But the Son'a had found a method where they COULD have their cake and eat it too, but Picard screwed that all up.
Learning to love "Insurrection"
- Thread starter Trek Survivor
- Start date
But the Son'a had found a method where they COULD have their cake and eat it too, but Picard screwed that all up.
The moral of the story: ugly people are evil.
No the Son'a are evil, because they worked with The Dominion and enslaved the Tarlac and the Ellora. Like Troi said "Why would we be working with these people?"
The Federation really must have been desperate to trust that their tech was going to work on the rings of the planet. There really was no guarantee it would. The only real guarantee was living on the planet which Picard offers as a solution and Dougherty flatly rejects.
Ah, so the Son'a, who were EXILED TO DIE, despite there being a huge empty planet they could have gone to, are the "bad guys" for doing what they had to to survive after their exile, but the Baku, who exiled the Son'a in the first place, and show no interest in bringing the discovery of what they stumbled onto to the rest of the galaxy to benefit others, are the "good guys."
The Son'a were exiled just like every Amish would be exiled who wants to have technology. Ooh, them evil Amish.
Poor Micheal Piller, so much of his Star Trek legacy is tied up in this one poorly-executed film. One that bears little resemblance to his original pitch.
I think "Birthright" is far more embarrassing. I don't really think of Pillar when I think of the movies. Those were all really B&Bs doing.
your analogies aren't very good. The Amish aren't sitting on land with a resource that makes them immortal, so it's not a death sentence when a member of that community is exiled.
They were rather sentenced to their natural aging process.
On the other hand, the Ba'ku would have died, because, as I said before, the effects would have reversed (Geordi's eyes). All of those 300+ year old Ba'ku would have died without the radiation.
Er, yes, they would, and all of them would have gotten much longer lifespans than your average citizen of the Federation would have, so why do the Baku merit such greater moral consideration? Because they happened to land on a random planet and monopolize its incredible benefits for themselves? What a baffling argument.
And had the UFP not decided on some stupid "secret relocation" , the younger Baku could have benefitted from the Dougherty-Son'a plan as well.
There is absolutely no proof to this statement. If the treatments would've saved Ru'afo who hadn't had regular exposure for 50+ years why would it not work on the Ba'ku who would've had little interruption in exposure, just a change in how that exposure happens?
The script is non-sensical and contradicts itself at nearly every turn.
Yeah, except they couldn't give the treatment to the Baku, because of the whole secret relocation thing, so they weren't supposed to know they'd been moved.
The script is just asinine. Why wasn't it just a repeat of "journey's end," where they send a diplomat to negotiate with the Baku to get them to leave the planet so the Federation could bring the resources to the rest of the galaxy, and if that didn't work, just peacefully remove them in an upfront manner?(the Baku are pacifists, right? they won't resist)
The Baku would STILL have benefited! The only difference would be the rest of the galaxy would too!
the whole premise of the film just doesn't work. It's a giant idiot plot and a horribly unbalanced "moral dilemma" that puts the Enterprise crew on the wrong side.
They should have dropped the story and started from scratch.
There's multiple ways you could've continued to supply the Ba'ku (through the air or water supply) with the radiation, without them being any the wiser.
Oy, I can't believe I'm discussing this turd - which I've seen only once. Baku is not part of the federation. Removing the inhabitants, colonists or not, is not allowable under the prime directive. It wasn't right when Captain Tracy was doing it on Omega IV and it's not right here. The US is as much a colony as Baku is.
See, here's the difference. In eminent domain you are paying your citizens for their land. The Baku situation is more like invading Iraq for oil. It's really up to the baku on how they want to process their particle of the week and distribute it to the rest of the galaxy. If they want Fed help doing it that's their call. The Sona have no more claim to it than Americans have claim over what goes on in England. I think that about sums everything up ethically. Their planet, their rights.
See, here's the difference. In eminent domain you are paying your citizens for their land. The Baku situation is more like invading Iraq for oil. It's really up to the baku on how they want to process their particle of the week and distribute it to the rest of the galaxy. If they want Fed help doing it that's their call. The Sona have no more claim to it than Americans have claim over what goes on in England. I think that about sums everything up ethically. Their planet, their rights.
Poor Micheal Piller, so much of his Star Trek legacy is tied up in this one poorly-executed film. One that bears little resemblance to his original pitch.
I think "Birthright" is far more embarrassing. I don't really think of Pillar when I think of the movies. Those were all really B&Bs doing.
Um, no.
Brannon Braga had nothing to do with "Insurrection" or "Nemesis", so the movies weren't "all really B&Bs doing".
Oh, and the sainted Ronald D Moore had exactly the same level of involvement as Braga in the movies as well.
well, this is so wrong it's hard to know where to start.
1. The Baku planet and system ARE within Federation territory
2. The PD doesn't apply at all to the Baku, who aren't pre-contact, pre-warp, from that planet, or even much of a "culture" at all-they're more like an artificial little village
(I know TNG really screwed up the PD and made it basically made it mean "the PD is whatever the writers say it is this week," but under NO interpretation of the PD does the Baku situation apply )
3. How can you say the Son'a have no right to the planet? They're the same people as the Baku! If you say they have no right to the planet, where do the Baku derive their right to it?
4. Are your propertarian principles so absolutist that even when a much greater good can come from a relocation, it's still wrong? If there were a cure for cancer located in the soil of a tiny region and the inhabitants of a small village would have to be moved to get at the cure, would you really defend their property rights over the lives such a cure would save?
the "dilemma" in INS basically comes down to property vs. saving lives.(the Baku didn't have to die when being moved, they could have benefited from a distance just like others)
if you really think Baku property rights win out, then I guess there's nothing to argue about.
So? Just because a system is in Fed territory means it's rights are forfeit to the Federation? That sounds like imperialism to me. Last I heard you had to apply for membership to the Federation, you couldn't just be consumed by it. And if Baku was a member planet you wouldn't be able to invade it like that, would you?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the PD. It merely states that all cultures have rights and the Federation will not interfere with them. It says nothing about pre or post warp. The Enterprise left the Klingon Civil War citing the PD. I think the Klingons have warp. Take a look at First Contact (the episode) to see. You may contact a post warp civilization, but if they ask you to leave and never return you have to. And you certainly can't interfere in their internal matters even if they ask you to (The Hunted, Symbiosis).
The Sona left. They aren't part of that society anymore. Did the pilgrims have a right to England? And even if there was a dispute as to whether the Sona did have a claim that is - again - an internal matter and up to them to figure out. The Feds don't take sides.
Propertarian? You've been reading too much Leguin. It's stuff like this that gives communism a bad name. You can't just take what you want from people because of the "greater good". China, Cambodia, Russia, and even the US all did that with devastating results. Also, just because your system is better than the other guys doesn't mean you have the right to inflict it on them. That's imperialism. But if you think blood for oil is a good exchange then congrats, I guess.
This is actually not even the dilemma. No one is really dying en masse in the federation. Its a disease free utopia. The medical tech is perfectly fine as it is. There's no immediacy here that requires forced relocation. There's plenty of time for negotiations, figuring out a noninvasive way of collecting the unobtanium, and compensating the Baku for the privilege.
And obviously the Federation respects propertarianism, otherwise they wouldn't have been bidding on the Barzan wormhole in The Price. You've got no legs to stand on here. You're not being an egalitarian, you're being a neocon.
In one way or another, each movie lies at one of their feet, so my assertion stands. And, yes, Moore did a lot to ruin Gen and FC. It's a constant shocker to me that I enjoy BSG as much as I do, considering.
The Baku have been living on the planet for three hundred years. The Federation didn't exist when the Baku first settled there.
That didn't stop the Brits in North America.
It's interesting, because the main criticism against Insurrection essentially is: "The movie is way too idealistic for me." Because Picard simply doesn't want to relocate a tiny group of people just to satisfy the luxury needs of a million people. Because he goes: Sorry, no Unobtanium for the greedy coorporation. No gold for the British. No radiation for those who want to stay young forever. It's the basic Pocahontas story that has been remade thousands of times.
The Federation in Star Trek is simply not supposed to be China where a million people are just relocated in order to build a dam. Roddenberry's box, remember?
That didn't stop the Brits in North America.
It's interesting, because the main criticism against Insurrection essentially is: "The movie is way too idealistic for me." Because Picard simply doesn't want to relocate a tiny group of people just to satisfy the luxury needs of a million people. Because he goes: Sorry, no Unobtanium for the greedy coorporation. No gold for the British. No radiation for those who want to stay young forever. It's the basic Pocahontas story that has been remade thousands of times.
The Federation in Star Trek is simply not supposed to be China where a million people are just relocated in order to build a dam. Roddenberry's box, remember?
well, that's certainly not my criticism at all. I don't think Picard's being "idealistic," I think he's being a hypocritical dickhead who's actions in this film place him firmly on the immoral side.
To clarify: as a general principle, respecting the territorial sovereignty of a culture is a good idea.
HOWEVER, the scenario in INS has it so the benefit gained from removing the Baku IS SO MUCH GREATER to the rest of the galaxy than the cost to a small village that the dilemma becomes non-existent.
if a man is hiding slaves in his house, and the slave dealer comes by and asks the man if he has slaves there, is it idealistic if the man tells the slave dealer the truth and allows the slaves to be caught?
I mean, his IDEALISTIC commitment to honesty didn't allow him to lie, right?
that's not my definition of idealism.
COMPLETELY agreed (especially the description of Picard in this movie). And frankly, the Ba'ku come off as sanctimonious assholes who are also hypocritical and fail incredibly miserably at being any sort of sympathetic party, which isn't helped by the already-mentioned insignificance of their little peasant village compared to giving medical aid to billions of people.
Well, that's the point Picard made. How many people does it take before you see a dilemma? The entire Federation has a trillion people living in it. So if they had to relocate 5 billion, it would still be only a small cost, wouldn't it?
A tribe of Native Indians sits on a gold resource. But it's holy land. Well, holy land doesn't matter, does it? But gold matters so much for all the people overseas, and it would make soooo many people rich. And it's just such a waste that those few 100 natives are sitting on something hundredthousands of people could profit from. So it's okay to relocate them. And if they try to fight against it because they simply. don't. want. to leave, kill them.
Don't bother, Jarod. Sonak ignored the same points I was making earlier. He's using a lot of socialist language to basically push an imperialist idea. He's more Dick Cheney than Karl Marx. But fat chance convincing him.
