No need to claim it when it is already theirs for HUNDREDS of years.
Why??? It was a planet in Federation space?? Notice it was NOT a Federation CLAIMED planet.
Best and worst moral dilemmas in Star Trek
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
No need to claim it when it is already theirs for HUNDREDS of years.
I just want people to answer this one question, then I can forever be done with discussing this movie (not really
)...Since it's not the Federation's planet you'd have no problem with the S'ona coming in and extracting the particles regardless if the Ba'ku are there or not?
I see where you're going with that, and very true, that makes sense.
But then, I'm wondering what the hell the Enterprise is even doing surveying a planet or doing diplomatic escort missions instead of fighting in the first place?
If they said something straightforward, like we could heal soldiers in a fraction of the time we currently can, then I'd understand.
Or, 'this planet is a perfect hiding place for our fleets'.
And even then it's hard, didn't Nog lose a leg in combat, and a few days later had a new replacement? They already seemed to have the tech to heal quickly.
Other than that, it was experimental.
They needed to raise the stakes a bit...
well, at the time they were probably thinking the war would be a long one.
At minimum, couldn't they transport wounded soldiers to that system, though? That would make an impact.
You're right, they do.
But to extend this analogy, the Federation is using eminent domain to build a new freeway when it's never been previously hinted that they are particularly desperate for new freeways, and in fact, just the opposite. Which leads to the suspicion that they are just being dicks. Or that a writer is inventing a situation for the sake of the story that doesn't really jibe with Star Trek's established ground rules, which would be okay if the story were good, which it's not.
According to Insurrection, billions of people would be helped/cured by the magic particles; also, the movie heavily implied the planet was the federation's (Dougherty said it was a federation planet, Picard didn't counter with ~But the planet isn't, only the space; the Sona came to the federation, a deed unnecessary if the planet was not the federation's - the prime directive in action) . The 600 Ba'ku were in the process of being relocated to a virtually identical planet (minus the immortality); they were staggeringly selfish by wanting to keep immortality for themselves instead of sharing it with billions of others.
When establishing the details, the writers apparently did everything in their power to paint Picard as being in the wrong - and then said he's right.
In short, I agree the story is badly constructed for the morality position it's meant to instill.
But I think that, as it is constructed, it fits within the larger trekverse/federation mentality quite nicely.
The federation officially frowns at life extension technologies. Yet every time they're encountered, federation citizens don't day (or say very rarely) 'No' to them (see, for example, 'A private little war').
I can't say I have a problem with this state of affairs. Ultimately, it's about how you look at the trekverse - as a universe inhabited by saints/robots who pretend they're human, or as a universe inhabited by human beings with all their faults.
Last edited:
As stated in the script:
PICARD: A planet in Federation space...
DOUGHERTY: Right. We have the planet and they have the technology -- a technology we can't duplicate. You know what that makes us? Their partners.
To have the Federation turn on it's own policies and morality is all wrong. That is what Picard is getting at.
Sonak, I suppose it is alright for any country nowadays to go in remove all and any culture of this day and age to refine a "special" herb or something that is only known to be in that certain type of area?
PICARD: A planet in Federation space...
DOUGHERTY: Right. We have the planet and they have the technology -- a technology we can't duplicate. You know what that makes us? Their partners.
To have the Federation turn on it's own policies and morality is all wrong. That is what Picard is getting at.
Sonak, I suppose it is alright for any country nowadays to go in remove all and any culture of this day and age to refine a "special" herb or something that is only known to be in that certain type of area?
Captain Mike
As I've just said:
[..]the movie heavily implied the planet was the federation's (Dougherty said it was a federation planet, Picard didn't counter with ~But the planet isn't, only the space; the Sona came to the federation, a deed unnecessary if the planet was not the federation's - the prime directive in action)
As I've just said:
[..]the movie heavily implied the planet was the federation's (Dougherty said it was a federation planet, Picard didn't counter with ~But the planet isn't, only the space; the Sona came to the federation, a deed unnecessary if the planet was not the federation's - the prime directive in action)
Last edited:
Now carry you're little scenario to its logical conclusion...
Say you have 600 people in Africa sitting on a mineral that cures hemorrhoids. At first, some people say that they can lead us to the valuable mineral if we can mine it and refine it. We say sure but we want to do the least possible damage to the natives but then decide to back out.
Do you think that's the end of it? Do you honestly believe those who want to mine it won't go looking for other "partners", who won't give a shit about the natives and just want to get the hemorrhoid mineral on the market?
That's the core problem of Insurrection, the movie tries to take place in an absolute vacuum where the decisions have no repercussions down the line. All you have to do is follow the logic trail to know that at some point the Ba'ku are either going to be moved or exterminated for what they're sitting on. The Federation being involved probably offered the Ba'ku the best shot of at least retaining some of their culture when all was said and done.
It's not the fault of the Ba'ku, but life is sometimes cruel...
I'm sure that in that case, the mineral could be mined in a manner that would not cause the 600 people to have to move.
I just want people to answer this one question, then I can forever be done with discussing this movie (not really
Since it's not the Federation's planet you'd have no problem with the S'ona coming in and extracting the particles regardless if the Ba'ku are there or not?
again I have to commend you for bringing up this particular point to the INS threads. It really kind of clinches the silliness of the scenario presented in the movie, doesn't it?
Strictly speaking, if a government has decided to go to war, they will fake the intelligence if they feel a need for justification. The generalization is not silly because it isn't based solely on the Iraq war. From the Spaniards' dastardly sinking of the Maine to the Poles' vicious attack on Danzig, to the decades of falsified intelligence justifying the antiCommunist crusade, the falsification of intelligence to justify predetermined policies is endemic.
I cannot in fact think of a situation in which intelligence actually changed policy. One of the most notorious instances of course was Stalin's refusal to believe the intelligence reports on the imminence of the Nazi assault. It is I'm afraid kind of silly to put any stock in the importance of intelligence in determining policy. As for covert operations like assassination, there is even less evidence that such have every achieved much in the way of tactical importance, much less strategic importance. The few instances where intelligence has played an important part is in actual military operations.
As for the suggestion that In the Pale Moonlight is important because it suggests that the Federation is not so noble, that is precisely the aim of the episode. I understand that it orginally began as an exploration of a child's disillusionment in his father, but obviously they went with the more pleasing story. The thing is, the set up which justified Sisko's criminality (which after all was primarily Garak's,) was so ludicrous that I don't think you can honestly say it made its case. The internal premises of the story were even more fantastic than warp drive. You can always tell yourself that may be some extraordinary scientific revelation that will may give us warp drive but bitter experience has told us that intelligence discoveries and covert operations just don't work the way In the Pale Moonlight pretends. I think it's only preaching to the choir.
Insurrection's moral dilemms seems to be far more interesting to the majority of the posters. I can't remember anything to speak of about the movie, because I found the whole set of premises too hard to take seriously. A moral dilemma you can't take seriously isn't very good.
Because it makes them live longer not become energy weapon resistant.
huh? It heals damage to the body, which is a huge benefit in war, and even if it didn't, having soldiers who lived longer would still mean more available fighters.
^ The rings don't heal bodily damage instantly. It takes time. Too much time to be of any use on the battlefield.
The rings don't heal bodily damage at all. What with the shot Son'a not getting back up and all.
During 'Insurrection' it was established that the ring particles would help billions.
How? Unspecified (beyond Geordi getting his eyesight back and Picard&co getting younger).
Also, 'Insurrection' established that the federation was declining and a fountain of youth would stop this decline.
How? Unspecified (beyond Geordi getting his eyesight back and Picard&co getting younger).
Also, 'Insurrection' established that the federation was declining and a fountain of youth would stop this decline.
Sez a bad-guy trying to justify his actions - and who was not exactly Mister Honest at the best of times.
I'm wondering what those particles can replace that Fed science can't. Nog got a perfectly new leg in a matter of days.
Geordi got 'occular implants- he can see even better. In fact in First Contact, it was established he could see just as normally as anyone. The whole scene where he gets emotional over seeing a sunset doesn't make sense in that sense-- he would have experienced that right after he got the implants.
The dialog suggests it's mainly about a fountain of youth and its research potential, not some immediate desperately needed medicine.
The other problem is that from the start, the Sona come off as assh*les, it was way too easy to see which side Picard would take.
Make the Sona nicer, more sympathetic, and the dilemma becomes more clear.
Make them ugly, with a nasty, 'just kill them all', attitude, while the Baku are all nice and innocent and sweet faced.....it's obvious who the villians are......
Geordi got 'occular implants- he can see even better. In fact in First Contact, it was established he could see just as normally as anyone. The whole scene where he gets emotional over seeing a sunset doesn't make sense in that sense-- he would have experienced that right after he got the implants.
The dialog suggests it's mainly about a fountain of youth and its research potential, not some immediate desperately needed medicine.
The other problem is that from the start, the Sona come off as assh*les, it was way too easy to see which side Picard would take.
Make the Sona nicer, more sympathetic, and the dilemma becomes more clear.
Make them ugly, with a nasty, 'just kill them all', attitude, while the Baku are all nice and innocent and sweet faced.....it's obvious who the villians are......
It was the bad guy that said it - but Dougherty (a starfleet admiral loyal to the federationn) immediately agreed to sacrifice Enterprise after being reminded of what's at stake - AKA Dougherty all but confirmed the bad guy's geo-political analysis.
Nog got an artificial/robotic leg; Geordi had cybernetic eyes.
They were as good as the real thing for practical purposes - but, according to Nog/Geordi, something (vaguely defined in the series) was missing.
Similar threads
