Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by los2188, Nov 29, 2012.
Modern Trek has proven itself to have far more conservative values than The Original Series did.
I've alway seen the later Trek as the more liberal in it's philosophy, and the "60's Trek as possessing the more conservative values.
They already had access, whether they will "post-movie" avail themselves of those resources, that the question.
If the Baku were sent to another Federation world, to be incorporated, what would be their fate? Their situation would be similar to when they first arrived at the ring planet, prior to the realization of the rings properties. A new community to build, and a life to lead, this time perhaps with the assistance of their Federation neighbors.
I'm with BillJ on this one. I think modern Trek often contained messages that were pretty at-odds with the more liberal spirit of TOS.(Not including the gender attitudes, of course, which I realize is a pretty big exception.) Take this movie for example-I think Kirk would have thought the Baku were stagnant and not some kind of superior group like Picard seemed to think they were.
As to your second question, I don't see that as a likely scenario. I think the obvious implication of the end of INS, "review" by the Council aside, is that the Baku won't have to move at all. The truth is that their culture was unsustainable apart from the renewing resources, because for an agrarian society, they didn't have the population, and they only had the time to get the work done because of their extended lifespans.
But doesn't that paint Picard as the liberal, and Kirk as the conservative? The only time in TOS that Kirk blatantly defied a direct order from a senior officer was in Amok Time. If the Admiral in Insurrection directly told Kirk to go, TOS Kirk likely would have left the Brier Patch. The conservative Kirk was tied into the Starfleet hierarchy.
While Kirk enjoyed fresh air now and again, the life style of a hippy commune wouldn't appealed to him. Certainly not to the point where his personal admiration for the Baku (if any) would have lead him to defy his instructions.
Kirk wouldn't have screwed over the hundreds of billions people in the Federation, to advance his own personal principals.
I also believe this was the intent of the story.
However, I remember a somewhat similar request in Journey's End (by Admiral Ball-Breaker) for the Council to re-examine one of their decision, that of moving the Native Americans in that episode. The Council ultimately confirmed their previous decision to relocate the inhabitants.
i would like to think that the Insurrection review would result in the Baku openly being relocated, a second collector being constructed, and the rings being used to help people across the Federation, and the some of the particles going to the Sona as well. The Baku would receive the same access as the rest of the people in the Federation.
A culture of being immortal? Perhaps, but when they first arrived at the ring planet I don't believe that was their aim. The immortality was a surprise.
I see what you're saying, but I think we're using "liberal" and "conservative" in different senses. You mean "liberal" in the sense of appreciation and tolerance for all sorts of alternative communities and arrangements, while I meant as "forward-thinking" and "progressive." The Baku to me, are not a group to be admired because they're stagnant and their views on technology are just silly. And we agree on the way Kirk would likely have acted here. He would have put the good of the Federation first.
You're right about the Baku finding their immortality to be a surprise, but I'm saying had they NOT found themselves immortal, they would have had to reproduce at much greater numbers, and without their leisurely lifestyles as a result of having so much time on their hands and getting constantly renewed, I'm not sure how "charming" they would have found spending hours and hours every day doing hard work on a farm.
That mindset is so dangerous. So an, let's say, Amish community sitting on an oil resource can simply be dealt with, and if they don't want to move because - simply - it's their home, they can be removed by force.
Or natives, with their backwards attitude regarding technology.
If we break it down to the simplest example, your neighbor has something you want, and you don't agree with his lifestyle, and you think that what he has that you want is in the wrong hands, you can simply take it from him and be right?
And what do you think of Avatar?
you misunderstood me. My belief that the Baku should be moved is not related to my views on their lifestyle. I'm just saying that I find it interesting that Picard(and we as the audience) are meant to be charmed the Baku's simple, agrarian lifestyle. It's at odds with Star Trek's usual philosophy on the use of technology as a resource for progress.
As for your analogies, I don't think you can seriously compare stealing from your neighbor because he has a lifestyle you disagree with. The situation presented here is that there's a revolutionary medical resource that can help billions. You want to take that SPECIFIC scenario and turn it into a more general hypothetical one, but that's not what I'm arguing here.
As for "avatar," I didn't much care for it, but at least it presented a more balanced case for the N'avi. They were actually native to the planet, and they were a real civilization, not a tiny village.
Well, he sits on something you want very badly, for whatever reason, and doesn't want to give it to you, for whatever reason.
It might be a revolutionary medical resource, a revolutionary energy source or just an expensive vintage car rotting in his garage, whatever you find important.
If they actually presented the case to the Ba'ku, they might have even agreed with it. But they never did ask them. The Ba'ku were on defend mode from the very beginning because their privacy got invaded and then they found out the Federation wanted to secretly relocate them. You wouldn't trust someone doing that, wouldn't you? All they had was Picard who decided to take their side. Starfleet and the Son'a saw a group of "primitives" and thought they could simply do everything they want with them. And that's wrong, it has always been wrong, and it will always be wrong to do that. You can't just go and dictate how someone has to live because you are more powerful or have more people behind you and thus can dictate what's important and what's not.
Again, it's hard to argue ethics in the abstract. If it's a neighbor's car, you don't steal it. But what if you're starving, and you have to feed yourself and your family? Can you steal some food from your neighbor?(assume for the sake of this hypothetical you can't get public assistance or got a church pantry or something) See the problem in overly abstract hypotheticals?
And as for the Baku, I agree with you they should have been negotiated with. But again, that's a plot hole from the film, not a criticism of my argument.
It's not a plothole imo. Starfleet and the Son'a simply didn't do it.
As for the hypothetical example, you can steal (in that case you must to survive), but you have to accept the consequences.
But the Federation wasn't starving to death. The fountain of youth is a luxury so to speak, not a necessity. Especially when you could arrange to take all the extremely sick people on a vacation on the other side of the planet to catch some rays, you know?
Avatar? heck at this point the other side is close to agreeing with the Terran Empire about the Halkans.
If he found said orders amoral I think he would agree especially when they tend to go against what seemed to be Federation policy in the area, aka the fact that he was perfectly willing to let the Halkan's keep their dilithium.
the fact that they didn't ask is the plothole. Dougherty knew that the Baku weren't primitives, and Picard found that out after coming down to the planet. When they had that meeting, the fact that neither even brings up the possibility of negotiating with the Baku is an absurdity that is only at the service of the script and not common sense.
On this day, 1998, Star Trek Insurrection opened in theaters.
And it still manages to engage the audience in relevant debates. Some would say that's what a great film does.
Good point. Not only that, I started this thread too.
I agree with this sentiment, just because a planet falls within Federation space does not make it a Federation World. If a planet is inhabiated (it doesn't matter if they are native or not, for all we know their homeworld could have been destroyed) they are not automatically Federation citizens and thus not subject to Federation law.
If you and your friends colonizes a small island off the coast of Europe, and years later the nation of France is formed, and French territory include that small island ...
Yes, you are subject to French law.
No you're not. You are subject to your own laws. Unless in your example the French decide to invade you and occupy your lands.
No doubt there are quite a few planets within Federation space such as the Malcorians (TNG: First Contact). that wanted nothing to do with the Federation. In your example if that Planet was with Federation space it's inhabitants would be Federation citizens despite them not wanting to be and subject to Federation law.
But again, that comes back to the point of the the Baku not being indiginous to the planet. Yes, the children were born there, but as a species, they didn't originate there, so it's a mute point, and as such the Prime Directive of non-interferance doesn't apply.
That's because if the Baku had said no then they would have looked like complete jerks, by choosing their immortality over possibly helping the rest of the Federation which had suffered badly during the Dominion War.
Separate names with a comma.