Spoilers Captain Archer's Response in Cogenitor

[Deks]

It's been remarked that the Vissians and humanity might already have been exchanging culture and tech, despite the bumpy beginning. Those photonic torpedoes they had from S3 on must have come from somewhere.

SF was already developing new weapons systems back then if I'm not mistaken... and its not outside the realm of possibility they developed antimatter warhead technology as a direct result of NX-01's initial encounters in the previous 1.5 years, or were already on the way to making them, but NX-01's data from the first year and a half pushed them over the needed point where they could integrate the torpedoes into practice.

 

[Oddish]

There are many speculations. I personally think that giving the NX01 Enterprise the same weapon set as the 23rd and 24th century Enterprise was just dumb.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Note: Women are necessary for the survival of the human race but there's plenty of places where they're not treated like people.

So what makes you right and the Vissians wrong? Who gave you the right to judge them?

If Trip hadn't stuck his nose in where it didn't belong, Charles would not have died. It's as simple as that.

She made a conscious choice that she'd prefer to die rather than live in that culture. Why is that choice inferior to living as a slave?

By your own logic?

You can argue this position from either side and not necessarily be wrong. The crux of the matter is this:

Do you believe it's is right and proper to force your rules and values on another species and culture, or not?

If yes, Trip acted properly.
If no, Trip was way out of line.

Do you believe that a basic respect for all sentient beings and their fundamental dignity is an essential core ethical value?

Because this episode asks, "If you see someone enslaved, is it right to treat them as animals because their culture says so?"

The other Federation members would benefit significantly if the Vissians were to join ... mid-22nd century Vissian technology seemed advanced beyond even late 24th century Federation state-of-the-art.

The Vissians would probably have no such immediate benefit if they joined, though I'd say it's always better to be in a trustworthy alliance than to stand alone.

Mind you, Federation laws prevent you from joining if you have any kind of caste system.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Mind you, Federation laws prevent you from joining if you have any kind of caste system.

Congenitors vs. Pon Far?

"Hi, you there, 6 year old girl, how would like to be violently impregnated by a rage monster with no concern for your safety in 30 years, and then every seven years after that. It's the only way our species can perpetuate. If my son isn't allowed to rape you, he will die, and a dead man is a much more expensive loss to society and culture than a difficult girls grumps about being institutionally molested."

Yup.

The Federation is cool with that.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Congenitors vs. Pon Far?

"Hi, you there, 6 year old girl, how would like to be violently impregnated by a rage monster with no concern for your safety in 30 years, and then every seven years after that. It's the only way our species can perpetuate. If my son isn't allowed to rape you, he will die, and a dead man is a much more expensive loss to society and culture than a difficult girls grumps about being institutionally molested."

Yup.

The Federation is cool with that.

I mean, you actually give the first cogent argument why the Vulcans keep it a secret.

Mind you, Vulcan women also have Pon'Far so the men are forced into it too.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I mean, you actually give the first cogent argument why the Vulcans keep it a secret.

Mind you, Vulcan women also have Pon'Far so the men are forced into it too.

I was wondering how strong Vulcan Women get from pon far if they're potentially waiting for more than one suitor to show up and make a baby.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I was wondering how strong Vulcan Women get from pon far if they're potentially waiting for more than one suitor to show up and make a baby.

I wouldn't be surprised if Belenna Torres illustrated how it goes where they beat unwanted mates down.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I wouldn't be surprised if Belenna Torres illustrated how it goes where they beat unwanted mates down.

I think there's a reverse dowry at work.

The family sells their daughters to another family with a crude boy looking for a wife "eventually".

As 6 year olds, they are telepathically tethered, and if they do not make a baby in the next 30 years, then they both die.

Do you like those odds?

Both families would tether their children to multiple suitors just because it's 30 years, and accidents happen, or one of the betrothed could be out of range, or had an accident with a rice picking machine and is now infertile...

So, maybe you'd pay more dowry for exclusivity?

No money on Vulcan.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I think there's a reverse dowry at work.

The family sells their daughters to another family with a crude boy looking for a wife "eventually".

I took it as a much more elemental survival strategy.

"We betroth our children at this age so they both have someone to have Pon Farr with in the future so they don't horribly die or kill someone."

My assumption is that T'Prynn may not even be as psychotically murderous as she was in "Amok Time" normally, it's just that her Pon Farr hit her and she focused on, "Must murder Spock."

 

[Guy Gardener]

Tuvok said that there are three ways to get through ponfar.

1. Mating.
2. Murder.
3. Masturbation.. Sorry, I mean "Meditation".

Pon far does not always end in death if no one gets knocked up.

Quite frankly if meditation is an answer to Pon Farr then so is Valium.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Mind you, Federation laws prevent you from joining if you have any kind of caste system.

That’s the second time I’ve read that today. Not doubting you for a moment, but where does that come from?

 

[Farscape One]

DS9, "ACCESSION". Sisko tells Akorem that caste based discrimination goes against the Federation Charter, and that if Bajor goes back to the d'jarras, their application for membership will be denied.

 

[Brennyren]

Because this episode asks, "If you see someone enslaved, is it right to treat them as animals because their culture says so?"

And the episode's answer is "Yes."

 

[DonIago]

I think the real question this episode asks is, "If you encounter a single ship filled with aliens engaging in cultural practices you don't approve of, is it okay to judge them and draw broad conclusions about their entire civilization based solely on your own beliefs?"

If an alien civilization showed up on our doorstep and told us we needed to stop using fossil fuels immediately because they were toxic not just to us but to all life on the planet, does anyone really think humanity as a whole would say, "Oh! We'll get right on that then!" Heck, we don't even do that when members of our own species point out such things.

Because civilizations are complicated things and there's more variables in play than anyone can glean from a single encounter.

 

[Brennyren]

I think the real question this episode asks is, "If you encounter a single ship filled with aliens engaging in cultural practices you don't approve of, is it okay to judge them and draw broad conclusions about their entire civilization based solely on your own beliefs?"

You're broadening the scope of the issue much further than the episode did. The question at stake was never, "Should we demand that the Vissians, as a culture, change their treatment of the cogenitors?" The Enterprise never had the power to do that, and was not asked to.

The question was "Should we grant this one individual, who no longer wishes to live as a cogenitor -- whom we have witnessed for ourselves is systematically unpersonned and treated like an object in that role -- asylum?"

Now, I could have reluctantly respected Archer's choice if he had said, "Look, Trip, my hands were tied. These guys wanted the cogenitor back, and there was no way we were going to be able to stop them." Which would have been true; the Enterprise could never have beaten the Vissians in combat. But he did not say that, and the situation wasn't framed that way, anyhow -- the Vissian captain never made that kind of threat.

Instead, Archer lashes out at Trip, blaming him for the cogenitor's suicide, as if Trip showing them the limits of their life was somehow worse than the Vissians imposing those limits in the first place, and worse than Archer allowing them to be forced back into their not-even-gilded cage. He explicitly gives Trip hell for meeting someone whose culture has enslaved them, and treating them as a sentient being. So I think @Charles Phipps has the central question of the episode correct.

"If you see someone enslaved, is it right to treat them as animals because their culture says so?"

And I say again: Nobody asked Archer to change Vissian culture. He was asked to save one person.

 

[Charles Phipps]

And I say again: Nobody asked Archer to change Vissian culture. He was asked to save one person.

Yes, there's also the fact that Archer isn't respecting Trip's culture.

 

[Guy Gardener]

You're broadening the scope of the issue much further than the episode did. The question at stake was never, "Should we demand that the Vissians, as a culture, change their treatment of the cogenitors?" The Enterprise never had the power to do that, and was not asked to.

The question was "Should we grant this one individual, who no longer wishes to live as a cogenitor -- whom we have witnessed for ourselves is systematically unpersonned and treated like an object in that role -- asylum?"

Now, I could have reluctantly respected Archer's choice if he had said, "Look, Trip, my hands were tied. These guys wanted the cogenitor back, and there was no way we were going to be able to stop them." Which would have been true; the Enterprise could never have beaten the Vissians in combat. But he did not say that, and the situation wasn't framed that way, anyhow -- the Vissian captain never made that kind of threat.

Instead, Archer lashes out at Trip, blaming him for the cogenitor's suicide, as if Trip showing them the limits of their life was somehow worse than the Vissians imposing those limits in the first place, and worse than Archer allowing them to be forced back into their not-even-gilded cage. He explicitly gives Trip hell for meeting someone whose culture has enslaved them, and treating them as a sentient being. So I think @Charles Phipps has the central question of the episode correct.

And I say again: Nobody asked Archer to change Vissian culture. He was asked to save one person.

No, Archer was asked if he wanted his ship boarded, and to lose half a dozen crewmen in a firefight.

 

[Brennyren]

If you want to support Archer's decision on pragmatic grounds, that's one thing. And quite a defensible thing, at that. Supporting it on moral/ethical grounds? That's a little tougher.

 

[Oddish]

Moral and ethical aren't always the same.

Morally, it was a no brainer. Archer knowingly handed the cogenitor over to a miserable, stunted, oppressed existence. Is it any wonder she killed herself to escape it?

Ethically, harder to say. Does Starfleet expect Archer to respect alien cultures? Is there a non-interference directive? Rules about when asylum may be granted? Since ethics are basically professional standards, like work rules but associated with the profession rather than the employer, we don't know.

Pragmatically, we again don't know, because we don't know what was to be gained or lost. Would Archer receive tech or information if he threw Charles under the bus? Would he be blown to bits if he didn't? No offer or threat was made, but one might have been implied.

 

[DonIago]

And I say again: Nobody asked Archer to change Vissian culture. He was asked to save one person.

Because the Cogenitors need to be shared among the Vissian civilization in order for that civilization to survive, saving this one person would affect many Vissians and likely some Cogenitors as well.

Saying it's all about one person is reductionist and fails to consider the wider implications.