Cmdr_Blop
Lieutenant Commander
This sounds like a job for... Starship Miranda...
Long overdue improvements to Starfleet
- Thread starter Lt. Beatings
- Start date
This sounds like a job for... Starship Miranda...
I, respectfully, disagree.
So Starfleet should be on the look out for any and all sentient species that could be headed for extinction by a natural disaster, or might I add, there own doing? Is it the Federations job to do that? Or is it only if they happen to come across said species? The luck of the draw that species X in system XY gets saved, but species M in system MK just 15 ly from system XY perishes because the starship came across XY first?
Yes, by my interpretation the Federation would seem cold, and criminal, but where do we draw the line? I’ll get to your response to that momentarily.
If you don’t make contact with a species its natural development excludes you. On Earth there is only limited space, sooner or later all of the peoples of Earth would have known of each other. That doesn’t hold true in space. A species could exist in an isolated sector and live out their entire existence without any other species knowing of them.
Tell me, who was aware of the Gorn? The First Federation? The Husnock? The Gorn had had claim to planets and the Federation knew nothing of them until Cestus III. The First Federation made contact with the Federation, otherwise they wouldn’t have been known about until some unknown date, if ever. And the Husnock were on the Federations doorstep. No one in the Federation knew about them. The Husnock an aggressive violent species by Uxbridge’s description, and by how they bombarded the planet were unknown. I would think that a violent species like the Husnock would be something someone would have mentioned. How many more are out there just outside Federation space, or even well inside, that just aren’t know? Is it the Federation’s responsibility to go looking for them and watch over them like a mother watching her child?
Gazelles feel fear, they protect themselves, they care for their young, sentience. Granted a good deal lower than Human, but sentient.
Trying out for the lead in “The King and I”?
Yes. If they haven’t Warp, or any other FTL means of travel.
I’m going to need your help on that one. I’m not sure what you’re saying.
No, I don’t think medical help should be denied anyone. But that’s here on Earth where medical help should be available for all, for the good of all. I am not aggrandizing myself by using a collective “We.” “We” means humans; not me and 3 buds in the basement drinking beer and mixing chemicals together to see if it cures anything. I’m really surprised at that. I would think that you would understand the collective “we” referring to Humans.
Be sure to put your fists on your hips and spread your legs apart at about shoulder length, it gives that Yul Brenner look. Oh and shave your head it helps too.
In the Trek Universe it would be a species developing or dying without interference from the Federation. Leaving a species to learn to stand on its own, to unify as one people, to stop warring amongst itself, to develop ways to travel within its star system and to finally travel beyond it
At what level of sentience? Lucy’s level? Or is it somewhere between her and the branching point between great apes? But we do have a problem there too. Great Apes do have a level of sentience.
So I ask again, where is the line?
It’s not a straw man, nor is it a fear of that race. It’s fear for that race. I was talking about a sentient race that is of very low sentience. Everyone seems to be defining sentience as Stone Age man or above. I’m asking why there? Australopithecus afarensis may have used stone tools a sign of intelligence, they most likely were social animals, they can be considered sentient. So does Starfleet save them?
Let me know if you get the role of the King, you got the “etc. etc.” down.
Haiti, is less advanced than the United States. I grant that. They are human, and they knew about what they needed: Medicine, water, food and doctors. They knew of the basics they needed to survive.
If something on that scale to less advanced but warp or FTL capable society, then yes the Federation should help.
It doesn’t, it’s natural existence is over. Turn the page.
And then they might not. If they don’t, does the Federation go save them?Why not? If they are there, if they are aware of the problem, if there is a ship available, if they're capable of doing something, if the Federation isn't somewhere else saving their own damned butts. Yeah, go ahead and save them from extinction.
On the other hand, if a small region on a planet has experience a decade long drought and the crops are failing, you might be able to philosophically say "the species will learn from this." We'll apply the PD in this case, because it won't kill the entire fucking species.
Like I asked in my previous post, do we go looking out after young civilizations like a mother watching over her child?
Why not? “Why should they?” is the question that needs answering. What gives the starship captain the right to decide interfere on one planets behalf just because the ship is there; and not another planet 15 or so ly away?
Why is it natural? Nature and luck sent that asteroid hurtling towards them; nothing else. If a Starship interferes then nature has been subverted. We are a part of nature, so are they, so is the asteroid and the gravitational forces of the star system. We though can interfere and when we do, it’s no longer natural.
Vanyel
Let's get through some of your errors/double standards/etc from the last post:
"On Earth there is only limited space, sooner or later all of the peoples of Earth would have known of each other."
Irrelevant, even if it were true (which it isn't).
Vanyel, the natural development of a civilization - any civilisation - includes contact with other civilisations - ANY other civilisations it encounters.
Deal with it - instead of trying to come up with arbitrary/irrelevant distinctions such as outer space/earth.
"Gazelles feel fear, they protect themselves, they care for their young, sentience. Granted a good deal lower than Human, but sentient."
Gazelles - sentient?
Really?
Do I need to point out the blatant error in this?
You think that because 'we developed it', others do not have the right to benefit from this knowledge?
Really?
"Yes.[..]I would think that you would understand the collective “we” referring to Humans."
Great - more double standards and more arbitrary cathegories you draw up to justify them, Vanyel.
If sentient beings do not have the right to benefit from knowledge developed by others, you do NOT have the right to benefit from knowledge developed by others.
You can call yourself whatever you want - such as ~'I'm human so I get the right
' -, that's a double standard.
etc, etc
"Trying out for the lead in “The King and I”?"
No - I don't want to waste two hours pointing out to you every error from your posts. Any conclusion based on such grievous errors is also wrong.
PS - "I was talking about a sentient race that is of very low sentience."
And now you're moving the goalposts. Throughout this thread we are talking about species whose sentience can 'pass' the most rigorous tests.
Read your own posts - and everyone else's - for examples.
Let's get through some of your errors/double standards/etc from the last post:
"On Earth there is only limited space, sooner or later all of the peoples of Earth would have known of each other."
Irrelevant, even if it were true (which it isn't).
Vanyel, the natural development of a civilization - any civilisation - includes contact with other civilisations - ANY other civilisations it encounters.
Deal with it - instead of trying to come up with arbitrary/irrelevant distinctions such as outer space/earth.
"Gazelles feel fear, they protect themselves, they care for their young, sentience. Granted a good deal lower than Human, but sentient."
Gazelles - sentient?
Really?
Do I need to point out the blatant error in this?
You think that because 'we developed it', others do not have the right to benefit from this knowledge?
Really?
"Yes.[..]I would think that you would understand the collective “we” referring to Humans."
Great - more double standards and more arbitrary cathegories you draw up to justify them, Vanyel.
If sentient beings do not have the right to benefit from knowledge developed by others, you do NOT have the right to benefit from knowledge developed by others.
You can call yourself whatever you want - such as ~'I'm human so I get the right
' -, that's a double standard.etc, etc
"Trying out for the lead in “The King and I”?"
No - I don't want to waste two hours pointing out to you every error from your posts. Any conclusion based on such grievous errors is also wrong.
PS - "I was talking about a sentient race that is of very low sentience."
And now you're moving the goalposts. Throughout this thread we are talking about species whose sentience can 'pass' the most rigorous tests.
Read your own posts - and everyone else's - for examples.
Last edited:
If you insist.
I must have missed that in news. When did the space on Earth become unlimited?
So which is it? Is Earth a limited in space or is it not. I would think, and correct me if I’m wrong (Which I’m sure you’ll do either way.) but above you implied that it’s not true that the peoples of Earth would have come to know of each other existence over time?
I have dealt with it. Earth and space are vastly different. Size is just one of many. That’s not arbitrary, it’s fact.
Yes. Picard pointed out three distinct areas that define sentience as self awareness, intelligence and consciousness. If they fit, into those categories, they are sentient. Gazelles are self aware, they recognize themselves and their young. They are intelligent, they run in herds for defense (we do the same; we just call those “herds” Nations.). Are they conscious? Yes, again to a degree. They recognize dangers to themselves and their young. They are far more attuned to their surroundings than we are, and they do care for each other in that they defend their young, usually by keeping them in the middle of the herd. I will grant that it's a low level of sentience, but it's there.
In the context of what I wrote the collective “we” should have been obvious. Of all the responses to my posts only you have failed to see that. So no it is not arbitrary, you just failed to comprehend the meaning of “we” as it was used.
Knowledge from my own species, yes I do have a right to benefit from it. If I can is another story altogether. But if someone develops a cure for the seizures I get, then yes I have a right to them, if I can get them, as mentioned is another matter.
What exactly are you referring to by that? What is the rest that you have chosen not to mention?
You know the saying about people who can’t take a joke don’t you?
Yes I am moving the goal posts, to show people that a line must be drawn. There are levels of sentience. If you don’t accept that, fine by me. However it is true. You said we drawn the line at sentience. I’m asking you at what level, and why one level is more important than another. Please answer that; or do you skip it because it becomes a slippery slope where the only way to keep from slipping is to stay away from the slope?
Vanyel
A few of the errors from your previous post are:
"I would think, and correct me if I’m wrong (Which I’m sure you’ll do either way.) but above you implied that it’s not true that the peoples of Earth would have come to know of each other existence over time?"
Many civilisations existed - and most perished/changed to unrecognisability - in our history and, until modern times, NO civilisation knew about every other.
This means, Vanyel, that most civilisations did NOT come to know of all others - by virtue of not existing any longer.
BTW, this hasn't stopped civilisations from making contact with each other throughout history (despite this most definitely NOT being an inevitability) and developing - as is natural for a civilisation.
Feel free to read some sociology and confirm how abnormal your 'glass bubble civilisation' is.
In modern times everyone knows about everyone thanks to technology - and that's a first.
"Yes. Picard pointed out three distinct areas"
Picard? Is this supposed to be a joke?
Read a psychology book about consciousness/tests for consciousness/etc - as in do NOT take all your knowledge from a tv series, which often had little backing in actual science.
"But if someone develops a cure for the seizures I get, then yes I have a right to them"
But others not - despite you contributing as little as them to this 'cure'.
And you actually think these are not double stadards.
etc, etc.
A few of the errors from your previous post are:
"I would think, and correct me if I’m wrong (Which I’m sure you’ll do either way.) but above you implied that it’s not true that the peoples of Earth would have come to know of each other existence over time?"
Many civilisations existed - and most perished/changed to unrecognisability - in our history and, until modern times, NO civilisation knew about every other.
This means, Vanyel, that most civilisations did NOT come to know of all others - by virtue of not existing any longer.
BTW, this hasn't stopped civilisations from making contact with each other throughout history (despite this most definitely NOT being an inevitability) and developing - as is natural for a civilisation.
Feel free to read some sociology and confirm how abnormal your 'glass bubble civilisation' is.
In modern times everyone knows about everyone thanks to technology - and that's a first.
"Yes. Picard pointed out three distinct areas"
Picard? Is this supposed to be a joke?
Read a psychology book about consciousness/tests for consciousness/etc - as in do NOT take all your knowledge from a tv series, which often had little backing in actual science.
"But if someone develops a cure for the seizures I get, then yes I have a right to them"
But others not - despite you contributing as little as them to this 'cure'.
And you actually think these are not double stadards.
etc, etc.
Last edited:
Perhaps an understanding of the definition of “sentience” would help to clear things up a bit.
sentient: 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
In other words, sentient beings are self-aware. I think most of us agree that higher animals, certainly mammals, are sentient.
A being that has the ability to apply knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense or insight -- in other words, a creature capable of reasoning -- is sapient.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled program . . .
sentient: 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
In other words, sentient beings are self-aware. I think most of us agree that higher animals, certainly mammals, are sentient.
A being that has the ability to apply knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense or insight -- in other words, a creature capable of reasoning -- is sapient.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled program . . .
For a more detailed presentation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
However, Vanyel is not at a stage where we should be discussing the subtleties of consciousness.
His basic premises regarding 'let the aliens die' are sociologically/morally indefensible.
This means - for the time being, we'll assume that the aliens have the consciousness/the je ne sais quoi that makes humans 'special' AKA keep the hypothetical scenario simple.
The more complex scenarios are to be discussed only after the simplest one is clarified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
However, Vanyel is not at a stage where we should be discussing the subtleties of consciousness.
His basic premises regarding 'let the aliens die' are sociologically/morally indefensible.
This means - for the time being, we'll assume that the aliens have the consciousness/the je ne sais quoi that makes humans 'special' AKA keep the hypothetical scenario simple.
The more complex scenarios are to be discussed only after the simplest one is clarified.
~Sits with his pet Rat, Basil, on his shoulder~
Well, my chubby rat here, he often walks about on my desk, picking up objects, turning them in his little hands while examining them, and he nuzzling up to my cheek, i'd say he's sentient. Same goes for my cat, Moocher.
Yep, I think even Dr. Pulaski said something just like what you said right there.
It's like:
Captain: Well, they don't have warp drive capability, there's nothing we are able to do, so let's go.
1st Officer: But, sir, all those billions are going to die horrible, and in fear and horror!
Captain: Yes, but at least we did not contaminate their culture!
1st Officer: ~Face palms~
It's like saying, "We're not gonna help this person, because he or she does not have any money on them" or whatever.
It seems the PD is more of Starfleet's way of control....they fear that other worlds and lifeforms might one day rival them in power, so they do this PD crap to be able to control them under their wing. And if Picard stuck to it in the First Contact Film, Earth would have been a Borg world.
With my Trek/Doctor Who crossover stories, makes one wonder if it were cannon, would every Federation world have wanted posters with Tom Baker's face saying "Federation Enemy Number One" on it? Will we be seeing Starfleet vessels actually chasing a little blue box, with phaser fire narrowly missing it?
So, put simply, over time all civilizations on Earth (Assuming I mean extinct civilizations is rather silly of you, isn’t it?) will become aware of each other, even if it takes a millennia or 2.
I did take psychology and philosophy both become iffy on the subject of animal consciousness. From the article you asked me to look at in another post:
In an article on sentience:
Back to your posts.
Developed for humans, by humans, so yes I do have a right to it as do other humans.
Are you ever going to say what information you’re continuing?
I have noticed that in every reply you refuse to answer questions. While I've responded to you as fully as possible. Since I do reply to your post in full I think I am "at a stage where we should be discussing the subtleties of consciousness."
When you get there and answer my questions maybe then we can have a better discussion.
Based on what, exactly? Suppose I develop a cure for lung cancer with the goal of curing my father who has the disease. I successfully cure him, and choose not to share my findings with you or anyone else. On what basis do you have a "right" to that cure?
Agreed.
Shipboard security personnel and Marines would be two completely different sets of skills. They're not mutually exclusive, but there very different jobs. you wouldn't waste a Marine infantry platoon guarding a navy destroyer anymore than you would assign a navy Master At Arms unit to hunt down insurgents in Afghanistan.
I give Star Trek: Enterprise credit for atleast trying to deal with these differences.
Read that sentence again:
"Developed FOR humans" meaning a medicine or piece of technology that is meant to be used "by humans." That's what gives me the right.
You are talking about something you developed for your own use, and I would imagine something you are going to keep hidden. You'd deny yourself the millions you'd make off its patent, but that'd be your choice. How long you could keep such a thing hidden, I don't know. I'd wager that it would eventually be taken from you and patented so you'd have no more claim to it.
Maybe a better analogy would be looking out for the neighbor's child. You take care of your own first, and then you do what extra that you can.
Easy, because they can (if they can).
To be honest, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Do you or anyone require a "right" to step into a situation where someone is literally going to die? If you can't do anything about it and therefor personally do nothing, that understandable. If you choose not to run into a burning building, or dive into a flooded river, those two example would fall under the "if you can" catagory. Then you call 911, or something similar, you (and not someone else) does the best you can to effect some form of a "rescue."
You don't possess the "right" to do absolutely nothing. Now if there a question of who you help given limited assets, that's where you employ your own best judgement, or official policy, or simply whoever is closest.
Believe it or not, one of the early concept ideas for Enterprise was that Starfleet Marines would provide the security for the ship, with Malcolm Reed being a Marine himself. This eventually got pushed aside and Reed and his security force became the good old Starfleet security that we've seen in other shows.
Of course, when the MACOs were introduced they practically took over security anyway. In fact, in seasons 3 and 4 we see two Starfleet security officers aside from Lt. Reed: the guy guarding Archer's quarters in the teaser for Twilight, and the guy killed in the armoury in Daedalus. MACOs were used every other time a security presence was needed, which included guarding the brig. In fact in the Mirror Universe, there was no Starfleet security, the MACOs handled that, and Reed himself was a MACO.
Then we have the strange situation of the guard at Earth's embassy on Vulcan in The Forge, who wore a Starfleet uniform but held the rank Corporal.
As usual for Star Trek, the series Enterprise didn't go into detail on Starfleet enlisted ranks. So (and yes this is stretching) Starfleet enlisted personnel could have followed a non-naval rank description system. Corporal is more common to Army (and Marine Corp) ranks.
Similar threads
