So why doesn't Spock save Vulcan?

[RPJOB]

Nu-trek can still be "more realistic" without being "real-world realistic". It is simply a more realistic slant on THE FAMILIAR STAR TREK UNIVERSE.

For example, Casino Royale (2006) was certainly more realistic in tone than, say, A View to Kill, but it was still far from being a realistic representation of the actual world. Casino Royale was 'realistic' only within the framework of the James Bond world.

If you want a "realistic" Trek then you'd better get rid of Spock (human/alien hybrid), warp drive, phasers, transporters and all the rest of the trappings. If you make it realistic it won't be Star Trek any longer. If that's what you want then we need something to take the place of Trek, to update it.

1) I like that Star Trek used to strive to tell the best story possible, despite what came before.

What is the best story? If it is the one which is the most realistic, then Trek has always been in trouble (which is why quoting Orci doing his best to justify Trek in terms of quantum physics is preposterous). If it is to tell a story which is most coherent, then Orci would have been better served by a hard reboot. Just start over and perhaps never even raise the prospect of backward time travel.

If you're going to boldly go in a new direction, then just boldly go, and leave old Trek behind without a passing of the torch narrative.

2) That's not Spock Prime's mother. His mother and father lived and died in another timeline.

And yet Old Spock still reported that he was emotionally compromised. And this means he still had motivation as well as justification.

What's the best story? Since Trek became a franchise the best story is the one that makes the most money. Period. You could make a movie that would win the Oscar, Hugo and Nebula awards but if it flopped at the box office then it's reboot time.

M'Sharak also pointed this out to you in a post. These were the rules Orci and Kurtzman operated by. In this universe, you can't do what you're asking for.

This has been dealt with upthread too.

If "dealt with" means the same thing to you as does "skipped over without acknowledging," then yes, granted. But, to spell it out more fully than I did upthread:

Dan:
Spock Prime could go back in time and stop Nero, like all the other ways they have done before in movies and TV shows in the past Trek lore, he doesn’t need Red Matter to only go back in time to stop Nero. It’s lame for Bob to say that Prime Spok can’t do time travel without Red Matter. When they could just fly around the Sun like he did in Star Trek IV, or Picard did in First Contact.

BobOrci:
In our Universe, as long as I am here, you can’t just slingshot around the sun and linear time is a misconception from the middle part of the 20th century.. A good analogy for what we have done here would be to imagine we were rebooting the modern adventures of a sailor, who at the time that his stories were told, it was believed the earth was flat. Now, years later, here in the re-whatever, we know the world is round. So our story exists in a world where the world is now round, despite that being a “canon” violation.

Slingshotting is not an available option. Period. The (then-current) model upon which the idea was based is effectively obsolete, and has been replaced (for purposes of this incarnation of Trek, at the very least) with a different model - one which does not allow closed-loop time travel. In practical terms, that mode of time travel never existed. To insist that it still does exist is to wilfully ignore The Way Things Are Now (according to the guys who are telling the stories).

...

The list of informal fallacies in this thread is staggering.

If you're interested in participating in discussion, then you're welcome to do so. However, the recurrent cataloguing of fallacies in which you've been engaging has the effect, more and more, of making it look as if this really is the "gotcha" topic you've insisted it is not. If the responses you're getting don't fit the answers you had already written on your checklist, it does not automatically render them invalid or fallacious; it only means that it would probably have been more realistic for you to be expecting those other answers and not now be trying to force them to fit into your predetermined "right answer" checklist boxes.

That's all well and good but I don't recall anyone in the movie actually mentioning slingshot around the sun as a means of time travel. Orci can claim what does and doesn't work all he likes but until they come right out and say you can't time travel that way then, seeing as it's branched off a universe where you could do that then his opinion is just that, his opinion. He's also said in an interview that Delta Vega is the same planet in WNMHGB and ST09. Doesn't mean that it is. It just happens to have the same name.

For the Trek fans, this film includes many little references. For example you have Kirk dropped off on the planet Delta Vega, which was seen in second Star Trek pilot. It is a cool reference, but didn’t you also fudge canon by ignoring that Delta Vega was way out next to the galactic barrier.

Orci: True. Yeah we did. We moved the planet to suit our purposes. The familiarity of the name seemed more important as an Easter egg, than a new name with no importance.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/30/interview-roberto-orci-alex-kurtzman/

 

[YARN]

If he goes back pre-Narada, he changes the course of the universe for billions of beings. He eliminates twenty-five years of existence.

Let's think about that for a moment.

City on the Edge of Forever. Deranged McCoy goes back in time. Edith Keeler lives. The Nazis win WWII. The Enterprise disappears from existence. Our heroes propose to fix the timeline. Spock, in fact, restrains Kirk from saving Edith Keeler, he does his part to sacrifice her life to restore the timeline.

In doing so, they changed 200 years of history which followed McCoy's intevention. Remember, the crew was informed that the Enterprise no longer existed, those changes happened, those 200 years were real. There are, no doubt, many nice people who lived in the Keeler timeline who no longer exist because the Enterprise crew insisted on fixing things. What right did they have to prefer their timeline to that of Keeler's pacifist timeline? Well, (1) the Keeler timeline was the result of a temporal intervention and can be regarded as a mistake and (2) in the Keeler timeline the Nazis win WWII, so theirs is a world with presumably more loss of life and pain than the original timeline.

Compare this to your question. Yes, those people who lived during those 25 years were awfully nice, but they only existed as an anomaly caused by a temporal intervention and a universe with Vulcan still in it is a world with BILLIONS more people still alive and contributing to the noble cause of the federation. The original timeline is a better possible world. Finally, this story shows us that Spock feels it is logical and right to intervene so as to repair timelines.

Moreover, most of the people who lived during that timeline would still be alive, they're only 25 years older. Kirk is older than Checkov and Sulu, which means they were conceived after Nero's intervention, which means they were going to be born anyway! Logically, Spock know his intervention will not be ending live, but merely changing lives.

And even if a few people would not be born because of restoring the timeline, these lives divide out by the comparable children born in their stead, and is overwhelmed by billions of Vulcans saved by saving Vulcan.

If he goes back to just before the destruction of Vulcan, Jim Kirk never makes it to the captains chair.

You don't know that. Neither would Spock.

Kirk was willing risk his career for Spock (Amok Time). Spock was willing to risk the death penalty for Pike (Menagerie). Kirk was willing to risk Spock's life for the greater good (Operation: Annihilate, Galileo 7). Why wouldn't Spock risk Kirk's seat to save the entire planet?

Moreover, Spock can intervene in a way that does not risk Kirk's captaincy. He could go back in time and even enlist Kirk's help, or send him off on an errand that kept him out of risk.

 

[BillJ]

*sigh*

Kirk went back and fixed the corrupt timeline because it was his fault in the first place. Doesn't really make it right, but I wouldn't expect Kirk not to take responsibility for it.

In the movie, right before the Vulcan crisis, Kirk is getting ready to get drummed out of the service. Without the crisis, Kirk is a civilian and not there to stop the Doomsday Machine, the Space Amoeba and V'ger among others.

 

[YARN]

Kirk went back and fixed the corrupt timeline because it was his fault in the first place.

How was it his fault? McCoy accidentally injects himself with cordrazine and has a freak out. Not Kirk's fault.

He is no more at fault than Spock is for the nu-Trek timeline. On the other hand, Spock blames himself for failing to save Romulus, so if he is right, we could say that he also had a personal responsibility to fix it. What matters more, however, is fixing the problem not the blame. Problem: Vulcan has been destroyed.

Doesn't really make it right, but I wouldn't expect Kirk not to take responsibility for it.

Kirk initially tries to save Keeler and Spock stops him. Spock took responsibility there and would here too.

In the movie, right before the Vulcan crisis, Kirk is getting ready to get drummed out of the service.

How do you know he is about to be drummed out of the service? He cheated on the simulation the prime universe too. Eventually he got a commendation for original thinking. It is only when the Narada attacks Vulcan that Kirk gets really insubordinate.

Without the crisis, Kirk is a civilian and not there to stop the Doomsday Machine, the Space Amoeba and V'ger among others.

Again, this is not an either/or situation. He can intervene to preserve Kirk's career if it matters that much.

Or he can simply warn starfleet of major threats like the Doomsday Machine and V'Ger and save even more lives than the Enterprise crew did in the prime universe. What matters is not that Kirk is there to meet the threat, but that someone is there to meet the threat. You know there are other good, even great, captains in the universe.

 

[BillJ]

We will simply have to agree to disagree...

 

[M'Sharak]

If "dealt with" means the same thing to you as does "skipped over without acknowledging," then yes, granted.

I'd rather not repeat answers and analysis that are already freely available in this thread. If you really did not catch the response, ask the question again, and I'll cut-and-paste the response.

But I asked no question.

<sniiiiip>

It's not that I object to an Ad Hominem because I'd rather hear agreement, but because an Ad Hominem is so often a weak argument.

If you'd prefer to approve or disapprove of the quality (or lack thereof) which you perceive in those answers, perhaps you ought to consider posting a journal entry instead, over the Comment thread of which you might then preside, dismissing from your place in the Very Important Chair that which does not meet with your approval. This is a discussion forum, not a formal or academic debate; the answers you get are the answers you get, and no one is obligated to satisfy any particular criteria of yours in giving those answers, especially when none were stipulated up front. The insistence on issuing "fallacy report cards" is simply boring and a bit pompous. Why would I wish to put up with that for very long? Why would anyone?

...

So if it turns out warp speed and beaming is impossible...

No, those still work just fine, thanks, but good of you to stop by.

 

[YARN]

We will simply have to agree to disagree...

Thank you for a very enjoyable game, Bill. I enjoy posting with people.

If you'd prefer to approve or disapprove of the quality (or lack thereof) which you perceive in those answers, perhaps you ought to consider posting a journal entry instead, over the Comment thread of which you might then preside, dismissing from your place in the Very Important Chair that which does not meet with your approval.

No, I think I'll keep posting right here.

And is not your chair more important than my own that you can instruct me where to post?

This is a discussion forum, not a formal or academic debate; the answers you get are the answers you get, and no one is obligated to satisfy any particular criteria of yours in giving those answers, especially when none were stipulated up front.

You underestimate both the potential for reasoned discussion which a message board is capable of sustaining and also the responsibilities of interlocutors in casual discussions.

The mere fact that one is having a discussion outside of a debate or formal discussion does not, therefore, give one license to perform every crime against reason imaginable.

Marital Dispute: Husband: "I can use all the fallacies I like, this is not an academic debate. Now get back in the kitchen before I smack you!" (Ad Baculum).

Sports Conversation: Fan: "So what if association does not equal causality? This ain't some fancy pants logic class! Every time we order a meat lover's pizza, the home team loses! NO MORE MEAT LOVER'S PIZZA!"

Music Conversation: Cinephile: "Oh yeah, well Hans Zimmer has one awards for his motion picture soundtracks! Why don't you win an award or two and then you can criticize his overuse of the 'danger theme.'" (Ad Verecundiam)

Book Discussion: Bookworm: "Stephen King intended Tommyknockers to be his greatest work, therefore, it is!" (Intentional Fallacy).

Moves like these are not acceptable in any discussion, save for parodies and other non-literal uses. It's not just academics who have to play by the basic rules of reason.

The insistence on issuing "fallacy report cards" is simply boring and a bit pompous. Why would I wish to put up with that for very long? Why would anyone?

I am doing you a service, pointing out errors in reasoning and inviting you to improve your answers. At the very least, I am entitled to defend my perspective by showing how attacks against it are defective. Demonstrating the presence of fallacies is a common method of defense.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Wouldn't saving Vulcan just create a new universe which is similar to the JJverse but with a Vulcan? At least if we're going by the rules that were set up in the last movie.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Wouldn't saving Vulcan just create a new universe which is similar to the JJverse but with a Vulcan? At least if we're going by the rules that were set up in the last movie.

In fact, there probably is a universe in which Spock saves Vulcan.

However, the goings-on in that universe are for some other guy's reboot. Abrams happens to be following this particular universe where Vulcan is destroyed.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Wouldn't saving Vulcan just create a new universe which is similar to the JJverse but with a Vulcan? At least if we're going by the rules that were set up in the last movie.

In fact, there probably is a universe in which Spock saves Vulcan.

However, the goings-on in that universe is for some other guy's reboot. Abrams happens to be following this particular universe where Vulcan is destroyed.

Based on that episode of TNG with Worf seeing a bunch of different timelines, there probably is.

Personally I like the idea of seeing how the Federation handles the loss of one of their founding planets. There are just so many possible storylines that could be developed from it.

 

[BillJ]

I'm hoping there's a timeline out there where Spock was smart enough to destroy the Jellyfish instead of handing it over to Nero.

 

[M'Sharak]

And is not your chair more important than my own that you can instruct me where to post?

Instruct? I have but suggested a couple of possible modifications in approach.

I am doing you a service, pointing out errors in reasoning and inviting you to improve your answers.

But it's not a service for which I have any recollection of registering. Perhaps it might be dialed back a little, or even provided only upon direct request. (I promise: I'll remember to call, should I in the future have any requirement of such service, and I will trust others to make their own requests, on an as-needed basis.)

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm hoping there's a timeline out there where Spock was smart enough to destroy the Jellyfish instead of handing it over to Nero.

Nero probably snagged it with a tractor beam before Spock could do anything.

As for Vulcan: A ship as small as the Jellyfish, powerful as it was, would probably not survive the stress of a slingshot effect. So Spock can't do anything to save Vulcan even if Nero hadn't captured him.

 

[BillJ]

Nero probably snagged it with a tractor beam before Spock could do anything.

All Spock would need to do is rupture the tank holding the Red Matter. If the Jellyfish was in a tractor beam the resultant black hole should've destroyed the Narada as well.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Going by the novelverse's interpretation of time travel (where it's the method involved that causes either an overwrite of history or a split in the timeline), slingshotting and the Guardian and whatever else are still viable options for Old Spock. BUT I say the reason he wouldn't try to save Vulcan is the extreme risk factor in essentially resurrecting Nero and the Narada and hoping to stop them a little quicker this time.

Something that happened in the novelverse that's very relevant is the cataclysmic aftermath of "Endgame" - where Admiral Janeway's shortcut home using advanced Borg-busting technology caused the Borg to upgrade the Federation from "mildly resistant nothing" to "serious threat to the collective", and brought about the Destiny war that devastated the Alpha and Beta Quadrants and cost over a hundred planets and 63 billion lives. Janeway's quick fix led to disaster. And since STXI's timeline has been changing for 25 years when Vulcan dies, who knows what could spiral from another good-intentions meddling with history? I've posted numerous other examples of what happens in Trek when time travel goes wrong, whether a stupid accident ("Shockwave", "City on the Edge of Forever"), how it's use led to Starfleet becoming some bizarre dark thing without the values it was founded upon ("Future's End", "Relativity") and eventually a war throughout time (ENT's time war)

That's why they have Temporal Prime Directives, because screwing around with time, even with the best of intentions, can go hideously wrong.

 

[YARN]

But it's not a service for which I have any recollection of registering.

You are using bad reasons in a discussion with me. Reasons are designed to compel agreement. They are parts of proofs, things to which a reasonable person of goodwill must respond honestly. If the proof is good, I should say "Yes!" If the proof is bad, I am obligated to show how it does not command assent before saying "No."

I did not register to be presented with, for example, the intentional fallacy as a proof. When I am presented with it, I have every right, and am obligated to provide reason why such reasons are not compelling.

Perhaps it might be dialed back a little, or even provided only upon direct request.

In that case I would be dishonest and indirect in reasoning with you.

When you pronounce, "Orci says it's branching timelines only. Period. The End. Final Word. Full Stop. The End.," for example, I would either have to submit to the intentional fallacy or disengage from directly reasoning with you.

The most direct way to show what is wrong with reasoning is to show the argument type of which the reasoning is an example.

Your reasons (like all reasons) make a demand upon me (assent!), to which I must respond by so doing, or showing a flaw in the proof. You signed up for the diagnosis when you presented me with the proof. If you don't want flaws in reasoning pointed out, then use better reasons or stop making demands for assent (i.e., offering me proofs in this thread).

____________________________________________________________________________________

I say the reason he wouldn't try to save Vulcan is the extreme risk factor in essentially resurrecting Nero and the Narada and hoping to stop them a little quicker this time.

This is the best reason offered by the opposition so far.

The uncertainty is whether you can defeat Nero a few hours (or 25 years) earlier. We know Nero can be defeated (a boarding party of two accomplishes this). We know the Narada, however large and powerful she is, is just a ship. You can beam aboard her (and Spock knows the secret of transwarp beaming) and she has a small crew. You could easily beam a bomb onto her or board her with a overwhelming boarding party. If you fail other planets are at risk, but you have good reason to believe that you can defeat the Narada. Skip the broadsides with capital ships and go directly aboard her. And Spock has a lot of technological tricks from the future.

The certainty is that Vulcan, the whole planet, is destroyed if you do nothing and, as a result, Vulcans become an endangered species.

Is it worth the risk? Risk is our business gentlemen.

Something that happened in the novelverse that's very relevant is the cataclysmic aftermath of "Endgame" - where Admiral Janeway's shortcut home using advanced Borg-busting technology caused the Borg to upgrade the Federation from "mildly resistant nothing" to "serious threat to the collective", and brought about the Destiny war that devastated the Alpha and Beta Quadrants and cost over a hundred planets and 63 billion lives. Janeway's quick fix led to disaster.

So what? Spock has no reason to expect that intervening will cause anything remotely like this. He has just as much reason to suspect that not acting will result in the same effects another 25 years down the road.

Nero has already stepped on the butterfly. Spock's decision is whether to save it.

And since STXI's timeline has been changing for 25 years when Vulcan dies, who knows what could spiral from another good-intentions meddling with history?

1. He doesn't have to alter 25 years to save Vulcan.

2. Even if he did, he would be restoring damage to a timeline. I have already provided reasons why this is preferable. See upthread where I talk about "City on the Edge of Forever."

I've posted numerous other examples of what happens in Trek when time travel goes wrong, whether a stupid accident ("Shockwave", "City on the Edge of Forever"), how it's use led to Starfleet becoming some bizarre dark thing without the values it was founded upon ("Future's End", "Relativity") and eventually a war throughout time (ENT's time war)

In "City on the Edge of Forever" they successfully intervene to undo damage, so this example counts in my favor. Indeed, in TOS they always manged to fix the timeline. And something has already gone wrong. Vulcan has been destroyed.

We should note that other civilizations independently learn how to manipulate time and this is what causes the war in Enterprise.

That's why they have Temporal Prime Directives, because screwing around with time, even with the best of intentions, can go hideously wrong.

Directives and rules, even habeas corpus, can get suspended in exigent circumstances. Doing so saved Earth in Star Trek IV. If the crew listened to a temporally precious King Daniels, they would've let the whale probe destroy Earth for fear that they'd create a Borg incursion 150 years later.

Spock, a paragon of rationality, has demonstrated on more than on occasion that he is more than willing to fix alterations to timelines even with the risks, when the situation is serious enough. The destruction of Vulcan is certainly an exigent circumstance.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^ Even if there is a flaw (plot hole, inconsistency of logic, or whatever you want to call it) in this film concerning this subject, it seems that most people aren't really that concerned with it.

It all comes back to what I said before about the way we fans are so used to rationalizing away the many plot holes that have arisen in Star Trek over the past 45+ years. Rationalizing the inconsistencies and plot holes is what we do...

...We adjust the canon to make it fit what is presented to us on screen.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Perhaps Spock follows the ideas of the philosopher John Bigboote, who said:

"It's not my goddamn planet. Understand, monkeyboy?"

 

[marksound]

But it's not a service for which I have any recollection of registering.

You are using bad reasons in a discussion with me. Reasons are designed to compel agreement. They are parts of proofs, things to which a reasonable person of goodwill must respond honestly. If the proof is good, I should say "Yes!" If the proof is bad, I am obligated to show how it does not command assent before saying "No."

I did not register to be presented with, for example, the intentional fallacy as a proof. When I am presented with it, I have every right, and am obligated to provide reason why such reasons are not compelling.

Perhaps it might be dialed back a little, or even provided only upon direct request.

In that case I would be dishonest and indirect in reasoning with you.

When you pronounce, "Orci says it's branching timelines only. Period. The End. Final Word. Full Stop. The End.," for example, I would either have to submit to the intentional fallacy or disengage from directly reasoning with you.

The most direct way to show what is wrong with reasoning is to show the argument type of which the reasoning is an example.

Your reasons (like all reasons) make a demand upon me (assent!), to which I must respond by so doing, or showing a flaw in the proof. You signed up for the diagnosis when you presented me with the proof. If you don't want flaws in reasoning pointed out, then use better reasons or stop making demands for assent (i.e., offering me proofs in this thread).

I don't have anything to contribute here ... just wanted to say that I'm enjoying the hell out of this.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Nu-trek can still be "more realistic" without being "real-world realistic". It is simply a more realistic slant on THE FAMILIAR STAR TREK UNIVERSE.

The Dark Knight is far more realistic than Batman starring Adam West.

The Dark Knight is not terribly realistic.

If gaping flaws in plot logic were show-stoppers for me I'd have abandoned Trek somewhere around 1968.