Learning to love "Insurrection"
- Thread starter Trek Survivor
- Start date
So just to nail you down on this so we can put it to bed, you do accept that old age is not a disease as you previously stated?
yes, I accept that. It results in many negative health effects that are undesirable, and apparently, the magic particles in the film can REVERSE these negative effects, so I still don't see how acknowledging old age to not be a disease detracts from THAT part of my argument.
But you're right in the sense that old age is a natural part of the life cycle for now, and so is not a disease.
Again: relocating people and destroying and entire planet just to live a bit longer? When all you have to do is to set up your own colony on that planet?
(fights against the impulse to wade in and fails yet again)
So you're explicitly putting the inconvenience of "relocation" above actual LIVES in your moral calculations? How am I supposed to take that argument seriously?
"sorry grandpa, I know you could live centuries longer with this new resource, but hey, what's a few more hundred years compared to the horrors of RELOCATION and INCONVENIENCE!"
(remember, the entire Federation CAN'T relocate to the Briar Patch planet, but the medical resources CAN be brought to the entire Federation, so the issue of "setting up a colony vs relocation" is an irrelevant one.)
Are 150+ years really not enough? Why the greed for life?
really? is that a serious question?
are you a strong believer in an afterlife or something? Because I'm not, so I'm not so cavalier about folks dying "when it's their time."
Yeah, the dilemma in this movie is fictional, but I still don't understand attitudes like yours.
Where there's life, there are possibilities.
Yes, in that fictional scenario, it's my serious question. Getting old and dying is pretty natural. If people will never grow old, you will see that they will stop getting children. You will see that progress stops. You will see that people will start to delay everything because they have so much time. It's not a world I'd want to live in.
well dealing with the aspects of this fictional scenario, it's unclear how much of a longer lifespan these magic particles would bring. I doubt that a few extra centuries would lead to the collapse you foresee.
The Vulcans and other species have longer lifespans than Humans and it hasn't lead to stagnation.
Maybe it would lead to some negative results, but I'd rather folks have the choice between suicide or boredom than not to have that choice.
Something i just though but didn't the version of the film with the original ending (where Picard doesn't kill Ru'afo, which the audience didn't like hence that change aka don't blame Picard for the audience making him do stuff) didn't they basically say all you had to do was fly inot the rings and you are automatically deaged?
If so why not do that?
That way you get the whole fountain of youth thing with out the hassel of moving people around and having to deploy large devices which can kill you if your shields break.
Well... how many aspects of human life do you want to control? Eternal life to give humans a choice between suicide and boredom? Seriously?
And who decides who gets to live longer? Is it a question of price? Abilities? Social status?
Someone has to decide, because it doesn't seem they have an endless amount of particles. They run the process once, then the rings and the planet are destroyed. Whatever they collect there wouldn't last forever.
what are you talking about? I'm not trying to "control" any aspects. Benefitting from the particles would be voluntary.
And why are you inserting things in the argument that aren't in the movie? It seems like the process they're considering would benefit the entire Federation, not only certain groups.
Further, even if it WAS a limited amount, is that a reason to deny it to all of the potential citizens who could get it?
Is that how you approach new food sources or cures for things?
"well, we can't guarantee we could bring this vaccine to every single person in the country, so we'll just forgot about the vaccine, because otherwise they'd have to..... MAKE DECISIONS! HORRORS!"
Oh yes, these decisions are horrors. Who would you give it to?
You say benefitting would be voluntary. But what does one have to do to get these particles? Do you sell it? If you do, how much do you want them to pay for eternal life? Do you make a lottery? Will you exclude people? Murderers? Thieves? Lawyers? Will Klingons get it, or only Federation citizens? Will you give the supply to Starfleet first and only what's left to civilians? All that stuff. Something as big as eternal life particles isn't easy.
You can bet all your vital organs that the cure against Aids or cancer won't be affordable for you and me.
Last edited:
wow, you're really moving the goalposts here to make your argument.
First was that it was wrong to move the Baku for the vastly greater good that the magic particles would provide.
Then it was that it was wrong to force the magic particles on folks.
Now it's an issue of inequality in who gets the magic particles.
It's hard to keep up here, especially since you're assuming stuff that's not in the movie to make your point, like how there all these folks that somehow won't get access to the magic particles.
You know what? There is inequality in the way every resource is distributed, even medical ones. You're right that those issues exist even now.
I however fail to see what this has to do at all with the dilemma presented in INS, and I suspect if I came up with another answer to your current question, you'd attack that with something new that you pulled from somewhere.
Bottom line: property rights are an important thing. Involuntary relocation is bad, especially of an entire village or culture.
However, the scenario in INS has it that the benefits that billions would get from the magic particles FAR outweigh the property rights and inconvenience caused to the tiny Baku village.
The logistics of magic particle delivery would get solved later.
I think the motives of characters have to be accepted as given in the film.
In the climactic scene of The Vengeance Factor, Yuta tries to attack Chorgan and Riker shoots her with his phaser, forcing her back. She tries again, and again Riker shoots her and forces her back. Then Riker turns the phaser up to maximum and says “Don’t do this.” She tries a third time and Riker vaporizers her.
If I examine this tape as evidence, I have to conclude there’s something seriously wrong with Riker. Shooting Yuta repeatedly may not be fun, but it was getting the job done and would have bought enough time to get Chogan to safety. (Incidentally, while all this is happening, nobody, including Chogan himself, makes any attempt to do so.) There was no need to kill her.
I can choose to believe that Riker’s a psycho and wonder why he’s still on duty in the next episode, or I can choose to believe that Riker was forced to kill Yuta because it was the only way to protect Chogan. I choose to believe he had to, which is the clear intent of the show, despite a poorly executed scene that failed to believably depict a scenario in which he was forced to make that decision.
Same thing with Insurrection. The characters state why they do the things they do. Absent good reason to believe otherwise, we must assume they mean it. Fanwank excuses don’t make the film any better. Fanwank is one thing, but fanwank that goes against the clear intent of the film is quite another.
People are suggesting the planet would be better used as a hospital or something rather than by collecting the particles, or that the longer lifespans wouldn’t be good for society. Those are examples of bad fanwank. Dougherty says the collection will help billions and that the Federation’s best scientific minds have determined that it’s the only way to do it. There’s no suggestion that Picard doesn’t believe him. There is no hint that he’s fighting Dougherty’s mission because he believes there’s a more effective way to serve the medical needs of those billions. He does it expressly because he believes the rights of the Ba’ku trump both those needs and the chain of command. Any suggestion to the contrary is bullshit.
In the climactic scene of The Vengeance Factor, Yuta tries to attack Chorgan and Riker shoots her with his phaser, forcing her back. She tries again, and again Riker shoots her and forces her back. Then Riker turns the phaser up to maximum and says “Don’t do this.” She tries a third time and Riker vaporizers her.
If I examine this tape as evidence, I have to conclude there’s something seriously wrong with Riker. Shooting Yuta repeatedly may not be fun, but it was getting the job done and would have bought enough time to get Chogan to safety. (Incidentally, while all this is happening, nobody, including Chogan himself, makes any attempt to do so.) There was no need to kill her.
I can choose to believe that Riker’s a psycho and wonder why he’s still on duty in the next episode, or I can choose to believe that Riker was forced to kill Yuta because it was the only way to protect Chogan. I choose to believe he had to, which is the clear intent of the show, despite a poorly executed scene that failed to believably depict a scenario in which he was forced to make that decision.
Same thing with Insurrection. The characters state why they do the things they do. Absent good reason to believe otherwise, we must assume they mean it. Fanwank excuses don’t make the film any better. Fanwank is one thing, but fanwank that goes against the clear intent of the film is quite another.
People are suggesting the planet would be better used as a hospital or something rather than by collecting the particles, or that the longer lifespans wouldn’t be good for society. Those are examples of bad fanwank. Dougherty says the collection will help billions and that the Federation’s best scientific minds have determined that it’s the only way to do it. There’s no suggestion that Picard doesn’t believe him. There is no hint that he’s fighting Dougherty’s mission because he believes there’s a more effective way to serve the medical needs of those billions. He does it expressly because he believes the rights of the Ba’ku trump both those needs and the chain of command. Any suggestion to the contrary is bullshit.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average life expectancy at the beginning of the 20th century was less than 48 years. A century later, that number had increased to over 77 years, due largely to the development of vaccinations and other treatments for deadly diseases. Exposure to the fictional particles would be a "treatment."
If you feel that a natural lifespan is a desirable thing, that would be a personal choice on your part. Without even the medical treatments of a century ago, your life expectancy would be what it was in in ancient times, late twenties, early thirties.
It would depend on the half-life of the particles
If the particles decayed at any appreciable speed, the rings/belts concentration wouldn't be much higher than the standard scatter throughout the Brier Patch itself. Which would suggest that they possess a long half-life.
If however the particle are short lived, then the planets magnetic field must be gathering/replenishing them at a rate fast enough to maintain the concentrations depicted in the movie. In that case it would be a simply matter of periodically harvesting more particles from around the planet, as the previous harvest decays.
The Baku were separated from the particles by thousands of miles. While seriously diseased patents might require close exposure, for the general public, containers of particles located in satellites above population centers would also benefit the many billions of the Federation.
A satellite positioned above the Baku's new community would give them all the same health benefits they had before.
You might not want to make that bet. The current cost of the cures for many of the diseases that were cured in the twentieth century are in the thirty to one hundred dollar range.
The cost of producing polio vaccine is about one dollar a dose.
From my writer's perspective, you can't have the fountain of youth. You can come close, and it slips through your fingers. Had the particles been collected, something would have to have gone wrong. That probably would have made a better story! Attempt collecting the particles, shit goes wrong, now all the ba'ku will die and nobody benefits. Because you can't have the fountain of youth. Grey ending, no clear good guys/bad guys.
As for Picard opposing Dougherty, again I think it's simply a matter of opposing the deception and violation of Starfleet's better modus operandi. I don't buy that the relocation had to happen immediately, and I don't buy that everything Dougherty is saying is spot on.
Ultimately, this is all subjective. It's not an argument to be won or lost. Some people like this movie, others don't.
As for Picard opposing Dougherty, again I think it's simply a matter of opposing the deception and violation of Starfleet's better modus operandi. I don't buy that the relocation had to happen immediately, and I don't buy that everything Dougherty is saying is spot on.
Ultimately, this is all subjective. It's not an argument to be won or lost. Some people like this movie, others don't.
Believe that if it’s what makes the story work for you, but do you really think it’s the intent of the film? What does the film imply happens after the end credits roll:
1) The public condemns the deception, then does on the up-and-up what Dougherty and the Son’a had tried to do on the sly. The Ba’ku are relocated by honest force instead of subterfuge. The end result is the same as if Picard had not interfered, except that Dougherty and many Son’a are dead, and two ships and a collector destroyed. All the death and destruction ultimately changed nothing. This is a tragedy, not an exciting action-adventure where good triumphs.
2) The public is scandalized not only by the questionable methods of Dougherty and the Son’a, but by what they tried to do. The people agree with Picard: the Ba’ku have a right to live on that planet, and that right outweighs the public benefits of the particles. When Dougherty and the Son’a attempted to violate it, good prevailed, the villains perished, and the Ba’ku lived on the planet happily ever after.
You can’t seriously deny that #2 is the film’s intent. The battle isn’t about honesty, it’s about saving the Ba’ku’s home.
That was very harshly put, and if it came across as impugning the moral character of anyone in this thread, I apologize. It’s not so much a moral failing as a case study in how effective emotional manipulation can influence one’s perception of facts.
I am reminded of a “Terrorist Dry Run” article that made the rounds shortly after 9/11. The author wrote about a plane flight she took and the behavior of three Muslim passengers who she suspected were performing a dry run for a future terrorist attack. It was a brilliant work of emotionally manipulative writing by someone who may not have thought she was being manipulative.
I created a redacted version of the article: I removed all the paranoid speculation and all the visceral descriptions of the terror the writer and her husband felt, and I left in all the facts she reported about what she witnessed. What remained was a description of remarkably unremarkable behavior, nothing particularly mysterious or sinister.
When the article made the rounds on the message boards, most readers said the author’s speculation was plausible, that it may indeed have been a terrorist dry run, and in any case it demonstrated serious holes in security. When pressed to defend those positions, they invariably ended up remembering events and behaviors that were not actually reported in the article.
I was amazed. People believed the author’s conclusions because of the emotional effectiveness of the writing. When the mind becomes emotionally committed to a conclusion that isn’t supported by the available facts, it can make assumptions to support the conclusion, be blind to having done so, and then remember the assumptions as given facts rather than the mind’s own creations.
I think something similar happens with Insurrection. The film hits all the right emotional notes to make Picard come across as the good guy. The fact that we’re STNG fans and he’s Jean-Luc Picard provides a big head start, but there’s more to it than that. However, the story it tells doesn’t support the morality of his position (except under extreme Tea Party values that few of us share). Thus when the mind is emotionally committed to the perception of Picard as hero and challenged to defend it, the result is assumptions, interpretations, and fanwanks that are inconsistent with what the film is clearly saying, and obliviousness to the nature of these rationalizations.
It’s not something craven or stupid. It’s just how the human mind works.
I think that's a very smart attempted analysis of what's going on, but it doesn't quite work for me, at least as far as I understand what's been going on here, not just on this thread, but on others I've participated in about INS.
An internet reviewer of this film pointed out that the premise of the movie works enough on its own for the time when you're watching it.
Crucially however, it's very much an example of the term "fridge logic," because if you give it a moment's thought, you'd see how horrifying the values presented positively in this film really are.
This reviewer theorized that this demonstrated why the movie did well among fandom initially, but upon reflection, as time went by, it really suffered in fan perception. Basically, because the film's premise just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and the "moral dilemma" presented isn't a balanced dilemma at all.
So your analysis doesn't explain why those folks who may have initially sided with Picard's decision still do so even after long debates about the illogic and implications of such a position. It seems going by what you say, we should be expecting to see them reevaluate their positions AWAY from the immediate emotional impact of the film.
Yet people who side with the "anti-removal" position still do so in a context totally removed from the film. I can only conclude from this, baffling as such a conclusion might appear to you and me, that they really DO support this position, it's not a feature of the immediate impact of watching Picard and company on film.
