Episode of the Week: 3x05 "The Bonding"

[JirinPanthosa]

Unobotainium was basically space oil. It's a lifestyle enhancer.

I don't remember what they were saying about the Dominion in the movie, I haven't seen it since it first came out and I didn't catch DS9 until it aired on Spike. But 'It helps the war effort' is something you can say no matter what when there's a war on, and mild technical advancements fall under that umbrella. And they only through the war reference in for continuity sake with the ongoing series, in the episode they mostly talked about the awesomeness of Geordi getting his eyes back.

And Up The Long Ladder was a terrible episode and the solution a necessity for survival which they talked them into, they did not coerce them into it. Protecting a smaller power from a coercive larger power is a common theme in Star Trek. Star Trek characters would always risk their survival to avoid behaving like a dictator, Insurrection is just an extension of that. It's the same with Stargate, where they had several episodes where stealing technology to help the war effort is bad.

 

[Captrek]

Unobotainium was basically space oil. It's a lifestyle enhancer.

Is that explicitly established in the film, or are you assuming?

I don't remember what they were saying about the Dominion in the movie, I haven't seen it since it first came out and I didn't catch DS9 until it aired on Spike. But 'It helps the war effort' is something you can say no matter what when there's a war on, and mild technical advancements fall under that umbrella.

Dougherty states explicitly that the medical treatments made possible by these particles will help billions. That's billions, with a B. There is no indication that he's lying. War or no war, we're talking about the healthcare of billions being thwarted by 600.

And Up The Long Ladder was a terrible episode and the solution a necessity for survival which they talked them into, they did not coerce them into it. Protecting a smaller power from a coercive larger power is a common theme in Star Trek.

What is a common theme, especially starting with TNG, is making very subjective judgments about who are good guys and who are bad guys and imposing that judgment on others.

Starfleet wants to relocate the Ba'ku in order to provide medical care to billions of people. This is regarded as an outrageous crime. The Ba'ku exiled the S'ona from the same planet for the benefit of nobody but the Ba'ku themselves. This is totally cool.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

If we're going to go down that road, then nobody has any right to their own property so long as somebody somewhere will benefit from stripping that property from them.

 

[Makarov]

Since you guys are talking about Insurrection, I always wonder why the enterprise crew didn't defend the people in "Ensigns of Command" from the aliens making them move from their homeland. Instead they convince them to leave...

 

[Captrek]

Since you guys are talking about Insurrection, I always wonder why the enterprise crew didn't defend the people in "Ensigns of Command" from the aliens making them move from their homeland.

They were bound by treaty between the Federation and the Sheliak, according to which this planet belonged to the Sheliak. Since the planet was thought to be uninhabitable by humans, it probably didn't seem like a big deal to give it to the Sheliak in the treaty.

One can very reasonably argue that giving the presumed-uninhabited-but-later-discovered-to-be-very-slightly-inhabited planet to the Sheliak and forcibly relocating the colonists is not meaningfully different from giving such a planet over to medical mining and forcibly relocating the Ba'ku, and therefore that the heroes' behavior in TEOC is inconsistent with their behavior in INS. However, their behavior in INS is ludicrous, so I don't consider that to be a flaw in TEOC.

 

[Jeyl]

If we're going to go down that road, then nobody has any right to their own property so long as somebody somewhere will benefit from stripping that property from them.

If only the crew had asked the Baku nicely about what kind of situation the galaxy is in and why the planet's rings could help bring this war to an end. Oh, wait. We can't ask the Baku because if we did, they might actually reconsider staying on their home world and help the galaxy, and their former colonists that they exiled a way to prevail. There would be no movie. Now you're probably thinking "But the Baku would probably decide against leaving" which would also create another problem. They would be seen as selfish, arrogant a**holes who want this immortal power all to themselves and are perfectly content with the prospect of the entire Alpha Quadrant being subjected to Dominion rule which would no doubt result in their eventual discovery of their home world by the Dominion, and I highly doubt the Dominion would care about the well being of 600 jerks.

 

[Captrek]

Picard’s argument is this:

PICARD: The Ba'ku. ...We are betraying the principles upon which the Federation was founded. It's an attack upon its very soul. ...And it will destroy the Ba'ku ...just as cultures have been destroyed in every other forced relocation throughout history.
DOUGHERTY: Jean-Luc, we are only moving six hundred people.
PICARD: How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many people does it take, Admiral?

The fundamental claim here is that when it’s not obvious where to draw the line the only morally defensible position is extremism. He makes a similar argument for the Prime Directive in Pen Pals. It’s a lazy and destructive way of thinking.

I wonder if Picard has considered the same argument from the other direction. What if, instead of 600, it were only 300 Ba'ku? 100? 30? Ten? Three? One guy enjoying the planet all to himself? What is the magic number of people who must be living on the planet before it becomes a moral imperative to violate orders, sabotage the particle collection and sacrifice the welfare of billions in order to avoid disrupting the lives of the people living there?

 

[BillJ]

Picard’s argument is this:

PICARD: The Ba'ku. ...We are betraying the principles upon which the Federation was founded. It's an attack upon its very soul. ...And it will destroy the Ba'ku ...just as cultures have been destroyed in every other forced relocation throughout history.
DOUGHERTY: Jean-Luc, we are only moving six hundred people.
PICARD: How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many people does it take, Admiral?

The fundamental claim here is that when it’s not obvious where to draw the line the only morally defensible position is extremism. He makes a similar argument for the Prime Directive in Pen Pals. It’s a lazy and destructive way of thinking.

I wonder if Picard has considered the same argument from the other direction. What if, instead of 600, it were only 300 Ba'ku? 100? 30? Ten? Three? One guy enjoying the planet all to himself? What is the magic number of people who must be living on the planet before it becomes a moral imperative to violate orders, sabotage the particle collection and sacrifice the welfare of billions in order to avoid disrupting the lives of the people living there?

17.

Seventeen or less and you can use the resources. Eighteen or more and it's hands off.

I agree with the point you make here.

The same thing irritates me about Homeward. The message is that it's better to be dead than to adapt to a new situation.

 

[Captrek]

The fundamental claim here is that when it’s not obvious where to draw the line the only morally defensible position is extremism. He makes a similar argument for the Prime Directive in Pen Pals.

BTW, this absolutist philosophy is a sharp contrast to Picard’s position in Justice that “there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute.” As you may recall, I’m no fan of that scene either. Not only does Picard take two opposite sides on the issue depending on his personal affection for the affected parties, he does a shitty job of arguing his case no matter which side he’s on.

 

[BillJ]

Yeah, old Picard was just as inconsistent with the rulebook as Janeway was.

 

[picsiskvinechef]

Yet Kirk was? yeah, Kirk the angel, who stole a starship and got demoted? something Picard and Janeway never did.

 

[BillJ]

Yet Kirk was? yeah, Kirk the angel, who stole a starship and got demoted? something Picard and Janeway never did.

Kirk was consistently on the side of protecting lives and promoting human rights over computer control.

Obviously, Starfleet of the 23rd century agreed with his interpretation of the Prime Directive as he never lost his command. Picard and Janeway were all over the place applying the Prime Directive.

 

[picsiskvinechef]

and? erm.. i think being in Starfleet per se is about protecting lives. As if Picard, Sisko or Janeway or even Archer never protected lives...