Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient races?

[Nightdiamond]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Like what they did in Dear Doctor.

There are two races on a planet, (the Menk and Valakians) one has a genetic disease. Phlox finds the cure, but tells Archer they shouldn't give it to them.

Why? Because according to him, the disease is a genetic dead end, and the other race was meant to survive and dominate the planet.

It was evolution's plan.

I think the concept was based on the PD, particularly the TNG interpretation.

Over time, eventually dwindled down to these weird interpretations.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

But it's not interesting, it's turning evolution into a religion as well as expanding a biological concept into a cosmological process that none can question; It's creating a fear of happenstance to a point where everything is potentially damaging. It's turning the ongoing process of the universe unfolding around us into some divine plan we dare not interfere with. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, the Federation may as well give up on exploration and colonization of space if that is the fear on which their PD is based.

This.

I'm not going to sacrifice in the here and now on what might happen thousands or millions (or even billions) of years down the road.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

What it a Starfleet team sent to save an uninhabited planet picks up a highly infectious virus that decimates the population of the Federation? Or on a sentient planet what if the people saved from an asteroid went on to become worse than the Borg?

The PD exists to deal with issues that Starfleet personnel cannot foresee.

 

[Commishsleer]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Like what they did in Dear Doctor.

There are two races on a planet, (the Menk and Valakians) one has a genetic disease. Phlox finds the cure, but tells Archer they shouldn't give it to them.

Why? Because according to him, the disease is a genetic dead end, and the other race was meant to survive and dominate the planet.

It was evolution's plan.

I think the concept was based on the PD, particularly the TNG interpretation.

Over time, eventually dwindled down to these weird interpretations.

I get the impression that Archer gives /denies aid based on whether he likes the species or not. Like in 'The Cogenitor'.
I'm not an expert on ENT so feel free to criticise my fairly broad generalisation here.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

'What if' To quote Gomez Addams 'We must not indulge fear.' That's all such a what if game is when 'What if' is entertained so.

 

[Hazel]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Also Riker was at his worst talking down to the 21st century guys (us). You know we don't drink, smoke, eat meat, use money - in other words we are morally superior to you (and any other species in the galaxy by inference).

And this is another TNG episode where they attempted (and were successful) in reviving the dead.

Riker just spouts nonsense. Humans don't eat meat/enslave other animals....except when replicated caviar isn't good enough for the captain, or we want a fish supper at Jo Sisko's restaurant. We don't drink...except when we need a good cabernet. We don't use money...except we have a handy store of latinum for use at Quark's bar.

 

[Armored Saint]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Or on a sentient planet what if the people saved from an asteroid went on to become worse than the Borg?

What if a bigger threat than the Borg comes from a founding specie of the Federation?

Why? Because according to him, the disease is a genetic dead end, and the other race was meant to survive and dominate the planet.

What the hell?!?! It's sounds like when the Klingons or the Romulans say "the sick should die".

I think the concept was based on the PD, particularly the TNG interpretation.

Or Highlander, there ban only one!

Oh and I was thinking about something: how Picard could justify the Federation's intervention after the destruction of Praxis.(Because he can't say that's because TUC and TNG weren't written by the same people.) I think's it's legitimate to help a population when this kind of disasters happens despite it's their "own fault", but how can Picard find that legitimate and refuse to destroy an asteroid which gonna kill a pre-warp population if his ship is in the area?

P.S. The pre-federation Vulcans don't wait until the discovery of warp-drive to help other planets. I saw one of them yesterday on tv, he works for the Public Health Agency of Canada.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

What it a Starfleet team sent to save an uninhabited planet picks up a highly infectious virus that decimates the population of the Federation? Or on a sentient planet what if the people saved from an asteroid went on to become worse than the Borg?

The PD exists to deal with issues that Starfleet personnel cannot foresee.

What if a baby I save from getting hit by a bus grows up to be the next Hitler? What if a landing party goes down to Omega IV and takes a deadly virus back to their ship? What you post above essentially rules out the Federation or Starfleet from ever contacting anyone or going anywhere out of fear of "what if?"

It's non-sense.

Q: If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross, but it's not for the timid.

 

[T'Girl]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Q: If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross, but it's not for the timid.

This after Q moved the Enterprise directly in the path of a Borg cube.

If I pick you up and throw you into a enclosure at the zoo containing lions and you're killed and eaten (not necessarily in that order) could I smugly say "well the lions killed him."

I'm not going to sacrifice in the here and now on what might happen thousands or millions (or even billions) of years down the road.

Yes, 65 million years ago, a alien starship should have diverted that asteroid away from Earth if it could. For all they knew, some small region held a dispersed community of tens of thousands of Bushmen.

 

[USS KG5]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

If I remember correctly, there are two episodes of TNG where the plot hinges entirely on saving planets and the prime directive, Pen Pals and is it Homeward? The naff one with Worf's brother anyway.

In both cases, Picard's decisions make sense. In Pen Pals, Picard gives in to Data as they find out they can save the planet without anyone knowing they are there, so although it is technically a violation of the prime directive, in reality all they are doing is letting the species evolution continue. In Homeward I believe they state on screen there is no technical way they have to save the planet, an evacuation would destroy their culture in any case and probably also be impossible. The only real way to save anything is the way Worf's brother tries, and it isn't altogether successful.

The treatment of the PD is inconsistent for sure, but it does just about hold together. Picard seems to have massive discretionary power, in fact it is the only explanation that makes sense for why four-pip Captains command everything we see in Trek!

 

[Commishsleer]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

If I remember correctly, there are two episodes of TNG where the plot hinges entirely on saving planets and the prime directive, Pen Pals and is it Homeward? The naff one with Worf's brother anyway.

In both cases, Picard's decisions make sense. In Pen Pals, Picard gives in to Data as they find out they can save the planet without anyone knowing they are there, so although it is technically a violation of the prime directive, in reality all they are doing is letting the species evolution continue. In Homeward I believe they state on screen there is no technical way they have to save the planet, an evacuation would destroy their culture in any case and probably also be impossible. The only real way to save anything is the way Worf's brother tries, and it isn't altogether successful.

The treatment of the PD is inconsistent for sure, but it does just about hold together. Picard seems to have massive discretionary power, in fact it is the only explanation that makes sense for why four-pip Captains command everything we see in Trek!

What about exploding volcanoes and an atmospheric catastrophe has anything to do with evolution?

And whats to say the guy who killed himself wasn't just feeling guilty for keeping a secret to preserve the sanctity of the more stupid aspects of the PD. They would probably been better off just revealing all to these people instead of keeping it all a secret.

Why is Troi on the ship at all? Isn't it her job to help people adjust or is it just to point out the bleeding obvious to Picard. Was she meant to follow the company line and agree the planet's inhabitants would be better off dead than know about the Federation?

People are better off alive than dead. If some people kill themselves 'knowing' about the Federation then thats probably 'evolution' in effect.

 

[Timewalker]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

But it's not interesting, it's turning evolution into a religion as well as expanding a biological concept into a cosmological process that none can question; It's creating a fear of happenstance to a point where everything is potentially damaging. It's turning the ongoing process of the universe unfolding around us into some divine plan we dare not interfere with. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, the Federation may as well give up on exploration and colonization of space if that is the fear on which their PD is based.

Evolution is not a religion, and it is an interesting topic of discussion, so people can explore how their own personal code of honor would tell them to deal with such a situation. These intellectual exercises and self-reflections are worthwhile, in my opinion.

What the fictional universe of Star Trek thinks may be a different kettle of fish.

P.S. The pre-federation Vulcans don't wait until the discovery of warp-drive to help other planets. I saw one of them yesterday on tv, he works for the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Canada is a multicultural society.

What about exploding volcanoes and an atmospheric catastrophe has anything to do with evolution?

If a species becomes extinct due to being wiped out from the effects of volcanoes or other natural catastrophes, the evolution of that species is going to come to a crashing halt. Once it's gone, it's gone. And Nature, being entirely neutral, will not care.

 

[Commishsleer]

Re: Do you think the Feds save endangered planets with no sentient ra

Humans don't live on an evolution time scale.

The Q might think in terms of 65 million years but we can't. The Q might work out if they stop a meteorite from hitting Earth then the DINOSAURS WILL RULE. Picard isn't able. He will allow a colony on a planet where a salamander might eventually evolve into a sentient species if the colony didn't wipe them out. Otherwise the Federation would never settle any other planets.

Unless... did they ever colonise planets post TOS? I remember Janeway considering it without checking the planet out for salamanders.

And if the Federation has this belief in the sanctity of 'evolution' then they would never provide medical aid to any planets including those in the Federation. For example a plague on Andoria that would wipe out the entire population could be nature's way of making sure that penguins evolve.