the Enterprise, but is that all that the real Husnock sent to destroy the planet? For all we know, the Husnock sent a fleet to attack.

 

[Sci]

the possibility does exist that Husnock culture was strongly biased towards that sort of xenophobic ultraviolence. Hints of this can be found not only in what the Husnock did to the planet but in what Kevin said about how his efforts to use his powers of illusion to keep the Husnock off only made them angrier and crueller.

Exactly. And unlike those examples Sci gave, the Husnock are a strictly fictional species - they are only what the writers make them. Hypothetically, the Husnock really CAN be exactly what Kevin Uxbridge said they were. And why should that be dismissed out of hand? Because it's not "realistic"? This is bloody *sci-fi* we're talking about here - that ship sailed a long time ago.

There is a thing called "verisimilitude." To simplify the concept, it generally means "plausibility within the constraints of the genre being depicted."

It is not plausible, within the conceits of the Star Trek Universe, to infer that the general nature of a species of seven billion individuals is represented by the actions of a single known starship crew.

There have, in fact, been numerous examples of starship crews in the Star Trek Universe whose behavior deviates from the norm for their species. The Ferengi encountered in "The Last Outpost" were much more violent and hostile than most Ferengi, for instance. The Federation crew of the U.S.S. Equinox certainly weren't representative of what most Federates are like. The crew of the I.K.S. Rotarran were nothing like most Klingon crews before Worf and Martok whipped them into shape. Etc., etc., etc.

So the idea that it's reasonable, within the rules of the Star Trek Universe, to infer what the Husnock are like based on one ship's behavior is, again, just absurd.

As for a single starship crew: Is there any evidence that a single Husnock vessel was responsible for what happened at this colony? That's all that Kevin "sent" against the Enterprise, but is that all that the real Husnock sent to destroy the planet? For all we know, the Husnock sent a fleet to attack.

Seems odd that he wouldn't have "sent" a bigger fleet if he'd encountered a bigger fleet. And the STU is full of examples of fleets that behave in ways that deviate from what their peoples are usually like, too; the Vulcan fleet attempting to invade Andoria, for instance.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It is not plausible, within the conceits of the Star Trek Universe, to infer that the general nature of a species of seven billion individuals is represented by the actions of a single known starship crew.

There have, in fact, been numerous examples of starship crews in the Star Trek Universe whose behavior deviates from the norm for their species. The Ferengi encountered in "The Last Outpost" were much more violent and hostile than most Ferengi, for instance. The Federation crew of the U.S.S. Equinox certainly weren't representative of what most Federates are like. The crew of the I.K.S. Rotarran were nothing like most Klingon crews before Worf and Martok whipped them into shape. Etc., etc., etc.

So the idea that it's reasonable, within the rules of the Star Trek Universe, to infer what the Husnock are like based on one ship's behavior is, again, just absurd.

It's an infinite universe. There are infinite numbers of ways a species can act. Many times we've already seen examples of a species being absolutely unified in purpose. Why can the Borg, for example, be so single-minded, but the Husnock can't? If the Husnock were a hive mind, it would explain a lot...

Seems odd that he wouldn't have "sent" a bigger fleet if he'd encountered a bigger fleet.

Kevin was just trying to frighten the Enterprise crew away. Assuming the Husnock did send an entire fleet to destroy the colony, it would have been overkill in the extreme for Kevin to do the same. He wasn't trying to *destroy* the Enterprise, just scare them off.