"Future's End": Starling's villainy?

[Dee1891]

iirc the debate is basically Janeway insisting that her timeline must be preserved at the expense of people in the 90s, while Starling's position is that his present is more important than a future that, from his perspective, hasn't happened yet.

I don't think either of them are wrong, both have a duty to do what's best for the people in their own timelines, that duty just puts them at odds. Having said that, I don't remember it too well; I haven't rewatched it much precisely because I remember finding the script's black-and-white view unconvincing, and the "haw haw haw, i will annihilate LA to prove i'm evil" generic corporate bad guy trappings just render the whole story dull in a way it didn't have to be.

Stirling's position was all about greed. His own personal gain and nothing else. The man wasn't concerned about providing society with anything. Nor did he give a crap about "duty". And I'm confused at this idea about Janeway insisting upon preserving the timeline at the expense of people in the 1990s. How did you come up with this?

Meanwhile Starling is personally planning on doing something very risky and dangerous to get advanced technology from the future to profit himself. He's already plenty wealthy from the tech he stole from Braxton. He doesn't need more. He's not even planning on giving the future tech away as an altruistic act. When people from the future tell him this is a very bad idea, he says he doesn't care and tries to do it anyway. That's evil.

This is Henry Stirling in a nutshell.

 

[Starflight]

Stirling's position was all about greed. His own personal gain and nothing else. The man wasn't concerned about providing society with anything. Nor did he give a crap about "duty". And I'm confused at this idea about Janeway insisting upon preserving the timeline at the expense of people in the 1990s. How did you come up with this?

As I'm remembering it, Starling wants to introduce future tech to the 90s. iirc, computers are mentioned as being a result of him having already done this. The benefits are obvious, especially when you factor in 24th century medical technology - even if his personal motive is being a One Dimensional Man Who Likes Money, the boons for people in the 20th century will be immeasurable.

The tension is that doing so risks erasing the future Janeway's from. However, from Starling's perspective, that's just one hypothetical future which hasn't happened yet - one that relies on WW3 occurring and much of the Earth's population being annihilated in atomic war, no less (I can't remember if this is actually raised in the episode or not).

To reframe the same dynamic in a different context, imagine a peasant woman from 1300s England arrives in the year 2025, and learns that modern antibiotics can cure the bubonic plague, and resolves to steal some and take them back with her. We say "well, hang on, you'll mess with the timeline; that might erase us." She responds "if I don't, my own people will die." Neither party is right, and neither is wrong. There's a huge, challenging debate to be had about what to do next, and if the fact that our timeline currently exists means we can demonise her for wanting to alleviate suffering in hers.

Though Future's End isn't really interested in that debate, of course.

 

[altersalk]

As I'm remembering it, Starling wants to introduce future tech to the 90s. iirc, computers are mentioned as a result of him having already done this. The benefits are obvious, especially when you factor in 24th century medical technology - even if his motive is being a One Dimensional Man Who Likes Money, the boons for people in the 20th century will be immeasurable.

The tension is that doing so risks erasing the future Janeway's from. However, from Starling's perspective, that's just one hypothetical future which hasn't happened yet - one that relies on WW3 occurring and much of the Earth's population being annihilated in atomic war, no less (I can't remember if this is actually raised in the episode or not).

To reframe the same dynamic in a different context, imagine a peasant woman from 1300s England arrives in the year 2025, and learns that modern antibiotics can cure the bubonic plague, and resolves to steal some and take them back with her. We say "well, hang on, you'll mess with the timeline; that might erase us." She responds "if I don't, my own people will die." Neither party is right, and neither is wrong. There's a huge, challenging debate to be had about what to do next, and if the fact that our timeline currently exists means we can demonise her for wanting to alleviate suffering in hers.

Though Future's End isn't really interested in that debate, of course.

Except when Janeway tries to have that debate and rightfully points out the very real risk of Starling destroying the solar system, he says he doesn't care.

Starling isn't being altruistic. He isn't trying to save lives. He isn't trying to prevent WWIII. He's trying to get richer than he already is, which is unfathomably rich.

Janeway is trying to stop an amoral megalomaniac with a time machine, one of the most dangerous things in the Star Trek universe.

 

[Starflight]

Yeah, hence:

even if his personal motive is being a One Dimensional Man Who Likes Money

Though Future's End isn't really interested in that debate, of course.

the "haw haw haw, i will annihilate LA to prove i'm evil" generic corporate bad guy trappings just render the whole story dull in a way it didn't have to be

I thought the thread was more geared toward discussing the morality of altering the timeline to improve/save the present, and the reponse of the 24th century characters, because otherwise the only possible answer is "yes, he's villainous as written in the script".

 

[Pumpkin Bread]

To reframe the same dynamic in a different context, imagine a peasant woman from 1300s England arrives in the year 2025, and learns that modern antibiotics can cure the bubonic plague, and resolves to steal some and take them back with her. We say "well, hang on, you'll mess with the timeline; that might erase us." She responds "if I don't, my own people will die." Neither party is right, and neither is wrong. There's a huge, challenging debate to be had about what to do next, and if the fact that our timeline currently exists means we can demonise her for wanting to alleviate suffering in hers.

A woman seeking to save thousands of lives might be forgiven, even if we couldn't allow her to do what she was trying to do. A man seeking to line his own pockets when he was already worth billions is another matter.

 

[altersalk]

The thread is about Starling, and people keep trying to push altruistic motivations on him that don't exist in the episode.

We can have an argument about whether it's moral or not to mess with time travel in attempt to improve the present. Our Heroes do it all the time, some of the best Trek stories are about messing with the timeline or fixing the timeline after it's been messed with or whatever. However, the consistent lesson that these stories try to instill is that messing with the timeline is messy, and even the best intentions can have some horrific results. Who's to say some alternate Starling doesn't go to the future with the express intention of avoiding WWIII, succeeds, but then creates a hypercapitalistic Terran state that goes to wage interstellar war against Vulcan resulting in more deaths? All of this is hypothetical and vague in the bounds of a fictional universe using fictional time travel. It's like the Trolley Problem except flipping the switch could wipe out all life in the solar system.