Is Trill society screwed up?

[Fashion Victim]

It seems perfectly normal to them but then again 'Screwed up' is in the eye of the beholder.

That said a quick jaunt through the browser history of most folks would remove their right to assign the label 'screwed up'...

I don't actually think Trill culture in general is screwed up, one that is, probably wouldn't be allowed into the Federation, since they don't allow worlds that violate the individual rights of it's citizens, I was just trying to come up with a provocative title for the sake of stimulating debate.....It seems my evil plan has finally come to fruition, muahahaha!

This thread is somewhat inspired by Joel Kirk's last thread, which got me remembering some questions I've always had about the trill attitudes when it comes to various matter regarding the relationship between host and symbiont.

1. Do you think the punishment for a joined Trill that pursues a relationship with a partner from their past lives, where said Trill is exiled in order to prevent the symbiont from joining again, and as a consequence dying with the host, is a little harsh? Perhaps you do agree otherwise joined Trills can turn into a upper caste an aristocratic guild of sorts?

I think the punishment is a little excessive given the rarity of symbionts (not enough to satisfy the demand) one would think they would be a little less trigger happy about eliminating them. Surely there must be punishments less drastic than that for that infraction. Besides Ezri didn't seem too concerned about that when she slept with Worf. Not very consistent if you ask me.

The Dax symbiont was prone to being impulsive ever since having Curzon as a host, it was Jadzia that was willing to make the sacrifice and pick up where Dax left off with Lenara Kahn. So it's not to surprising you'd think Worf would have more discipline then that though. Also maybe they don't 'crack down' on you as hard if you sleep with a previous partner that was none Trill, after all Worf can't be joined and he's only going to live a relatively short period of time in comparison to Dax.

I was blown with how harsh the punishment seemed, it was almost archaic for a Federation planet, this is why I'm guessing that maybe in the distant pass the groups of Trills that monopolized the symbionts became an elite caste, since a host would not detach from their previous life, find the same partner they had before they have children with them if they're of the opposite sex or adopt children, since they have hundreds of years of experience in a skill set or craft or multiple ones, they'd have an advantage in climbing the social economic latter, then they would want their children to be joined with a symbiont and their children would have had a privileged upbringing helping them to out compete.

What I find a bit inconsistent with the Trill is how the Host-Symbiont relationship is handled.
In some Episodes it seems like the symbiont is just a sort of "memory jar" and Jadzia herself and Sisko (possibly others as well) make a clear difference in dialogue between Jadzia and Dax.
In other episodes its handled akin to a fusion of the two beings with Sisko calling Jadzia "old man" and dialogue from Jadzia indicating that she is Jadzia and Curzon at the same time.
It would be really interesting to get an explanation how the symbiosis between the Trill and the symbionts evolved and developed.

I know what you mean, I would love to know if the symbiont can be considered self aware beings in their own right.


Very nice input folks thank you! Now I have another question...

What do you think about an emergency case where you have a symbiont and only one Trill available (like the case with Ezri) and the Trill refuses to be joined for fear of loosing their identity, are they being a selfish and cruel jerk letting so many memories die, maybe a self aware being, or is this well within their right?

 

[USS Triumphant]

That's like saying: "Dropping the ten ton rock on you" is the punishment, "you being crushed to a bloody pulp" is only a consequence.

No, not really. No one is actively killing the symbiot. Period.

I beg to differ, if someone happens to be tied to a chair bolted to the ground and you drop a rock on them, technically you're not responsible for their death, gravity is. So blame it on Newton's law of attraction if you will but not on the person that dropped the rock. I am just following your logic here, nothing more, nothing less.

Carried out to an extreme, every parent is guilty of murder because bringing their child to a living state is the ultimate cause of that child's death. True, but also kind of an extreme view of the thing. It is accurate to say that the symbiont will eventually be deprived of an opportunity for ongoing life because of exile - but the symbiont could also be in a host that dies in the Gamma Quadrant with no chance to get back for transfer to a new host. Exile isn't exactly "a death sentence" in the sense of the moral weight generally associated with that phrase.

 

[Orphalesion]

What do you think about an emergency case where you have a symbiont and only one Trill available (like the case with Ezri) and the Trill refuses to be joined for fear of loosing their identity, are they being a selfish and cruel jerk letting so many memories die, maybe a self aware being, or is this well within their right?

Again, as a 21st century human I would say no, they are not selfish jerks. To my personal philosophy loss of your identity is one of the worst things that can happen to you (case in point, the Borg) so I would not fault anybody for not wanting to be infused with the memories and vestigial personalities of X other people. Let alone that some part of you would forever be part of the symbiont, beyond your death and as such beyond your influence.
Memories can be recorded in other ways and wisdom can preserved beyond death.
Even if the symbiont is a sapient being it would still be understandable, in my eyes, if the Trill refused.

If however it was me in that position (and the Symbiont is indeed sapient) I am not sure I could live with myself if I declined.
It's one of those situations were I would not fault anybody for declining, but likely would not be able to decline myself, if that makes sense.

Makes me wonder how the Trill would have been handled on Babylon 5, I'm very sure they would have gone the really heavy, metaphysical road with them. It would have been grandiose!

 

[T'Girl]

No, not really. No one is actively killing the symbiot. Period.

Which is completely true, at the very least the slug would live out the life span of the host.

And as we've seen other species doctors can transfer the slug into a fresh host. Another Trill could host the slug, accepting the accompanying exile. Or the slug could search for a non-Trill host who was able to accommodate it.

if someone happens to be tied to a chair bolted to the ground and you drop a rock on them, technically you're not responsible for their death, gravity is.

Wrong, you are the responsible party, because gravity has no volition of it's own, you do.

By deliberately releasing the rock you the intelligent being are responsible for the resulting death.

 

[Fashion Victim]

What do you think about an emergency case where you have a symbiont and only one Trill available (like the case with Ezri) and the Trill refuses to be joined for fear of loosing their identity, are they being a selfish and cruel jerk letting so many memories die, maybe a self aware being, or is this well within their right?

Again, as a 21st century human I would say no, they are not selfish jerks. To my personal philosophy loss of your identity is one of the worst things that can happen to you (case in point, the Borg) so I would not fault anybody for not wanting to be infused with the memories and vestigial personalities of X other people. Let alone that some part of you would forever be part of the symbiont, beyond your death and as such beyond your influence.
Memories can be recorded in other ways and wisdom can preserved beyond death.
Even if the symbiont is a sapient being it would still be understandable, in my eyes, if the Trill refused.

If however it was me in that position (and the Symbiont is indeed sapient) I am not sure I could live with myself if I declined.
It's one of those situations were I would not fault anybody for declining, but likely would not be able to decline myself, if that makes sense.

Makes me wonder how the Trill would have been handled on Babylon 5, I'm very sure they would have gone the really heavy, metaphysical road with them. It would have been grandiose!

My sentiments are exactly like yours I'd never choose to be join but I couldn't in good conscious let the symbiont die. Dam I haven't seen Babylon 5 since I was like 11, don't remember much about it, but sounds like I appreciate it more now.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

That's like saying: "Dropping the ten ton rock on you" is the punishment, "you being crushed to a bloody pulp" is only a consequence.

No, not really. No one is actively killing the symbiot. Period.

I beg to differ, if someone happens to be tied to a chair bolted to the ground and you drop a rock on them, technically you're not responsible for their death, gravity is. So blame it on Newton's law of attraction if you will but not on the person that dropped the rock. I am just following your logic here, nothing more, nothing less.

I guess my sister was right: I really should have "stopped hitting myself."

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

No, not really. No one is actively killing the symbiot. Period.

I beg to differ, if someone happens to be tied to a chair bolted to the ground and you drop a rock on them, technically you're not responsible for their death, gravity is. So blame it on Newton's law of attraction if you will but not on the person that dropped the rock. I am just following your logic here, nothing more, nothing less.

I guess my sister was right: I really should have "stopped hitting myself."

"Does she have a sister?" that's kind of a cliché line.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Here's the problem with your false equivalency: the person who places a rock above an individual with the idea that it might kill via gravity is using agency in order to create a deadly, possibly mortal, situation. By what you are saying, someone could shoot up in the air and argue that they were removed from the scenario. Denying services is exactly the opposite of exercising agency: death already hangs over life, all the individual is doing is refusing to act. There is no reason to believe that the individual who is denied services (a new heart because he is a drug addict, a joined individual who is screwing her ex-wife) would be able to survive the health incident that is ahead. Dax could have died in Rocks and Shoals, Change of Heart, or Tears of the Prophets, and the exile would have had no effect. On the other hand, Dukat was culpable for Jadzia's death, because even possessed, his positive choices create consequences that put people in direct danger.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

Here's the problem with your false equivalency: the person who places a rock above an individual with the idea that it might kill via gravity is using agency in order to create a deadly, possibly mortal, situation. By what you are saying, someone could shoot up in the air and argue that they were removed from the scenario. Denying services is exactly the opposite of exercising agency: death already hangs over life, all the individual is doing is refusing to act. There is no reason to believe that the individual who is denied services (a new heart because he is a drug addict, a joined individual who is screwing her ex-wife) would be able to survive the health incident that is ahead. Dax could have died in Rocks and Shoals, Change of Heart, or Tears of the Prophets, and the exile would have had no effect. On the other hand, Dukat was culpable for Jadzia's death, because even possessed, his positive choices create consequences that put people in direct danger.

Let me put it another way then:

When you drop the rock just as when you refuse vital services you may equally argue that you didn't intend for the person to die, you just didn't care if they were there for the rock or that they vitally needed the service in order to survive.

You needed or wanted to drop a rock for reasons that are your own business the same way that you refused service also for reasons that you need not explain.

It's not your fault that hindrances prevented the guy from moving in time from under the rock to avoid being crushed or that the person you denied a service to wasn't able to survive without it.

So you see from an ethical and moral point of view the two situations are absolutely identical.

 

[Worf'sParmach]

It seems perfectly normal to them but then again 'Screwed up' is in the eye of the beholder.

That said a quick jaunt through the browser history of most folks would remove their right to assign the label 'screwed up'...

Agreed. I'd be interested to know what the evolution of such a law/taboo was. It probably didn't start out like that, something must have happened to lead them to that rather harsh conclusion.

Or is it the kind of thing where the punishment is so harsh that it's really only needed as a scary deterant? How do they even enforce it? What counts as "resuming a past relationship?" Ezri didn't seem at all concerned when Worf brought it up.


(LOL @ that last part of your quote)

 

[TheSubCommander]

I always found it an odd double standard that a Trill could resume past friendships from a previous host, but could not resume a romantic relationship. It really makes no sense, unless the story you are telling is an allegory for homosexuality or bisexuality. But from a society standpoint, its odd.

 

[T'Girl]

It's not your fault that hindrances prevented the guy from moving in time from under the rock to avoid being crushed

It is your fault for the releasing of the rock.

Either you didn't check the rock's path, or you knowingly released it to deliberately crush the individual, either way you are the responsible party.

the person you denied a service to wasn't able to survive without it.

There's no evidense that a exiled Trill slug wouldn't be able to acquire "services" elsewhere. It simply would not be able to obtained them from you.

Hardly the same as deliberately undertaking a action with the deliberate intent of causing someone's death.

 

[Worf'sParmach]

I always found it an odd double standard that a Trill could resume past friendships from a previous host, but could not resume a romantic relationship. It really makes no sense, unless the story you are telling is an allegory for homosexuality or bisexuality. But from a society standpoint, its odd.

Yep, pretty much. Because... plot device. Heck, Ezri's whole existence on DS9 is one big Reassociation.

Julian explained to Kira that the reason for the "taboo" is that the new host is supposed to gather new experiences for the symbiont and not just pick up where they left off. But this really only applies to sex I suppose. Ezri literally picks up where Jadzia left off, but it's no big deal.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I always found it an odd double standard that a Trill could resume past friendships from a previous host, but could not resume a romantic relationship. It really makes no sense, unless the story you are telling is an allegory for homosexuality or bisexuality. But from a society standpoint, its odd.

Yep, pretty much. Because... plot device. Heck, Ezri's whole existence on DS9 is one big Reassociation.

Julian explained to Kira that the reason for the "taboo" is that the new host is supposed to gather new experiences for the symbiont and not just pick up where they left off. But this really only applies to sex I suppose. Ezri literally picks up where Jadzia left off, but it's no big deal.

Ezri, though, didn't take the Trill pledge (or whatever it is when someone gets the worm). It seems that plenty of exceptions were made in recognition of the contigency of her situation, thus they don't apply.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I always found it an odd double standard that a Trill could resume past friendships from a previous host, but could not resume a romantic relationship. It really makes no sense, unless the story you are telling is an allegory for homosexuality or bisexuality. But from a society standpoint, its odd.

Well, the episode is an allegory about homosexuality, but their are problems like "reassociation" that people deal with, especially surrounding religious conversions and drug treatment.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

I always found it an odd double standard that a Trill could resume past friendships from a previous host, but could not resume a romantic relationship. It really makes no sense, unless the story you are telling is an allegory for homosexuality or bisexuality. But from a society standpoint, its odd.

True, unless you posit that the Trill have a Victorian attitude toward sex and then it kinda makes sense.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Is it any worse than locking a college student up for ten years for privately injecting himself with a pleasure inducing substance, and in doing so taking billions of dollars away from legitimate business and giving it to violent criminals?

Or, a free society stripping a person of their human rights because their parents broke genetic modification laws?

Every culture has its hypocrisies and Trill society is no exception.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

Is it any worse than locking a college student up for ten years for privately injecting himself with a pleasure inducing substance, and in doing so taking billions of dollars away from legitimate business and giving it to violent criminals?...

Who does that? Only dealers get sometimes these kinds of penalties here, not mere users.

 

[Leviathan]

It seems perfectly normal to them but then again 'Screwed up' is in the eye of the beholder.

That said a quick jaunt through the browser history of most folks would remove their right to assign the label 'screwed up'...

Agreed. I'd be interested to know what the evolution of such a law/taboo was. It probably didn't start out like that, something must have happened to lead them to that rather harsh conclusion.

Or is it the kind of thing where the punishment is so harsh that it's really only needed as a scary deterant? How do they even enforce it? What counts as "resuming a past relationship?" Ezri didn't seem at all concerned when Worf brought it up.


(LOL @ that last part of your quote)

Indeed. An easy explanation is it's an old law that while present is not always enforced since the social morays prevent it. Dax didn't care too much about the taboo/law because nobody around was of the opinion it mattered.

There are laws on the books making it illegal to push a moose out of an aircraft while in flight or detonate poultry in an explosive fashion. While the law is in place I doubt anyone is bragging about their chicken explosions. However if you lived in a place where chickens routinely killed your young you'd find exploding them perfectly acceptable.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

It seems perfectly normal to them but then again 'Screwed up' is in the eye of the beholder.

That said a quick jaunt through the browser history of most folks would remove their right to assign the label 'screwed up'...

Agreed. I'd be interested to know what the evolution of such a law/taboo was. It probably didn't start out like that, something must have happened to lead them to that rather harsh conclusion.

Or is it the kind of thing where the punishment is so harsh that it's really only needed as a scary deterant? How do they even enforce it? What counts as "resuming a past relationship?" Ezri didn't seem at all concerned when Worf brought it up.


(LOL @ that last part of your quote)

Indeed. An easy explanation is it's an old law that while present is not always enforced since the social morays prevent it. Dax didn't care too much about the taboo/law because nobody around was of the opinion it mattered.

There are laws on the books making it illegal to push a moose out of an aircraft while in flight or detonate poultry in an explosive fashion. While the law is in place I doubt anyone is bragging about their chicken explosions. However if you lived in a place where chickens routinely killed your young you'd find exploding them perfectly acceptable.

Chickens kill people?