Bryan Fuller: Diversity is key

[cultcross]

My problem with it has really been that, when you get right down to it, it was just poor writing. Anyway you look at it, Spock's decision to save his ship was purely emotional. But for whatever reason, Meyer felt it necessary to inject some sort of "logical" excuse

I think you're being rather literal here. He may have said it was logical, but it was prefaced with 'Do not grieve, Admiral'. Spock is saying his last words to his friend, and trying to offer some comfort. As he says, this was his Kobayashi Maru solution, to sacrifice himself for his ship. In his no win scenario, he chose death to pay for the lives of his shipmates. A counterpoint to Kirk's solution which was referenced throughout the movie. Kirk cheated, so he never had to face death. Spock took the sacrifice upon himself to save others.
There is so much more to that scene than the literal reading of 'it is logical', and it saddens me that you find it to be bad writing. I find the ending of Star Trek II one of the most memorable bits of writing Trek's ever done.

 

[fireproof78]

I think you're being rather literal here. He may have said it was logical, but it was prefaced with 'Do not grieve, Admiral'. Spock is saying his last words to his friend, and trying to offer some comfort. As he says, this was his Kobayashi Maru solution, to sacrifice himself for his ship. In his no win scenario, he chose death to pay for the lives of his shipmates. A counterpoint to Kirk's solution which was referenced throughout the movie. Kirk cheated, so he never had to face death. Spock took the sacrifice upon himself to save others.
There is so much more to that scene than the literal reading of 'it is logical', and it saddens me that you find it to be bad writing. I find the ending of Star Trek II one of the most memorable bits of writing Trek's ever done.

For as much as I don't enjoy TWOK's status as the "greatest ever" the last act of that movie is fantastic. Spock's sacrifice is incredibly cinematic, artfully crated within the larger themes of the film.

 

[Kemaiku]

Spock may simply have believed that being Vulcan, and knowing the Enterprise engineering systems as he did, with a ship full of cadets, that he was the only one who could physically do what needed to be done in the time alloted.

 

[jaime]

That "big picture" is entirely subjective.

It also masks the reality of a survival situation like that, which is that any attempt to decide whose life is most valuable can only assess their status as understood by the individual making the decision at that moment. There is no such thing as an objective point of view with the omniscience necessary to make a really informed decision on whose "effect on the universe is greater."

Edith Keeler was a young woman feeding some homeless guys in New York. Laudable, but far from unique or important at the time.

There's probably no logic or system of ethics other than Ayn Rand's that could have justified Spock viewing his own existence as more worthy or important than four hundred other people's.

I think it's more likely he was the only guy who could fix it, combination of knowledge and survival due to physiology, in the time needed to do it. No other logic needed. Similar to Trois commander test.

Edit. Ninjad.

 

[CorporalClegg]

He may have said it was logical, but it was prefaced with 'Do not grieve, Admiral'. Spock is saying his last words to his friend, and trying to offer some comfort. As he says, this was his Kobayashi Maru solution, to sacrifice himself for his ship. In his no win scenario, he chose death to pay for the lives of his shipmates. A counterpoint to Kirk's solution which was referenced throughout the movie. Kirk cheated, so he never had to face death. Spock took the sacrifice upon himself to save others.
There is so much more to that scene than the literal reading of 'it is logical', and it saddens me that you find it to be bad writing. I find the ending of Star Trek II one of the most memorable bits of writing Trek's ever done.

I agree with all of this.

It is an outstanding scene. And I've never said I thought it was neither heroic nor the right thing to do.

I can't remember if I ever stated I thought it was "bad writing." If I did, then it was poor choice of words. I think "careless writing" might be more accurate. But I really only mean that in the sense it's presented as being absolute or matter of fact to the point it's become the sort of de facto doctrine of the franchise--**Which is what I really take issue with.

The thing about any syllogisitic axiom is, in order to be considered "pure logic," it must be 100% true 100% of the time. And 'The needs of the many...' isn't that. The example I used above was a poor attempt to demonstrate how that may be the case. But a simple Google can net plenty of results on the pitfalls of Benthamian utilitarianism.

And, to Meyer's credit, I've often wondered if Kirk's "Of all the souls I've met..." line wasn't actually meant to show Spock's actions really weren't based in logic. On the surface, it comes off as the kind of ironic sentiment people often use in eulogies. But I wonder if the point was to show, even if he thought he was acting logically, his actions where out of pure emotion: duty, camaraderie, friendship, and what he felt of believed to be true based solely on the information he had at the moment. Any race of culture of people that is [supposedly] based on pure logic would know this.

Now that I think on it, there might be some great story potential here. What if the Kir'Shara/Surak's teaching really is, despite most Vulcans' claims to the contrary, more of a faith or doctrine-based philosophy rather than simply being "true logic." Given Micheal's upbringing, I think there's potential to explore the more nefarious (for lack of a better term) side of a philosophy that promotes itself as being always right and absolute, but really only is some of the time and is heavily subject to bias to that end.

Not only could it make for a good story, but it would most certainly be culturally and politically relevant and poignant.

 

[Qonundrum]

Star Trek is at its best when it focuses on the drama. The thing that makes City such a great episode isn't the moral dilemma itself but the tragedy of Kirk's decision.

The tragedy of one person versus the tragedy of billions. And was Edith's death the only viable solution? I'd reckon the answer is "probably no", but then the point of the story would lose some of its edge by being more realistic with avenues.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Batshit Insanity!!!

I skimmed over your psychotic ramblings. I’m trans and I’m transitioning. Before transitioning I was a miserable, empty inside because I knew from the age of four that the fact that I was assigned the description of male was wrong. It’s a pain I can’t begin to describe other than having your heart break every single time something reminds you of that wrong feeling. Which in case you were too obvious, is every single day. But instead of soaking in this pain until it became a toxic bitterness that fully consumed me, I transitioned. For the first time in my life I’ve felt happiness, love and the knowledge that someone actually knows me as me and not some mask I tried to wear because I was afraid to accept myself.

Now you seem miserable and really desperate to rant about trans people. Enough to constantly post it, get banned, create a dual, post again, get banned again. Are you trying to convince yourself? Most people don’t obsess about transgender people and gender, especially to the bitter extent you do. Maybe you just deal with your own issues before dumping your shit here. I hope you read this before getting the ban.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

As far as the whole transgenders in the future thing, we have an insanely whack way at looking at gender roles, on both ends of the spectrum.

Firstly sex refers to male or female, gender refers to masculine or feminine. There is no way to be a transgender male. You cannot switch being male or female. You are either male or female with some medical exceptions. One can be transgender under todays terms but cannot change male or female, a more truer distinction of gender would me man or woman, masculine or feminine. Male or female is not a social construct. It is a biological one.

Either way people on both ends seem to use very archaic, and stereotypical feminine and masculine archetypes when defining gender it's kind of amazing and to be frank a little backwards. The gender roles of man and woman these days are melding together into such a big grey area.

I envision in the future this wouldn't even be an issue. Gender, as defined by todays "social constructs" in such a civilized future may not even exist. Being a trans woman or trans manmay simply not exist as these gender archetypes may go away. I would find it strange in what's touted as such a civilized future to see trans people, simply cause there wouldn't be such hardened social stereotypes, if any at all.

 

[Awesome Possum]

That’s not even close to correct on any level. I can’t even.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

i feel that it is correct on many levels.

cant change your biological sex. hormone pills and change in body parts wont do it.
sex is male and female
gender is man and woman. or masculine feminine
gender roles used to define gender imo seem very much based on archaic stereotypes of masculine and feminine.

i find it more likely in the future there would be less a distinction of gender roles than there would be a prevalence of transgender. why would a future progressive society hold on to such archaic gender roles?

 

[XCV330]

The tragedy of one person versus the tragedy of billions. And was Edith's death the only viable solution? I'd reckon the answer is "probably no", but then the point of the story would lose some of its edge by being more realistic with avenues.

In the end there was neither the time nor the resources find a way to save Edith and fix time. The ending of this is done extrely well. From the moment Edith mentions to McCoy to her death it is possibly less than a minute.

 

[Awesome Possum]

i feel that it is correct on many levels.

cant change your biological sex. hormone pills and change in body parts wont do it.
sex is male and female
gender is man and woman. or masculine feminine
gender roles used to define gender imo seem very much based on archaic stereotypes of masculine and feminine.

i find it more likely in the future there would be less a distinction of gender roles than there would be a prevalence of transgender. why would a future progressive society hold on to such archaic gender roles?

I’ve tried to simplify it to the point to the point of absurdity. Gender and sex are a spectrum, you want to make it a binary, yet also seem to not want that. You can be masculine, feminine, agender, non-binary, gender fluid. It’s all valid. Even with cis people, no one is strictly masculine or feminine. You generally have more interest in things traditional seen as masculine or feminine than the other.

 

[XCV330]

i find it more likely in the future there would be less a distinction of gender roles than there would be a prevalence of transgender. why would a future progressive society hold on to such archaic gender roles?

We are currently playing a grand experiment and we do not yet know how society can or will function long term without roles. I suspect we will enter into some form of formalism though I do not know what form it will take. Cultures that thrive need purpose, and that purpose must be bound by some kind of code, one shared by the overwhelming majority. We live in chaotic times now where that simply is no longer the case. The traditional roles of men and women will certainly change, and yes the idea of the "other" as seems to exist in whatever counts as a social zeitgeist anymore. Trek's Federation culture is hard to pin down as it changes by whatever version of Roddenberry was at the helm and then competing ideas then on, but certainly the Federation does seem to believe in the sanctity of the individual, the need for sentient endeavour that enriches the person while promoting development of society. I would not call it communism because in a post-scarcity economy I doubt communism even means anything.

I digress. I think there will be some form of fathering and mothering role. Men and women will remain distinct by biology and therefore on some level by behavior and I doubt there will be some desire to meld to the two together for some idealistic experiment. Men and women will still be attracted to one another unless mutation does something really bad to the human genome and they will still make babies. And they will raise them the same way the human species has done for tens of thousands of years: by dumping them on the grandparents.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

No plot period. It was incredibly boring. This was supposed to be the mid season cliff hanger? No wonder they added another episode. This is a filler episode that can be overlooked in a 26 episode season but in a 15 episode season? I expect higher quality.

I’ve tried to simplify it to the point to the point of absurdity. Gender and sex are a spectrum, you want to make it a binary, yet also seem to not want that. You can be masculine, feminine, agender, non-binary, gender fluid. It’s all valid. Even with cis people, no one is strictly masculine or feminine. You generally have more interest in things traditional seen as masculine or feminine than the other.

sex is not on a spectrum. gender is. but sex is sex with some scientific exceptions. there is currently no technology that can allow someone to switch sex. it may exist in the future. there are people who due to their genetics are hard to identify but they arent fluid. there is a definite medical and scientific answer. gender however is different.

as far as gender goes, this is a role developed by an entire society of billions of people. im not claiming this at all to be binary.

im saying in a more progressive future its very possible there would be fewer labels if any, simply due to a future where such labels arent important or dont exist. if in fact they do exist in a similar abundance it also seems silly to me to expect that hundreds of years in the future said roles would be at all similar as today. again todays gender roles even for those fluid within them seem largely to be defined by rather archaic stereotypes.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

We are currently playing a grand experiment and we do not yet know how society can or will function long term without roles. I suspect we will enter into some form of formalism though I do not know what form it will take. Cultures that thrive need purpose, and that purpose must be bound by some kind of code, one shared by the overwhelming majority. We live in chaotic times now where that simply is no longer the case. The traditional roles of men and women will certainly change, and yes the idea of the "other" as seems to exist in whatever counts as a social zeitgeist anymore. Trek's Federation culture is hard to pin down as it changes by whatever version of Roddenberry was at the helm and then competing ideas then on, but certainly the Federation does seem to believe in the sanctity of the individual, the need for sentient endeavour that enriches the person while promoting development of society. I would not call it communism because in a post-scarcity economy I doubt communism even means anything.

I digress. I think there will be some form of fathering and mothering role. Men and women will remain distinct by biology and therefore on some level by behavior and I doubt there will be some desire to meld to the two together for some idealistic experiment. Men and women will still be attracted to one another unless mutation does something really bad to the human genome and they will still make babies. And they will raise them the same way the human species has done for tens of thousands of years: by dumping them on the grandparents.

i agree completely. even when the dust settles on our experiment with defining social roles, there will be more formalization. eventually it will happen again with other generations and other social experiments.

some things will likely not change. as you say.

 

[Awesome Possum]

sex is not on a spectrum. gender is. but sex is sex with some scientific exceptions. there is currently no technology that can allow someone to switch sex. it may exist in the future. there are people who due to their genetics are hard to identify but they arent fluid. there is a definite medical and scientific answer. gender however is different.

Yeah, if you dismiss everyone who doesn’t fit into the binary as “scientific exceptions” then it is a binary.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Yeah, if you dismiss everyone who doesn’t fit into the binary as “scientific exceptions” then it is a binary.

sex is science. even intricacies therein its a fixed definition. even if your misidentified there is still one right answer in ones genetics. you cannot self identify your sex, you can your gender, gender and sex are not the same thing. if it is found in someone's genes that they are this or that, then thats what they are. as far as sex goes. it may not be binary but it isnt self identifiable. its science. there can be scientifically 8 or 10 sexes, but youre medically and scientifically one of them.

gender is the fluid social construct. sex is not.

 

[XCV330]

Yeah, if you dismiss everyone who doesn’t fit into the binary as “scientific exceptions” then it is a binary.

Biology does not lie, regardless of social adaptations and pressures. The chemical slot machine gives you testicles or ovaries, with very rare exceptions. Evolution has been doing some form of this for well over a billion years. It's gotten good at it. We're nowhere near ready to rewrite that book.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Biology does not lie, regardless of social adaptations and pressures. The chemical slot machine gives you testicles or ovaries, with very rare exceptions. Evolution has been doing some form of this for well over a billion years. It's gotten good at it. We're nowhere near ready to rewrite that book.

science may find that there are multiple sexes, and that even some of the things we define as conditions arent conditions at all,

i mean obviously the opening to the urethra being in an off place would still be but some of what makes sex harder to define may be indicators of different sexes as opposed to a condition.

 

[Awesome Possum]

sex is science. even intricacies therein its a fixed definition. even if your misidentified there is still one right answer in ones genetics. you cannot self identify your sex, you can your gender, gender and sex are not the same thing. if it is found in someone's genes that they are this or that, then thats what they are. as far as sex goes. it may not be binary but it isnt self identifiable. its science. there can be scientifically 8 or 10 sexes, but youre medically and scientifically one of them.

gender is the fluid social construct. sex is not.