Does Discovery Need a "Explore What It Means to Be Human" Character???!

It's a poor leader that doesn't know the first thing about Darwin's theory of evolution.

Phlox is a fictitious character that is only the reflection of ignorant writers. Everything he says about evolution in that episode is utter bullshit.

.

I agree but for once he should have followed his first instinct.

 

I disagree, knowledge of that subject is pretty esoteric, and would hardly need to be something a leader would be required to be familiar with.

It would be like saying a leader needs to have a basic knowledge of bio-chemistry to be a good leader.

Please don't get me wrong, personally I think Archer should have helped the larger of the two groups, for that reason. Do the most good for the most people.

I ascribe to the internet theory that Phlox (or his people) have partially figure out the information that would one day be revealed in the TNG episode The Chase. Perhaps through the process of observation.

Phlox knows or suspects that intelligence in a species isn't a accident or random event, but has a external cause with a ultimate goal. Phlox could see the indicators (genetic?) that brought him to his conclusion.

This episode is meant to present a ethical dilemma, no matter what Archer does (even doing nothing) it isn't going to be perfect and some people are going to suffer in the future. It's like Tuvix, or Insurrection.

Would it be "right" for Captain Kirk to kill the one million Humans on Deneva?

 

Personally, I don't like shows that endorse genocide on the base of fictitious/spurious/bullshit science. It's a stark reminder of how the Nazis would make films filled with false scientific justifications to the atrocities the did later.

I value my humanity more than I do some Sci. Fi. show and not even a good one most of the time. I never was a big fan of Ent but this episode really hit the fan.

 

How do you figure what happens in this episode even remotely can be described as "genocide?"

 

I've already explained that afore.

But let's give it another try:

1 - Say there's someone dying on the sidewalk and you're the only person there and you pass by without doing anything not even calling an ambulance then you're not only an asshole, you're a criminal that deserves to spend some time in jail, a long time.

2 - Multiply that by ten million and you have what Archer has done.


You don't want to call it genocide. Fine, I guess. But please, don't tell me it's NORMAL!!

 

I'm telling you it's not genocide.

It's not enough that you pass the distinctive group by on the sidewalk, for it to be genocide you would have to be the original cause of the distinctive group dying in the first place.

The term genocide, as a concept, (I feel) is very important, and it shouldn't be reduced by employing it inaccurately.

I'll carefully climb down off my soapbox now.

 

It's also a stark reminder of Godwin's Law.

[/thread]

 

That said, your quote reminds me of this exchange between Dr. Crusher and Stubbs, which I absolutely loved, and still regret that the writer did not have Dr. Crusher attempt to defend Stubb's observation in the TNG episode "Evolution:"

STUBBS: Why does a mosquito bite your ear? and who cares? The answer is simple. Call an exterminator.
CRUSHER: Doctor Stubbs, these nanites are now working with a new collective intelligence. Operating together. Teaching each other skills.
STUBBS: Oh really. I'm sorry but this is nonsense. You can't have a civilization of computer chips. They're made in a plant in Dakar, Senegal. I've watched the construction.
CRUSHER: Then how do you explain what we've seen here?
STUBBS: It's no more mysterious than watching a strain of the Leutscher virus reproduce itself. And that at least is a bona fide lifeform. How many disease germs and viruses have you destroyed in your time, Doctor Crusher?

Beverly was speechless, of course.

 

Imagine the ethical headaches sentient germs would cause.

 

No headache, you treat them just like you would a more "conventional" being. If they are harming/hurting you, you stop them, even if stopping them involves force.

 

Archer knew that Phlox had the cure for the disease. All he had to do is order him to give it to the people. His failure to do so caused millions of deaths.

Oh come on! Just because it is a fiction shouldn't prevent you from realizing that doing that is absolutely abject.

And yes it is GENOCIDE, anything that's willful and deliberate, as this is, that causes the death of millions of people, definitely qualifies as being genocide.

Say you have someone suffocating in an airproof room, all you have to do is to open the door to let that person out. You don't do it and instead you watch that person die of asphyxiation.

Don't you think that that makes you a murderer? In the first degree? I am almost certain that that's how a jury would see it.

Archer did that very thing, times ten million.

 

He makes a fair point.

 

What girl from Voyager? There was more than one.

 

Likely Kes.

The writers fucked up with that 10 year lifespan bullshit, for one.

 

Well, that could have worked given that the series only lasted seven years.

 

Hey, that's mister knee-balls.

 

Is this general theme played out? Are there any good stories left to tell that includes such a character?

 

To quote Inigo Montoya again on genocide, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."