They DID NOT just destroy... [SPOILERS]

[Romulus Prime]

Let me be more specific: How can any of these races relate to each other? What do they have in common OTHER THAN "we hate Feds?"

There's no way to give you an answer that can satisfy you as long as you insist on reducing entire civilizations to simplified sound bites.

I can absolutely accept "I don't have an answer for you."

...the Pact is not about hating the Federation, not for all its members. The Gorn certainly have no reason to hate the Federation, since Picard and Data saved the current Gorn government from being overthrown. The Kinshaya have no history of interaction with the Federation at all, and focus their hatred on the Klingons. The Pact is about mutual defense against any potential threat; after seeing their quadrant come to the brink of annihilation at the hands of the Borg, they recognize that they can no longer go it alone.

Ugh. I'd really like to comment further on this, but I'll just say I had several aspects of that in a Trek story I tried to develop 12yrs ago, and am now placing/rearranging it to fit with my own stories.

Yes, I'm aware being a writer is an uphill battle as far as selling the idea to a publisher, never mind getting a book published at all or ever. It's more for myself to do.

But being so drastically alien, they are governed by different psychologies. The founding Fed members are all vaguely similar in both appearance and general social psychology. This isn't the case with the Typhon aliens, and they are in fact MORE prone to seeking violence as a solution than most races depicted.

Since when does the way different species look have anything to do with whether they can get along? Anyone who's watched more than a few hours of Star Trek should understand that's a belief that holds no water in this franchise.

And anyone who's watched more than a few hours of Star Trek knows the running joke about alien foreheads and the fact that the VAST majority of races encountered are humanoid in appearance to some degree. There's a familiarity with that on a psychological level.

Tholians
Species 8472
The "parasite" race from TNG season 1
Trill symbiotes
The Sheliak
The Calamarain
Excalbians
Horta

There are a few more, I'm sure, but as far as intelligent non-humanoid aliens go...that's it. Oh I know, the Gorn, the Gamilon, Jem'Hadar and even the Founders appear quite alien - and they are - but on the surface they all have (or take on) a relatively humanoid appearance which we relate to. It's almost always reflected in their psychology with regards to how they interact with human characters as well.

aside from the Romulans, and briefly the Breen, these races have rarely, if ever, been shown onscreen. The Kinshaya don't even exist in canonical Trek. The Tzenkethi were never seen, and in fact were only ever mentioned in one episode and a single scene of another. The Tholians have been featured in only four episodes and mentioned briefly in a few others, and the Gorn have only been seen onscreen in two episodes -- three if you count the brief glimpse of a Gorn councillor in Elysia in TAS: "The Time Trap" -- and mentioned in passing in two more.

I think if the Breen, Romulans and Tholians weren't part of it, it would make more sense. Reason being there is a history to fall back on with the 1st two, and either written accounts or accepted behavioral assumptions of the last one.

The whole reason that author Keith DeCandido and editor Marco Palmieri chose these races in the first place was because of their obscurity and the lack of detailed knowledge we had of them -- because they were barely known and Keith and Marco thought it would be cool to develop them more fully. So I don't understand where you're getting this notion that onscreen Star Trek has provided clear, unambiguous portraits of who these species are and what their psychology is like.

The "idea" is my own perception of what I've seen, read, liked or disliked. It's no different from what I feel about Orion girls being retconned in Enterprise as fake slaves rather than being used as commodities as was implied in the show and written in stories before.

In appearance, but come on, they're aliens in a fictional universe. Obviously they've been capable of cooperating with each other enough to found an advanced technological civilization, so clearly a slavishly literal comparison with animals they just happen to look like on the surface is not legitimate.

The point you're missing is that what they are and how they live effects how they perceive their lives, the lives of non-Gorn, and their place in existence. If you don't understand that, then I'll put it to you another way with dogs again - they are governed by a different psychology than us based on what they came from, what they are now, and who they do or do not interact with. Troi explains it on only a language level EDIT: in the episode The Ensigns of Command.

Plenty of human regimes have been cold and callous, but that isn't a racial trait.

I'm talking about environment and biology effecting perception and behavior now. Breen are known aggressors, and despite the fact I think DS9 is the pinnacle of Star Trek on TV, I still try and make sense of what the Founders offered them in exchange for a NEGOTIATION, never mind an alliance.

...seriously, if you'd read Zero Sum Game, you'd discover how completely, transcendently, comically wrong you are to make any blanket generalizations about the Breen as a species.

No matter the reason someone has written post TV series, the fact remains that animals/life forms of any kind are governed by the environment they come from, and what they instinctually feel is necessary to ensure their survival. Breen are aggressive. They are depicted as such. Somehow, it's an extension of the place they came from. Fine if someone fleshes that out, but it's still a factor.

Romulans are militaristic and don't trust situations or individuals they can't control.

How the hell is that a trait of what kind of "animal" they are??? They're exactly the same species as Vulcans! Obviously their militarism is a cultural trait.

We're all a type of animal. I know human arrogance wants to believe otherwise, but we're a type of animal existing in this biosphere.

As far as the militarism and control goes, c'mon, where do you think the concept comes from? They're humanoids who live in groups like us. For humans, it's a primate trait. When primates live in groups, that = top monkey/ape/human tells others what to do and keeps order so there's cohesion in the group, and some primates are known for "warring" with other troops.

Are Romulans a type of alien primate? That's up for debate, but they are the one group in the "Pact" who act and look most like us, so I'm going by that.

No, Romulans and Vulcans are not the same anymore. Sub-species at best. I provided a link in the other thread which addresses that point. Scroll down to the part here...

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Romulan

...the part that says "Physiology" to see the major differences, none of which, by your own admission, should not be able to occur within such a short evolutionary span. If they're the same species on every biological level, Chekov should never have been able to pinpoint Spock on that Stormbird.

Obviously, yes, but the point is that there are only some who are like that, and therefore there are others who are not. The Typhon Pact novels go out of their way to demonstrate that there are many different conflicting factions within the Pact, some of whom are just what you imagine, but others of whom are completely unlike that.

Fair enough.

*sigh* The fact that you look at two people showing respect for each other's diversity and see it as something to mock is part and parcel of why you're unable to understand what we're trying to tell you ...

No, it's not. Perhaps you missed the part you quoted me where I said "If it had been reversed, I think it would have been great."

What I find many Trek fans are unable to understand is that IDIC does not mean "the only acceptable opinion and perception is what I and the majority think is correct." I found the way it was written to be funny. You didn't. There's actually nothing wrong with that.

(And perhaps you weren't aware that Leonard Nimoy is Jewish?)

I'm actually well aware of that, as well as the fact the "Vulcan salute" is also of Jewish religious origins. I'm also aware that Shatner is Jewish. Did you know he's also Canadian?

Most people in the United States used to follow the path that kept African-Americans and women from voting or participating equally in society. Now, most people in the United States fully accept their inclusion and reject those who still push for the old attitudes. Most people in the United States used to follow the path that rejected any acknowledgment of homosexuality, let alone any granting of rights; yet now an increasing percentage of people in the United States support marriage, military service, and other forms of inclusion for LGBT people. Societies can change; in fact, they routinely do. If anything, it's a fairly normal pattern for a new generation to rebel against the attitudes and excesses of the previous one.

Yet, people still generalize certain political and religious groups in place of that, and it's accepted, the biggest one being that one group doesn't like certain ethnicities, when in fact the accusing group has a well documented history of either voting against reform or abstaining all together. Oh yeah, there's plenty of rampant prejudice and stereotyping today; it's just done in a different manner to different groups. We're still basically the same, all of us, and that's as far as I'll go with real world politics...for now.

...it's foolish and wrong because it assumes the entire species is a monolithic group. Weyoun was speaking about the behavior of the government and dominant culture of the Romulan Star Empire. It is foolish to equate that with the uniform behavior of the entire population.

Exactly! Who the hell do you think everyone has to deal with?

Every society has multiple different factions and blocs within it. In a given generation or era, one such faction will dominate and impose its values on the character of the nation, while opposing factions are marginalized or repressed. But eventually, the dominant faction will weaken and an opposing faction will gain in strength, and the national character will change.

I understand that, mostly because both sides of my family are recent immigrants, one side being white, while the other is not.

With members of the Romulan military -- members of the ruling faction and subculture. When dealing with the Romulan Star Empire as a political entity and those who were employed in the support of its current policies. A state is not its people. Especially not an oppressive, dictatorial state.

I understand that very well. I'd like you to quote me were I said "everyone in every group acts and thinks exactly alike."

A lot of the posters on this board are German. Would you therefore expect them to be Nazis? I doubt it.<SNIP> So surely it should be just as easy to accept that the character of the Romulan government and military at a certain point in history can't be assumed to be a universal, perpetual attribute of Romulans as a species, and that it's just as possible for the oppressive, treacherous Romulan regime to be replaced by a more peaceful, enlightened one as it was for the Nazis to be replaced by the modern, democratic German government.

Sure, if you want to make Star Trek stories about politics, lobbyists and handshakes, and crews teaming up to scan for fungis and rocks - yeah, that would be great.

For me, I'd rather read a Trek book about an adventure, with clearly defined good and bad main characters, a decent supporting cast, and an arc both the lead protagonist and antagonist have to go through. Romulans as adversaries are better for this (much like NAZIs being primary adversaries for Indiana Jones.) If I want pointed eared people who are peaceful, I'll read a story about Vulcans.

Actually THIS time I'm also going by the Vanguard depiction of them as being hive-minded. And pretty much anything which is hive-minded is adverse to that which is not part of their group. They are xenophobic - that much is well known. They are a hive-mind. Both those = no alliance ever with anyone, IMO.

Which was entirely true until the Borg Invasion. Once you've read Destiny, maybe you'll understand what a complete game-changer that was.

Hmmm...suddenly I'm getting that "fan-fic" vibe again.

 

[RonG]

just out of curiosity, Romulus Prime, what *is* that "fan-fic" vibe?

 

[Romulus Prime]

The Klingons...we know from ENT: "Judgment" that the warrior class did not always rule their society, but that their dominance was a fairly recent development as of the 2150s (at least within the lifetime of a Klingon character who was probably a centenarian).

Yeah, from Enterprise: Retconning Gone Wild. That doesn't fit in with anything that's come before it with regards to depicting even non-military Klingons. Why would the Warrior class NOT rule when their society was based on hunting, battle and achieving/revering feats of honor? Hell, even the Samurai ruled for a time, and the Klingons in general are far more aggro than humans can ever be. Even when they are "tamed" by Romulans, that warrior spirit and need to be loud, boisterous and aggressive is DOMINANT once it's awakened. See Toq from Birthright, Part II. Ugh, effin' Enterprise...

So even with those broad, stereotyped patterns, Star Trek still has a recurring theme that societies are capable of change and growth, that seemingly intractable enmities can turn into friendship, and that what seems to be the universal status quo of a civilization can just be a phase it's passing through in the grand sweep of history. So there's no reason that same narrative of change and tearing down walls can't occur with civilizations like the Romulans or Gorn or Tzenkethi as well.

Boring, and still doesn't fit with the MO of some of the races. I love history and learning about other cultures, but when I pick up a sci-fi or fantasy book, undefined parameters with regards to certain species or factions representing "ABC" doesn't always make it good or worth reading. But now I finally see now why so many Trekkies get upset over Star Trek Online and the Klingon-Fed War; they want to pretend everyone gets along once "peace" is made, and that once diplomacy is established, it will forever remain. That's just not so...especially on Earth.

 

[Christopher]

There's no way to give you an answer that can satisfy you as long as you insist on reducing entire civilizations to simplified sound bites.

I can absolutely accept "I don't have an answer for you."

Which is not what I said. I do have an answer, I've tried repeatedly to give it to you, and you've repeatedly ignored it, even to the point of specifically deleting it from your quote of my post and pretending it didn't exist.

And anyone who's watched more than a few hours of Star Trek knowsthe running joke about alien foreheads and the fact that the VAST majority of races encountered are humanoid in appearance to some degree. There's a familiarity with that on a psychological level.

That's because it costs more money to make nonhumanoid aliens. It's got nothing to do with psychological sameness, it's got to do with the budgetary and practical limitations that a television production is under. The books and comics are under no such restriction, and are thus freer to portray nonhumanoid aliens and show them getting along perfectly well with humanoids.

I think if the Breen, Romulans and Tholians weren't part of it, it would make more sense. Reason being there is a history to fall back on with the 1st two, and either written accounts or accepted behavioral assumptions of the last one.

As I've tried to point out, history is not destiny. The real history of stuff on Earth that actually happened is full of cases where nations went from intractable enmity to close allegiance, or from xenophobic dictatorship to inclusive democracy. So your insistence that the past history of these civilizations is some insurmountable limit on their future behavior is completely irrational.

The "idea" is my own perception of what I've seen, read, liked or disliked.

The point I'm trying to make and that you're not even attempting to understand is that the reason your perception of many of these species is so monolithic is because it's based on extremely limited information. The idea behind the Typhon Pact books is to add more information and move beyond those narrow, incomplete perceptions. Basically your view of, say, the Tzenkethi or the Gorn is like that of the blind man in the parable who feels the tail of an elephant and thinks it's a snake. What you're doing is like being told there's a whole elephant there and refusing to believe it because you're convinced the snake is all there is.

The point you're missing is that what they are and how they live effects how they perceive their lives, the lives of non-Gorn, and their place in existence.

That has absolutely nothing to do with your previous assumption that I was refuting, that just because an alien species looked like Earth reptiles, they had to behave like them. I'm not missing this point you're making now, because you were talking about something completely unrelated to it before.

I'm talking about environment and biology effecting perception and behavior now.

And you can't intelligently or meaningfully talk about that when you hardly know anything about their environment or biology. And you can't know that if you don't read the books, which you've already made it clear you don't plan to do. You are willfully and proudly ignorant on this very point, so it's hypocritical for you to turn around and claim that you're remotely qualified to draw any competent conclusions about it.

No matter the reason someone has written post TV series, the fact remains that animals/life forms of any kind are governed by the environment they come from, and what they instinctually feel is necessary to ensure their survival.

Just... look around you. Look beyond the imaginary sci-fi stuff and look at the REAL PLANET YOU ACTUALLY LIVE ON. Humans are animals. We all have the same evolutionary heritage, the same innate psychology, the same basics of environment and survival needs shaping our behavior. And yet human nature runs the gamut from Hitler to Gandhi, from the most brutal tyrannies to the most selfless acts of love, from the most profound and pathetic ignorance to the heights of genius and inspiration. Evolution creates potential, but there are many ways that potential can be expressed. Hell, you and I are the same species and we can't agree on a damn thing!

No, Romulans and Vulcans are not the same anymore. Sub-species at best. I provided a link in the other thread which addresses that point. Scroll down to the part here...

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Romulan

...the part that says "Physiology" to see the major differences, none of which, by your own admission, should not be able to occur within such a short evolutionary span.

I admit no such thing. In fact, I aggressively refuted it in my responses to you in that other thread. As I pointed out there, a mere 2000 years is nowhere near enough time for hominins to branch out into separate species or subspecies. Human populations that have been completely isolated from each other for up to 50,000 years are still exactly the same species.

In fact, I've just come upon another piece of evidence that blows your dog analogy completely out of the water. To wit:

http://io9.com/5925024/why-eugenics-will-always-fail

There's no denying the effects of selective breeding on a species. Over only a few thousand years, humans have managed to breed in, or out, any number of traits when it comes to dogs. Certain breeds are smarter, stronger, faster, or bigger. It's proof of concept that selective eugenics can produce desired results.

But humans aren't dogs. In fact, almost no animal is a dog when it comes to its genetic plasticity. Everything about them makes them more practically suited to selective breeding. In canine DNA are specific sequences known as SINEC_Cf elements. These are sequences of DNA that are especially prone to wandering, whole from one part of the DNA strand to another. In dogs, they often insert themselves into stretches that act as regulatory agents on processes, vastly but for the most part safely changing the expression of genes. Dogs have about 11,000 of these sequences, and they go back to their wolf ancestors. Humans have less than one thousand. Dog DNA is also shown to have strange repeating segments more often than humans. They're prone to benign mutation. They're also, unlike many animals, prone to develop in a way that allows for more biodiversity. The skull of a puppy often doesn't much resemble the dog it will grow into, whereas other animals have juvenile forms that are more templates of their adult selves. Starting from a basic pattern and drawing on variation from there developmentally allows dogs a huge plasticity of form that cannot be copied by other animals, humans included.

So it's completely misinformed to use dog breeding as an example for humanoid adaptability. Dogs are an exceptional case, far easier to modify than most species.

If they're the same species on every biological level, Chekov should never have been able to pinpoint Spock on that Stormbird.

That falsely assumes that every member of a given species is biologically identical. Different human populations have various kinds of subtle difference, like differences in blood type or the like. And there are ways Vulcans and Romulans could be distinguished that have nothing to do with their species. Since the individuals were raised on different planets, their bodies are made of biomass that came from those different planets, and there could be differences in the ratios of certain isotopes in their bone structure, say. Also, if Romulus has lower gravity than Vulcan, say, then Romulans would tend to be taller, have less dense bones and less developed muscles, have a different respiration rate, etc.

 

[Romulus Prime]

just out of curiosity, Romulus Prime, what *is* that "fan-fic" vibe?

Stories which remind me of what a fan would write on the internet which are just so crazy-different from what you would ever expect to see on the show. A lot of Star Wars books seem like that to me, where the situation and characters are either out of place or out of their minds, and the author is either making stuff up or having the characters do "kewl" things just to be "kewl" instead of entertaining.

I know it might not be the authors fault, as with R.A. Salvatore being asked to write a Star Wars story and what elements should be in it, but sometimes the books and characters we know just come out...odd.

I used to read ALL the Trek movie novelizations back in the '80s. In the back of my mind, I was getting this vibe, but didn't really bother with it and kept reading. NOW, I wouldn't even think about touching a movie novelization, and overall, I prefer to read about original characters and settings like Vanguard or Gorkan (yes, I recall Klag was in TNG's 2nd season) or SOME of the alternate universe stories like the ones found in Echoes and Refractions.

Maybe I'm wrong, but sometimes the authors can seem like they're just reaching for the "kewl" factor, rather than the believable entertaining one.

 

[Romulus Prime]

There's no way to give you an answer that can satisfy you as long as you insist on reducing entire civilizations to simplified sound bites.

I can absolutely accept "I don't have an answer for you."

Which is not what I said. I do have an answer, I've tried repeatedly to give it to you, and you've repeatedly ignored it, even to the point of specifically deleting it from your quote of my post and pretending it didn't exist.

I know what you're trying to say. What you don't get is that I don't like that concept. Whether or not stereotyping is wrong with fake aliens in fake universes is non-sequitor. I don't like the concept of the Typhon Pact for the reasons I gave. It's as simple as that.

That's because it costs more money to make nonhumanoid aliens. It's got nothing to do with psychological sameness, it's got to do with the budgetary and practical limitations that a television production is under. The books and comics are under no such restriction, and are thus freer to portray nonhumanoid aliens and show them getting along perfectly well with humanoids.

You're spinning; we weren't addressing the financial aspects of the show. What you said:

"Since when does the way different species look have anything to do with whether they can get along? Anyone who's watched more than a few hours of Star Trek should understand that's a belief that holds no water in this franchise."

I'm sorry, but of the list I provided, only the Horta and Trill Symbionts manage to have some sort of truce or mutual understanding with "us" which doesn't purposely put humanoids in serious danger. And the whole point is because certain aliens are vastly different means they will most likely be very UNlike us with regards to perception.

As I've tried to point out, history is not destiny. The real history of stuff on Earth that actually happened is full of cases where nations went from intractable enmity to close allegiance, or from xenophobic dictatorship to inclusive democracy. So your insistence that the past history of these civilizations is some insurmountable limit on their future behavior is completely irrational.

Then war and conflict on Earth should have ended several thousand years ago. Last I checked the news, 200 people got massacred in Syria, Iran is still under the thumb of the Basijis and Khomennei while their agents try and assassinate diplomats here and abroad, the Chinese are testing Japan on some contested islands plus they still want Taiwan, Russia went from Putin, to Putin in the background, to Putin again, the Armenians are still waiting for the Turks to acknowledge their genocide from almost 100 years ago, nevermind the conflict between them and the Azeris, and with the world in a financial crisis, mass conflict is again becoming a strong possibility.

But I won't stereotype the human race. That'd be silly.

The point I'm trying to make and that you're not even attempting to understand is that the reason your perception of many of these species is so monolithic is because it's based on extremely limited information. The idea behind the Typhon Pact books is to add more information and move beyond those narrow, incomplete perceptions. Basically your view of, say, the Tzenkethi or the Gorn is like that of the blind man in the parable who feels the tail of an elephant and thinks it's a snake. What you're doing is like being told there's a whole elephant there and refusing to believe it because you're convinced the snake is all there is.

I get your point. What you don't get is that I don't find it plausible. I'll refer you to my list o' world problems above - some groups WILL NOT COOPERATE or continue to actively despise one another. And we're all human from the same biosphere with relatively similar perceptions. Between aliens - yeah fine, there's the UFP.

But guess what?

Not every Trek race joins it, likes it, or likes others. Is that a stereotype? Is it a true statement? Is not wanting to join a particular group or organization something that happens in real life? Are all differences always resolved in real life?

That has absolutely nothing to do with your previous assumption that I was refuting, that just because an alien species looked like Earth reptiles, they had to behave like them. I'm not missing this point you're making now, because you were talking about something completely unrelated to it before.

And you can't intelligently or meaningfully talk about that when you hardly know anything about their environment or biology. And you can't know that if you don't read the books, which you've already made it clear you don't plan to do. You are willfully and proudly ignorant on this very point, so it's hypocritical for you to turn around and claim that you're remotely qualified to draw any competent conclusions about it.

No I'm not. My points are consistent. Take them at face value and don't try and read into them. I never said they would act like earth reptiles at any point - QUOTE ME if I did. I said WHAT they are effects how they perceive themselves and their place in life. In turn, it effects how they associate with others. Need another example of my point?

The concept of the Demu aliens from F.M. Busby's "Cage a Man." The whole idea is that they think only their species has a true soul, thus make it their mission in life to transform non-Demu into their own race.

In other words, their perception dictated their actions. THAT'S what my point is. THAT'S what I'm talking about with regards to non-human life perceiving things different and acting based on such perceptions. Even Stephen Hawking alludes to this aspect when talking about the potential dangers of trying to contact alien life.

But yeah, keep on slinging insults like "you're ignorant" "you don't know anything" or "you're not competent." Nice attitude, bub.

Just... look around you. Look beyond the imaginary sci-fi stuff and look at the REAL PLANET YOU ACTUALLY LIVE ON. Humans are animals. We all have the same evolutionary heritage, the same innate psychology, the same basics of environment and survival needs shaping our behavior. And yet human nature runs the gamut from Hitler to Gandhi, from the most brutal tyrannies to the most selfless acts of love, from the most profound and pathetic ignorance to the heights of genius and inspiration. Evolution creates potential, but there are many ways that potential can be expressed. Hell, you and I are the same species and we can't agree on a damn thing!

Yup, and the stereotype is we're an aggressive species.

Is that wrong? Unfair? Biased? Prejudice? Hurtful?



Or is it the truth?

Ask yourself that next time you see a spider crawling on the ceiling, or dig up weeds in the yard, or get angry when you stub your toe, or get cut off on the road, or react to someone who doesn't share your opinion.

I admit no such thing. In fact, I aggressively refuted it in my responses to you in that other thread. As I pointed out there, a mere 2000 years is nowhere near enough time for hominins to branch out into separate species or subspecies. Human populations that have been completely isolated from each other for up to 50,000 years are still exactly the same species.

1. I'm not talking about humans or humanoids in a biosphere for 2000 years, I'm talking about humanoids in space being exposed to space rads which slice DNA, and exposure to alien life, water, microbes, viruses, etc. which can alter you on some level.

2. You say it's impossible for evolution to take place in that time, yet there are certain differences between Vulcans and Romulans which are noted, observed, and demonstrated which clearly make them different. You say it doesn't make them different and what I listed isn't enough to make differences, which clearly there are.

So either evolution took place to make those differences (which you say is impossible in that time frame,) or my list of circumstances (which you seem to disregard in contributing change) is what caused the changes.


Which is it?

In fact, I've just come upon another piece of evidence that blows your dog analogy completely out of the water. To wit:

http://io9.com/5925024/why-eugenics-will-always-fail

There's no denying the effects of selective breeding on a species. Over only a few thousand years, humans have managed to breed in, or out, any number of traits when it comes to dogs. Certain breeds are smarter, stronger, faster, or bigger. It's proof of concept that selective eugenics can produce desired results.

But humans aren't dogs. In fact, almost no animal is a dog when it comes to its genetic plasticity. Everything about them makes them more practically suited to selective breeding. In canine DNA are specific sequences known as SINEC_Cf elements. These are sequences of DNA that are especially prone to wandering, whole from one part of the DNA strand to another. In dogs, they often insert themselves into stretches that act as regulatory agents on processes, vastly but for the most part safely changing the expression of genes. Dogs have about 11,000 of these sequences, and they go back to their wolf ancestors. Humans have less than one thousand. Dog DNA is also shown to have strange repeating segments more often than humans. They're prone to benign mutation. They're also, unlike many animals, prone to develop in a way that allows for more biodiversity. The skull of a puppy often doesn't much resemble the dog it will grow into, whereas other animals have juvenile forms that are more templates of their adult selves. Starting from a basic pattern and drawing on variation from there developmentally allows dogs a huge plasticity of form that cannot be copied by other animals, humans included.

So it's completely misinformed to use dog breeding as an example for humanoid adaptability. Dogs are an exceptional case, far easier to modify than most species.

I'm well aware of that, and thank you for posting it. It was actually part of the point I was drawing on.

1. The circumstance of getting DNA sliced up on a consistant basis mean certain aspects will change or become unstable. In other words - and it's for a similar reason you're arguing about why I should read the books and accept the Typhon concept - the circumstance allows for the opportunity to explore WHY Romulans became different from Vulcans on a genetic level in a span of only 2000 years.

2. Neither Vulcans or Romulans are from this biosphere, thus your assertion from the link that dog DNA can't be copied is non-sequitor. I'm not talking about Vulcanoids having dog DNA, I'm talking about an aspect which is similar to dog DNA in order to allow for the changes which differentiate Romulans from them. I gave multiple examples of circumstance which could play into that theory which you disregarded.

In contrast, what did you offer to explain the differences? I only recall the assertion that Romulans and Vulcans were biologically the same, which (based on the show and the link) is not a true statement.

If they're the same species on every biological level, Chekov should never have been able to pinpoint Spock on that Stormbird.

That falsely assumes that every member of a given species is biologically identical. Different human populations have various kinds of subtle difference, like differences in blood type or the like. And there are ways Vulcans and Romulans could be distinguished that have nothing to do with their species.

He was using a scanner. He isolated Spock. Later shows in the TNG era have noted differences on a biological level. It's a fact there are biological differences. I'm sure the procreation rate is different as well, otherwise the Romulan Empire would have a very small population...

Since the individuals were raised on different planets, their bodies are made of biomass that came from those different planets, and there could be differences in the ratios of certain isotopes in their bone structure, say. Also, if Romulus has lower gravity than Vulcan, say, then Romulans would tend to be taller, have less dense bones and less developed muscles, have a different respiration rate, etc.

Meaning there are biological differences since they are no longer the same.

 

[Sci]

just out of curiosity, Romulus Prime, what *is* that "fan-fic" vibe?

Stories which remind me of what a fan would write on the internet which are just so crazy-different from what you would ever expect to see on the show. A lot of Star Wars books seem like that to me, where the situation and characters are either out of place or out of their minds, and the author is either making stuff up or having the characters do "kewl" things just to be "kewl" instead of entertaining.

<SNIP>

Maybe I'm wrong, but sometimes the authors can seem like they're just reaching for the "kewl" factor, rather than the believable entertaining one.

I am telling you right now that you are wrong, and that if you were to read Star Trek: Destiny with an open mind, you would see that it is not something that tries to be "kewl" and "fan-fic-y." It's a very serious trilogy about the inevitability of mortality and how people become their own prisons... and about how they build the future in spite of that.

But to see that, you'll have to let go of your unfounded preconceptions.

Since the individuals were raised on different planets, their bodies are made of biomass that came from those different planets, and there could be differences in the ratios of certain isotopes in their bone structure, say. Also, if Romulus has lower gravity than Vulcan, say, then Romulans would tend to be taller, have less dense bones and less developed muscles, have a different respiration rate, etc.

Meaning there are biological differences since they are no longer the same.

Yes, there are biological differences between Vulcans and Romulans. This is not in dispute. Similarly, there are biological differences between people with Type A blood and people with Type O blood. There are biological differences between males and females.

Having biological differences does not equal being a separate species. 2,000 years is not enough time for speciation to occur... except in bad fan fic.

 

[Sho]

It's the internet. It's a public message board. People will post opinions you may not agree with or like. Report me to a mod if it personally bothers. FYI -it's up to them to chastise me...not you. Good day.

I didn't chastise you because I disagree with your opinions, I chastised you for your post being low-quality and flame bait. We disagree here all the time, it's fuel to the fire of any discussion board, and as long as it's done in a civil and well-reasoned manner, it's just fine.

And no, I don't need to be a moderator to stand up for quality and the atmosphere in this community I care about. In most forums moderators will limit their hands-on involvement to extreme cases and emergencies, to avoid the atmosphere becoming oppressive. In turn it also helps moderators if their constituents communicate what they don't welcome in their midth. (And while I'll admit this is but speculation, if that kind of thinking had been a little more popular in the past, perhaps people like DRGIII wouldn't have felt compelled to leave.)

At least I'm happy to see that you've since made a little more effort to explain your opinions.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Which is not what I said. I do have an answer, I've tried repeatedly to give it to you, and you've repeatedly ignored it, even to the point of specifically deleting it from your quote of my post and pretending it didn't exist.

I know what you're trying to say. What you don't get is that I don't like that concept. Whether or not stereotyping is wrong with fake aliens in fake universes is non-sequitor. I don't like the concept of the Typhon Pact for the reasons I gave. It's as simple as that.

Not liking Christopher's answers is not the same thing as Christopher not giving any answers.

If you're fundamentally unsatisfied with the basic direction of Trek lit since the late 1990s, that's not his fault.

1. The circumstance of getting DNA sliced up on a consistant basis mean certain aspects will change or become unstable. In other words - and it's for a similar reason you're arguing about why I should read the books and accept the Typhon concept - the circumstance allows for the opportunity to explore WHY Romulans became different from Vulcans on a genetic level in a span of only 2000 years.
2. Neither Vulcans or Romulans are from this biosphere, thus your assertion from the link that dog DNA can't be copied is non-sequitor. I'm not talking about Vulcanoids having dog DNA, I'm talking about an aspect which is similar to dog DNA in order to allow for the changes which differentiate Romulans from them. I gave multiple examples of circumstance which could play into that theory which you disregarded.

Assuming that basic evolutionary pressures would work differently on Vulcan than on Earth, or among Vulcanoid than among humans, is--besides not being something that must obviously happen--unnecessary.

In contrast, what did you offer to explain the differences? I only recall the assertion that Romulans and Vulcans were biologically the same, which (based on the show and the link) is not a true statement.

The average Romulan and the average Vulcan (and the average Rigelians, and the average Mintakan, et cetera) are almost certainly different.

The Romulans' backstory in the novelverse has the first settlers of Romulus be the relatively few survivors of a collection of generation starships which sheltered a population that was not a representative cross-sample of the general Vulcan population. Not all the first Romulans survived; disease and conflict further winnowed their numbers. Later, the proto-Romulans engaged in mass cloning and genetic engineering, further altering the expression of different traits.

Does the existence of differences between Romulan and Vulcan gene pools, even significant ones, mean that Romulans and Vulcans belong to separate species? No, not at all. A species' gene pool can account for a great deal of variability. Even if the Vulcans and proto-Romulans were separate populations within a broader Vulcanoid gene pool, like Neandertals and Denisova, they still wouldn't qualify as separate populations.

The separation of proto-Romulans from Vulcans occurred perhaps two thousand years ago. As Christopher pointed out, that's not nearly long enough for Romulans to have emerged as a separate species from the Vulcans, even with (I'd argue) a certain amount of genetic engineering. The scattered human populations on Earth haven't speciated with substantially greater divergences--Dene and Mapuche and Finns and Khoi are all interfertile.

What sorts of differences exist? There may be some visible differences and some invisible differences, and averages. Romulan forehead ridges aren't diagnostic, not only because there have been plenty of Romulan characters without forehead ridges, not only because half-Vulcan Spock was able to walk around Romulus without being visibly alien, but because we have no idea about the frequency of forehead ridges on Vulcan. For all we know, forehead ridges could be as common on Vulcan as on Romulus; arguing from absence is bad form. We'd have to determine just what Star Trek sensors pick up when they scan for life signs: how good are they?

He was using a scanner. He isolated Spock. Later shows in the TNG era have noted differences on a biological level. It's a fact there are biological differences. I'm sure the procreation rate is different as well, otherwise the Romulan Empire would have a very small population...

Judging a sub-population of a species to be a distinct species by virtue of rates of reproduction is ... interesting. Did my grandparents' generation belong to a different species from my own?

(Also: Spock is half-human. His half-human ancestry would be much more readily detectable on Romulus.)

Since the individuals were raised on different planets, their bodies are made of biomass that came from those different planets, and there could be differences in the ratios of certain isotopes in their bone structure, say. Also, if Romulus has lower gravity than Vulcan, say, then Romulans would tend to be taller, have less dense bones and less developed muscles, have a different respiration rate, etc.

Meaning there are biological differences since they are no longer the same.[/QUOTE]

Those sorts of biological differences do not create separate species.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Why would the Warrior class NOT rule when their society was based on hunting, battle and achieving/revering feats of honor? Hell, even the Samurai ruled for a time, and the Klingons in general are far more aggro than humans can ever be. Even when they are "tamed" by Romulans, that warrior spirit and need to be loud, boisterous and aggressive is DOMINANT once it's awakened. See Toq from Birthright, Part II.

Last weekend, I was spending time with some friends, including not a few medievalists. We all agreed that the Trek writers managed to nail the medieval mentality squarely on the head with their depiction of Klingons: utterly uninhibited beings, enthusiastically indulging in violence, laying claim to codes of honour while keeping in mind that victory was the greatest honour, et cetera.

You underestimate humans.

I finally see now why so many Trekkies get upset over Star Trek Online and the Klingon-Fed War; they want to pretend everyone gets along once "peace" is made, and that once diplomacy is established, it will forever remain. That's just not so...especially on Earth.

Have you read Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined? He makes a compelling argument that violence has declined sharply, taking care to note that interstate violence has also fallen.

 

[iarann]

Ugh. I'd really like to comment further on this, but I'll just say I had several aspects of that in a Trek story I tried to develop 12yrs ago, and am now placing/rearranging it to fit with my own stories.

This comment is hilarious in light of your later statement

Hmmm...suddenly I'm getting that "fan-fic" vibe again.

Just because you don't like the direction some things go doesn't give it a "fan-fic" vibe. You haven't read the books, so you can't honestly be making an assessment of the quality of writing. I'm not sure why you feel insulting others is going to bolster your point.

There are a few more, I'm sure, but as far as intelligent non-humanoid aliens go...that's it. Oh I know, the Gorn, the Gamilon, Jem'Hadar and even the Founders appear quite alien - and they are - but on the surface they all have (or take on) a relatively humanoid appearance which we relate to. It's almost always reflected in their psychology with regards to how they interact with human characters as well.

The point you're missing is that what they are and how they live effects how they perceive their lives, the lives of non-Gorn, and their place in existence. If you don't understand that, then I'll put it to you another way with dogs again - they are governed by a different psychology than us based on what they came from, what they are now, and who they do or do not interact with. Troi explains it on only a language level EDIT: in the episode The Ensigns of Command.

I'm talking about environment and biology effecting perception and behavior now. Breen are known aggressors, and despite the fact I think DS9 is the pinnacle of Star Trek on TV, I still try and make sense of what the Founders offered them in exchange for a NEGOTIATION, never mind an alliance.

No matter the reason someone has written post TV series, the fact remains that animals/life forms of any kind are governed by the environment they come from, and what they instinctually feel is necessary to ensure their survival. Breen are aggressive. They are depicted as such. Somehow, it's an extension of the place they came from. Fine if someone fleshes that out, but it's still a factor.

Everything you are saying contradicts what we have already seen on screen. You can take your pick from either the Dominion-Cardasian alliance or the Xindi or the Federation itself, but there have been on screen examples of different races from different biological types getting along in an alliance. Klingons have been shown to be aggressive yet factions and individuals have shown the ability to work with others.

If you have a problem with this then you must have a pretty big problem with Star Trek since this is an element that has been there since the beginning.

 

[Romulus Prime]

just out of curiosity, Romulus Prime, what *is* that "fan-fic" vibe?

Stories which remind me of what a fan would write on the internet which are just so crazy-different from what you would ever expect to see on the show. A lot of Star Wars books seem like that to me, where the situation and characters are either out of place or out of their minds, and the author is either making stuff up or having the characters do "kewl" things just to be "kewl" instead of entertaining.

<SNIP>

Maybe I'm wrong, but sometimes the authors can seem like they're just reaching for the "kewl" factor, rather than the believable entertaining one.

I am telling you right now that you are wrong, and that if you were to read Star Trek: Destiny with an open mind...

I might be wrong about the intent of the writer. I'm not "wrong" about how I feel because that's my OPINION of how many previous Trek (and Star Wars) books read FOR ME. In turn, I don't think you are "wrong" for liking something I don't. Now I already said I'd purchase Destiny which already implies my mind is "open," thus it's a non-issue in this case.

you'll have to let go of your unfounded preconceptions.

It's not unfounded. I haven't just read 1, 2, or 3 Trek books in my lifetime, l've read or tried to read at least 20 different Trek books in the past 20yrs either by different authors, or ones I like or am familiar with. I find many of them read like fan-fics. Every now and then, I find a diamond in the rough, like Vanguard, but more often than not, I feel Trek books are a let-down. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Yes, there are biological differences between Vulcans and Romulans. This is not in dispute.

It is in another thread, which is why it's been brought up in here.

Similarly, there are biological differences between people with Type A blood and people with Type O blood. There are biological differences between males and females.

It's not the same thing in regards to the aspect of my contention. See the Mem Alpha link about Romulans and the part about Physiology.

Having biological differences does not equal being a separate species. 2,000 years is not enough time for speciation to occur... except in bad fan fic.

Tell that to the TNG/DS9 people who created them, otherwise I could agree.

 

[Romulus Prime]

It's the internet. It's a public message board. People will post opinions you may not agree with or like. Report me to a mod if it personally bothers. FYI -it's up to them to chastise me...not you. Good day.

I didn't chastise you because I disagree with your opinions, I chastised you for your-

If you're not a mod, it's not your job to chastise me. You have no authority over me. If my posts bother you so personally, then take it up with a (real) mod, otherwise I highly recommend these simple solutions:


Scroll past all post made by Romulus Prime.
Use the "Ignore" function.

I'm happy to see that you've since made a little more effort to explain your opinions.

You like me, don't you.

 

[Romulus Prime]

Why would the Warrior class NOT rule when their society was based on hunting, battle and achieving/revering feats of honor? Hell, even the Samurai ruled for a time, and the Klingons in general are far more aggro than humans can ever be. Even when they are "tamed" by Romulans, that warrior spirit and need to be loud, boisterous and aggressive is DOMINANT once it's awakened. See Toq from Birthright, Part II.

Last weekend, I was spending time with some friends, including not a few medievalists. We all agreed that the Trek writers managed to nail the medieval mentality squarely on the head with their depiction of Klingons: utterly uninhibited beings, enthusiastically indulging in violence, laying claim to codes of honour while keeping in mind that victory was the greatest honour, et cetera.

You underestimate humans.

Do tell.

I mean, I'd love to know what you have to say about it, and if you're worried about derailing this convo, then I will by all means participate in a new thread.

 

[Sho]

If you're not a mod, it's not your job to chastise me. You have no authority over me.

So if several people walk up to you and tell you they have problems with how you're conducting yourself, that's your answer? Sounds like you're exactly who I pegged you to be.

 

[Deano2099]

Aside from "We hate Feddie Bears," what's the common ground with members of the Typhon Pact? Why and HOW can they put aside aspects of their nature to form alliances?

That's a great question. It's also a great two-line description of the first batch of Typhon Pact novels.

While I can't guarantee you'd like them, that very question was clearly at the forefront of all the authors' minds in writing these books. It's one without a straight-forward message-board-length answer. But it's one addressed by the novels themselves. It's one of the things that makes them interesting! This isn't "super-star-trek-baddie-team-up" - how and why this would happen is a big part of the stories.

And honestly, given the amount of time you've spent posting and discussing this very topic on here, I'm struggling to buy your "I read the summaries and I'm not interested" line. You're clearly very interested in how the hell this happened. But you're making an assumption that it happened because of 'bad writing'. I won't spoil them, but trust me, the books provide a consistent, logical explanation for how the Typhon Pact came about. And frankly you seem so into that topic that I really can't imagine you not loving them.

 

[JD]

Stories which remind me of what a fan would write on the internet which are just so crazy-different from what you would ever expect to see on the show. A lot of Star Wars books seem like that to me, where the situation and characters are either out of place or out of their minds, and the author is either making stuff up or having the characters do "kewl" things just to be "kewl" instead of entertaining.

<SNIP>

Maybe I'm wrong, but sometimes the authors can seem like they're just reaching for the "kewl" factor, rather than the believable entertaining one.

I am telling you right now that you are wrong, and that if you were to read Star Trek: Destiny with an open mind...

I might be wrong about the intent of the writer. I'm not "wrong" about how I feel because that's my OPINION of how many previous Trek (and Star Wars) books read FOR ME. In turn, I don't think you are "wrong" for liking something I don't. Now I already said I'd purchase Destiny which already implies my mind is "open," thus it's a non-issue in this case.



It's not unfounded. I haven't just read 1, 2, or 3 Trek books in my lifetime, l've read or tried to read at least 20 different Trek books in the past 20yrs either by different authors, or ones I like or am familiar with. I find many of them read like fan-fics. Every now and then, I find a diamond in the rough, like Vanguard, but more often than not, I feel Trek books are a let-down. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

If you like Vanguard you'd probably like the rest of the stuff coming out now, if you'd actually read them. And at least then you'd actually know what the hell you're talking about when arguing with the other posters here.

 

[Christopher]

I might be wrong about the intent of the writer. I'm not "wrong" about how I feel because that's my OPINION of how many previous Trek (and Star Wars) books read FOR ME.

But opinions are only as good as the information they're based on, and sensible people are open to changing their opinions when new information is provided. You've stated overtly that you lack information on the subject here, so how can you fault us for trying to provide you with more information and show you how your opinions are based on incomplete knowledge and incorrect assumptions?

It's not unfounded. I haven't just read 1, 2, or 3 Trek books in my lifetime, l've read or tried to read at least 20 different Trek books in the past 20yrs either by different authors, or ones I like or am familiar with. I find many of them read like fan-fics. Every now and then, I find a diamond in the rough, like Vanguard, but more often than not, I feel Trek books are a let-down. You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

But the results are different depending on what era of Trek Lit you're drawing from. It's gone through its ups and downs in the thirty-plus years that Pocket has held the license. After a "golden age" in the mid-'80s, it came under tighter restrictions after TNG and the other series came along, so that the content that came out for most of the '90s tended to be routine and unambitious, with only the occasional high point. But in the 2000s, with the old restrictions on continuity and innovation removed, the books entered a renaissance, a new era of interconnectedness and sophistication. The books edited by Marco Palmieri, such as the post-finale DS9 novels, Titan, The Lost Era, and Vanguard, were particularly praised for their quality. Vanguard is a distinctive series in its own way, but in a lot of ways it's representative of the approach and tone of a lot of modern Trek Lit.

So depending on when the books you've sampled were published, you may be missing out on a lot of information about where Trek Lit is in the 21st century.

 

[JWolf]

Sure, it's a stupid cover

But we know it's not the station and that's why it's not that bad. To base an opinion of what the replacement for DS9 is going to look like on worker modules is just plain stupid and wrong. That's like looking at a wall with the scaffolding on the outside and saying that's a poor design for the entire building.

 

[JWolf]

And when the time comes for the lucky author to write about the great Romulan explosion of 2387, who gets to be that lucky author and do the writing?