Excusez moi?
Differences between the series and/or the movies:
- Thread starter Discofan
- Start date
Excusez moi?
No need to be rude to folks because they mistake what you and someone else posted.
Who's being rude to whom now?
Calling someone out for being rude isn't rude.
No mistake. Just thought this was an open discussion, not a collection of private chats on the same topic. The way I see it, this is the virtual version of a busy bar at a sci-fi convention. There are lively conversations going on at every table, people join in, people wander off, new people chime in . . . it's a free-for-all. Robert's Rules of Order do not apply.
But, getting back OT, we shouldn't conflate the accidental creation of the Genesis Planet with the experiment Carol wanted to conduct on Ceti Alpha V. Pretty sure Khan wasn't worried about any stray microbes contaminating the results of his kamikazi doomsday weapon explosion!
But, getting back OT, we shouldn't conflate the accidental creation of the Genesis Planet with the experiment Carol wanted to conduct on Ceti Alpha V. Pretty sure Khan wasn't worried about any stray microbes contaminating the results of his kamikazi doomsday weapon explosion!
Last edited:
Except when like you, someone's mistaken as to who was being rude to whom.
Your mistake was to confuse my discussion with someone else about microbes on Spock's burial torpedo, with a discussion about TWOK.
You can answer whatever statement you want as long as you do it respecting the context in which that statement was made.
Like if you and I are talking about beverages and I answer someone else who was talking about food that I like potatoes. It wouldn't be appropriate of you to tell me that potatoes are not a beverage as if I was an idiot who didn't know that. That's basically what you did here.
At any rate, TWOK is not very consistent with TSFS. For one thing, Carol Marcus is nowhere to be found in the latter. One would think She and Kirk would have a moment to share, to mourn the loss of their son!!! Plus she seemed more involved than her son in TWOK. So why is David taking all the blame by Saavik for the failed experiment?
But we're still all talking about the same issue: why Carol objected to moving the microbes in KHAN. Just coming at it from different angles, while somehow dragging in TSFS as well. Figured it couldn't hurt to point out the situation in TSFS is very different from the situation in KHAN, which is what we were all talking about in the first place.
For the record, though, I didn't take offense at your response. We're just having a lively debate here.
For the record, though, I didn't take offense at your response. We're just having a lively debate here.
The problem is that I am convinced that she did it for ethical reasons since as Spock himself said any preexisting lifeform would be wiped out by the Genesis experiment (which is why the Klingons saw it as a great weapon, btw). So for Genesis, it doesn't matter if there were any lifeform on the planet (as has been concluded by Bones as well!). The reason why they don't do it on a planet already bearing life is that they don't want to be responsible for the extinction of that life, be it a microbial life.
Btw, at this point, we would be ecstatic if we discovered life somewhere else in the solar system, even if it was only microbes.
Actually, the real question is why it was so hard for the Reliant to find a planet without any life on it, as to opposed to reality where we can't find one that does.
But, without rehashing our respective arguments, I read that whole discussion completely differently. It's about conducting the experiment under controlled circumstances, as any proper scientist would intend, not out of concern for wiping out any hypothetical microbes, which was never going happen since their very presence would render the planet unsuitable for the experiment. If Carol found out they were there, Ceti Alpha V would be rejected as a test site because she specifically needs a lifeless planet to prove that the Genesis Device actually works.
Any ethical concerns would be academic at that point. The Reliant would just move on to another planet.
But, without rehashing our respective arguments, I read that whole discussion completely differently. It's about conducting the experiment under controlled circumstances, as any proper scientist would intend, not out of concern for wiping out any hypothetical microbes, which was never going happen since their very presence would render the planet unsuitable for the experiment. If Carol found out they were there, Ceti Alpha V would be rejected as a test site because she specifically needs a lifeless planet to prove that the Genesis Device actually works.
Any ethical concerns would be academic at that point. The Reliant would just move on to another planet.
Last edited:
And you'd be correct.
Actually, the real question is why it was so hard for the Reliant to find a planet without any life on it, as to opposed to reality where we can't find one that does.
But, without rehashing our respective arguments, I read that whole discussion completely differently. It's about conducting the experiment under controlled circumstances, as any proper scientist would intend, not out of concern for wiping out any hypothetical microbes, which was never going happen since their very presence would render the planet unsuitable for the experiment. If Carol found out they were there, Ceti Alpha V would be rejected as a test site because she specifically needs a lifeless planet to prove that the Genesis Device actually works.
Any ethical concerns would be academic at that point. The Reliant would just move on to another planet.
I agree that Carol was concerned about the experiment not the sanctity of life.
But I also agree that visiting the planet and taking off their suits would probably have created a heap more microscopic material to appear on the planet from the germs that every person carries on their bodies at all times. Perhaps by the time they saw the shelters they'd already given up on it being a suitable planet and thought it OK to take their helmets off.
Yeah, you definitely need to dial it back.
Not only are you being unnecessarily rude, but you're doing so in a futile attempt to defend a wrong interpretation. Not a great combination.
If you continue like this, I'll close the thread.
I've always thought that a lot of the special effects on Star Trek movies were over done! I mean the Enterprise zooming off to it's next destination with a rainbow behind it was a bit painful to see while it's televisual equivalent was just seeing the ship moving very quickly and the transporter effects were great and more believable on TV but the films had this pulsing bright light wave going through the people and a near explosion afterwards! Too much!
JB
JB
I was always under the impression that her objection had to do with the idea that a planet harboring a microbe could be one that would develop life and an ecosystem in the future much the same way that earth has done. Therefore she objected almost on the basis Of how the prime directive is built, around not interfering with the evolution of other worlds.
Bingo!
Wrong? In what way?
No, I definitely think that you're on to something. Remember how Trip in one of the ENT episodes was careful not to shoot a bug on the planet?
It seems pretty obvious that it was for pre-first directive considerations. So it means that even BEFORE the prime directive was created, people were already told not to kill alien life forms, even primitive ones if they could avoid it.
Similar threads
