Surviving Vulcan Elders.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...But why allow needless plagues and famines to be met without administrative support?...

Right. So I suppose Picard should have given a list of cases of great suffering (such as famine, etc.) occurring after 2063 to Lily Sloane. Maybe she could have done something to ease (or even prevent) the suffering.

Heck, she could have set up a perpetual foundation that kept this knowledge and could continue easing/preventing these natural disasters even after Lily's death.

 

[YARN]

But what else changes in the process? That is the thing you can never determine until you've committed to interfering with an event that has already unfolded.

Indeed, everything Old Spock does with what he knows will undoubtedly cause a Borg incursion resulting in the end of the universe. Everything Nu Spock does, however, will turn out well when he acts on what he knows (which is much less).

What you fundamentally don't get is that Spock is not from their future. Spock came from a different timeline. There is no future here for Spock to destroy. Their future, at this point, does not exist yet. He is not changing anything that "already exists." What will happen in this universe cannot be determined until agents in his timeline (the nu timeline) decide what to do in response to the information they have. Spock is one of the agents in this nexus of decision. If Spock decides NOT to help this will have an impact on the future. If Spock DOES help, this will shape the future. Spock cannot "NOT influence the future" now, because he is a part of this timeline. It's not a question of whether he does participate, but how he participates in this timeline.

Take your drowning child in the swimming pool. Spur of the moment, I would rush in and save him without a second thought. But five years later? I remember Timmy having a bitching pool where he ended up drowning. So I decide to go back and save him so my younger self can keep using that sweet ass pool.

But, Timmy's parents decided to have another child after Timmy's death. Without Timmy's death that child would have likely never existed. So I saved one person but I sentenced another to non-existence.

This is butterfly wings nonsense. Not nonsense in that events have have unpredictable consequences, but nonsense in that we should allegedly suppose every positive act to assist the future should be presupposed to engender the worst consequences imaginable. This is hopelessly flawed, because NOT acting could also doom the universe!

Suppose you knew that a building had a bomb planted in it that was set to go off on a slow timer (6 months or 6 years). Would you warn the authorities or would you stand mute?

Your analysis on the proximity of the impact is exactly backwards. The more time you have to intervene and the more certainty you have of outcome (Spock has one the best epistemic vantage points in his universe), the greater responsibility you have to act.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Isn't this the kind of thing the Temporal Prime Directive was made to stop?

 

[Franklin]

I think in the movie Spock Prime gave us a big hint of what he'd do with all his "special" information. He took a gamble (he called it an act of faith) when he chose not to aid in stopping Nero, even though he could've been of great assistance. In this case, he wasn't even holding any future knowledge of events. His intervention could have been justified even with a temporal prime directive. But he opted out.

He risked the fate of billions of people on Earth that Kirk and Spock would succeed without his aid, just so Kirk and Spock could see all that they could accomplish, together.

If he was willing to allow that, then -- .

 

[BillJ]

This is butterfly wings nonsense. Not nonsense in that events have have unpredictable consequences, but nonsense in that we should allegedly suppose every positive act to assist the future should be presupposed to engender the worst consequences imaginable. This is hopelessly flawed, because NOT acting could also doom the universe!

There are no good consequences in the scenario, either a little boy drowns or another child's existence is deleted (and it was your scenario). The point being, no matter how much Spock may try to assist in mitigating the damage... people are still going to die.

Should he tell the Federation about the Organians? So they can make sure they steer clear and can fight an all-out war with the Klingons and millions can die?

You can play 'What If?' til the cows come home. But if Spock misplays his cards or misremembers a key event, he could bring an even worse Hell down on the Federation.

 

[R. Star]

Isn't this the kind of thing the Temporal Prime Directive was made to stop?

Given how often any of the Trek captains violate the Prime Directive when it suits them, and how often all of them have time traveled to suit their needs, I don't think they'll have any qualms about violating a Temporal version of it.

As for the temporal time agencies, they're sure selective in what they chose to investigate or fix.

 

[Awesome Possum]

What's more important? That Old Spock use his knowledge to help the Federation or that Kirk and Spock grow to become the heroes they are supposed to become?

 

[BillJ]

What's more important? That Old Spock use his knowledge to help the Federation or that Kirk and Spock grow to become the heroes they are supposed to become?

I think the movie answered that pretty clearly.

 

[YARN]

What's more important? That Old Spock use his knowledge to help the Federation or that Kirk and Spock grow to become the heroes they are supposed to become?

What is more important? Ensuring the that your younger self has a bromance with your old captain, or saving billions of lives?

No temporal prime directive applies in this case. Spock is not from their future. This is a branching timeline, remember?

You seem to be convinced that if Spock gives out ANY information Starfleet and Kirk and Spock will be hopelessly stunted in their development because of it. That's your claim, so offer the proof.

You also seem to be claiming that the original timeline is somehow the best of all possible worlds. The Prime Timeline certainly does not appear to be! There are many needless deaths we witnessed and have heard of in Trek (billions of them), which means that non-intervention hardly deserves presumption as being the best of all possible worlds. The question is, if you can make the world a better place and can foresee no significant counter-ramifications, do you do so? Everyone else in Star Trek and the Real World does so - this is that it means to be an agent, to be a reasoner - to use information to navigate to the best possible world which is reasonably accessible to us.

If you could stop 9-11 from happening (warning authorities weeks in advance), would you? America certainly changed as a result of 9-11 (e.g., roll back of civil liberties, never ending foreign wars, spiraling debt), but these are changes we could have done without. Spock can act, as much as he can, to prevent such regressions.

It is just as likely that if Denova can be saved, Kirk might be the better for it. He might be less closed off emotionally if more of his family members survive.

Moreover, there are many needless deaths Spock could prevent which would substantively contribute (positively or negatively) to exploration to the cultural development of the UFP. You can protest - "How do you know it would not! Maybe this is a butterfly!" But everything is a potential butterfly. In this altered timeline, maybe a slightly more immature Kirk attacks the Doomsday Machine head on and dies and dies if Old Spock says nothing. Who knows? Bare possibilities cancel each other out. We have to reason in terms of what we do know. The Doomsday Machine is out there and it will destroy many solar systems and end many lives. Possession of this fact outweighs any bare hypothetical possibility.

 

[Ovation]

The argument is moot. Spock can do any and all of the things YARN would advocate--it need not alter anything we see on screen one whit.

 

[Dale Sams]

Regardless, re: how many Vulcans are left...

some 10,000. There are no colonies.

Old Spock: "I have already located a planet suitable for us to settle as a colony."

Makes sense. I think Enterprise said or implied that the Vulcans were content to just be minor explorers.

edit: Also having watched it again this afternoon, with time to pause and reflect...I'm more than prepared to upgrade the film from really really good to...'fantastic'.

 

[YARN]

I think in the movie Spock Prime gave us a big hint of what he'd do with all his "special" information. He took a gamble (he called it an act of faith) when he chose not to aid in stopping Nero, even though he could've been of great assistance. In this case, he wasn't even holding any future knowledge of events. His intervention could have been justified even with a temporal prime directive. But he opted out.

He risked the fate of billions of people on Earth that Kirk and Spock would succeed without his aid, just so Kirk and Spock could see all that they could accomplish, together.

If he was willing to allow that, then -- .

Spock, as he is written in the film, certainly appeared to be more concerned with saving the bromance, than with saving Earth.

As I, however, am criticizing the presence of Old Spock in the old timeline as a narrative flaw, I am not committed to praising Spock as he is written in this film (indeed, I object to his very presence in the film! - I maintain they should have done a hard reboot). It is, simply, more evidence that the artwork is flawed. I am only committed to conceding Spock's rationality, as he is written in this film, if I am also committed to the overall quality of writing in the film. Since I am raising questions, I am clearly not committed to conceding this.

The only Spock I am committed to (as a normative example - something which sets a proper expectation by which we would judge the film) is Spock of TOS and the films. We cannot judge the film by Spock's assessment of rational choice in the film, because this would be circular reasoning.

And this Spock (TOS) would and did intervene to mend timelines and to make the world a better place. He did it in City on the Edge of Forever. He did in Star Trek IV. etc., etc.

 

[Dale Sams]

I think in the movie Spock Prime gave us a big hint of what he'd do with all his "special" information. He took a gamble (he called it an act of faith) when he chose not to aid in stopping Nero, even though he could've been of great assistance. In this case, he wasn't even holding any future knowledge of events. His intervention could have been justified even with a temporal prime directive. But he opted out.

He risked the fate of billions of people on Earth that Kirk and Spock would succeed without his aid, just so Kirk and Spock could see all that they could accomplish, together.

If he was willing to allow that, then -- .

Maybe...but don't you think that decision was based on running into, of all people, Kirk, and Scotty?

Besides, if you follow this to it's 'logical' conclusion, then Romulus will be destroyed again.

edit: and re: above about Star Trek IV..."Go back in time, get some whales and bring them back to save Earth" Compared to 'levels of violation' I would call that almost Janewaysian or Kimsian. The only difference being how little time has passed.

 

[Nerys Myk]

He didn't mend any timelines in ST VI. There was no alternate reality or timeline in that film. He just helped relocate some whales from the 20th Century to the 23rd Century to save the Earth from being destroyed.

 

[Franklin]

What's more important? That Old Spock use his knowledge to help the Federation or that Kirk and Spock grow to become the heroes they are supposed to become?

What is more important? Ensuring the that your younger self has a bromance with your old captain, or saving billions of lives?

No temporal prime directive applies in this case. Spock is not from their future. This is a branching timeline, remember?

Well, Spock Prime chose bromance in the movie. Even Spock wondered why he didn't just beam aboard the Enterprise and explain things (which insinuates that must've been an entirely acceptable option).

What you're asking is a moral and philosophical question with no pat answer. There is a lot of ambiguity in the issue, as has been brought out in dozens of posts. You tend to be treating it as if there is one right answer, or that one should at least "play the probabilities" that divulging things will always turn out for better.

Even if someone from the future could've put a top on Kennedy's car in Dallas in 1963 as spared his life, what happens after the change is purely problematic. Who knows what would actually be better in one hundred or two hundred years? Or even ten years?

Maybe Spock Prime just doesn't want to be God.

 

[Dale Sams]

He didn't mend any timelines in ST VI. There was no alternate reality or timeline in that film. He just helped relocate some whales from the 20th Century to the 23rd Century to save the Earth from being destroyed.

I know, that's why I'm saying...if we were to try and impose some sort of morality to each time they time-travelled...going back in time to pick up some damn whales is not nearly so morally clear as mending a timeline. Anything could have been changed.

I'm not saying they did the wrong thing of course, just that...well...let's just say, an unusual solution.

 

[Franklin]

I think in the movie Spock Prime gave us a big hint of what he'd do with all his "special" information. He took a gamble (he called it an act of faith) when he chose not to aid in stopping Nero, even though he could've been of great assistance. In this case, he wasn't even holding any future knowledge of events. His intervention could have been justified even with a temporal prime directive. But he opted out.

He risked the fate of billions of people on Earth that Kirk and Spock would succeed without his aid, just so Kirk and Spock could see all that they could accomplish, together.

If he was willing to allow that, then -- .

Maybe...but don't you think that decision was based on running into, of all people, Kirk, and Scotty?

Besides, if you follow this to it's 'logical' conclusion, then Romulus will be destroyed again.

edit: and re: above about Star Trek IV..."Go back in time, get some whales and bring them back to save Earth" Compared to 'levels of violation' I would call that almost Janewaysian or Kimsian. The only difference being how little time has passed.

There's absolutely no guarantee Romulus will be destroyed in this universe.

Also, as was pointed out by Nyrs Myk, no timeline was changed in TVH. It wasn't like the Earth was destroyed and Kirk went back in time to save it. He went back in time to acquire what was needed to save the 23rd century Earth from destruction. He essentially reentered the timeline (with the whales) at the spot from which he left it. He saved Earth in "real time."

 

[Nerys Myk]

I was actually responding to YARN's post.

 

[Franklin]

I was actually responding to YARN's post.

I see that now, a bunch of posts went up pretty much at the same time, stepping all over each other. My bad.

 

[BillJ]

Maybe Spock Prime just doesn't want to be God.

This was what I was trying to get at without actually saying it.