Is he, though? How much do we really hear about Richard Daystrom? The Daystrom Institute, yes, but him personally?
Perhaps the institute was separate enough from the man to avoid calamity? They continued the work and just kept the Daystrom name.
Richard Daystrom's Legacy
- Thread starter Vger23
- Start date
Is he, though? How much do we really hear about Richard Daystrom? The Daystrom Institute, yes, but him personally?
Perhaps the institute was separate enough from the man to avoid calamity? They continued the work and just kept the Daystrom name.
Maybe Daystrom came up with security firewalls to protect against advanced viruses that nobody is allowed to talk about?
People are complex. They do good things of their own free will. They do not good things of their own free will. They do good things in reaction to other events. They do not good things in reaction to other events. They even smoke ciggies to get around that pesky nicotine and/or oral fixation.
Did Daystrom kill hundreds of people? No. His machine did. His machine was a form of AI, in an episode that takes AI to a near-camp level to demonstrate the point of "human good, 'puter bad"- something numerous sitcoms in the 1960s and 1970s would also do. But back to Trek: His computer is a form of AI that clearly had a conscience, complete with engrams of his personality as an experiment that everyone thought had sufficient testing*. Daystrom can be acquitted by that alone.
* Remember, lab testing is never identical to real life experience. It's another reason I loathe that TNG story "Ethics" from season 5, which clinically overlooks so much and solely to tell a one-sided narrative to make Dr Crusher look right and pure in a loaded plot scenario. But before I digress, especially as this is not the TNG forum...
Let's discount that and look at it from another point of view: Daystrom was a pioneer who made things better for quite a few people. He refused to believe his AI creation would act in such a berserk manner, much less be overrode by him. People make mistakes, stuff happens. In a venue that is highly risky (outer space, which the episode reminds us many times - as do other episodes, hence speeches like "risk is our business" and so on.) Daystrom is acquitted via this venue as well. The fact he was horrified only showed how he had no ability to control the situation, the machine - either via consciousness or a form of logical response that was there that he didn't recognize - was making the decision of its own accord. Even Daystrom's team couldn't have fathomed such a possibility taking place.
It is also possible somebody may have sabotaged his work before it got to the Enterprise. That is another good reason for acquittal. The episode itself ignores these underlying details since it's a standalone 50 minute episode, but it's not inconceivable.
There are other possibilities, like work done after being released from the psychological rehab center, I can't mention all of them but one of these top three seems to be the most likely.
This might be a possible plot for a prequel (any whose acronym doesn't spell S.T.D., that is) or Kirk-era novel to flesh out. One of the few I'd take an interest in as there's enough room to maneuver with to expand the Daystrom story and legacy with.
Did Daystrom kill hundreds of people? No. His machine did. His machine was a form of AI, in an episode that takes AI to a near-camp level to demonstrate the point of "human good, 'puter bad"- something numerous sitcoms in the 1960s and 1970s would also do. But back to Trek: His computer is a form of AI that clearly had a conscience, complete with engrams of his personality as an experiment that everyone thought had sufficient testing*. Daystrom can be acquitted by that alone.
* Remember, lab testing is never identical to real life experience. It's another reason I loathe that TNG story "Ethics" from season 5, which clinically overlooks so much and solely to tell a one-sided narrative to make Dr Crusher look right and pure in a loaded plot scenario. But before I digress, especially as this is not the TNG forum...
Let's discount that and look at it from another point of view: Daystrom was a pioneer who made things better for quite a few people. He refused to believe his AI creation would act in such a berserk manner, much less be overrode by him. People make mistakes, stuff happens. In a venue that is highly risky (outer space, which the episode reminds us many times - as do other episodes, hence speeches like "risk is our business" and so on.) Daystrom is acquitted via this venue as well. The fact he was horrified only showed how he had no ability to control the situation, the machine - either via consciousness or a form of logical response that was there that he didn't recognize - was making the decision of its own accord. Even Daystrom's team couldn't have fathomed such a possibility taking place.
It is also possible somebody may have sabotaged his work before it got to the Enterprise. That is another good reason for acquittal. The episode itself ignores these underlying details since it's a standalone 50 minute episode, but it's not inconceivable.
There are other possibilities, like work done after being released from the psychological rehab center, I can't mention all of them but one of these top three seems to be the most likely.
This might be a possible plot for a prequel (any whose acronym doesn't spell S.T.D., that is) or Kirk-era novel to flesh out. One of the few I'd take an interest in as there's enough room to maneuver with to expand the Daystrom story and legacy with.
Implied shift or not, that one's also easy to demonstrate: Humans moved away from gears (think Babbage) and vacuum tubes (think 1950s when a 5MB hard drive was roughly the size of three 2500cu ft refrigerators lined up next to each other) toward transistors and silicon chips, the microchip revolution that was embryonic in the 1970s but took off like hot potato wildfire adult group fun activity by the late 1980s. That in of itself doesn't mean what happened at the time all those centuries ago was just used kitty litter by comparison. Especially when many computing principals of those times still exist today - just shrouded under warm and fuzzy "informalized" error and dialogue boxes that often inappropriately use phrases starting with "we've", whatever the "we" is since the thing mentioning the problem is a singular term and not plural but back to the point: Concepts laid down in the past are often still used today. Many will still be used in the future even when silicon is replaced with another element or material.
Last edited:
I really like this thought. It fits in well with the Trekverse.
Especially as the TOS heroes often run into criminals, and there is never any though of applying the concept of "punishment" to the crimes, except as comic relief for the petty cases.
Murderers are pitied for their ailment and sent to therapy (starting with "Conscience of the King" where Kirk personally pardons a homicidal dad and then condemns his daughter to the best care UFP medicine can offer, and only ending with "Turnabout Intruder"); their accomplices get wished the best for their future ("Turnabout Intruder"); and those undergoing therapy are excused their antics, including further murder ("Whom Gods Destroy"). That Kirk is able to talk down M-5 by referring to "punishment for murder" is in itself a sign that the machine and the mind behind it is seriously insane, and only to be pitied for holding on to such antiquated beliefs.
It is of course possible that the institute was named for a completely different Daystrom. Perhaps Dick was riding on his grandmother's reputation?
Timo Saloniemi
Murderers are pitied for their ailment and sent to therapy (starting with "Conscience of the King" where Kirk personally pardons a homicidal dad and then condemns his daughter to the best care UFP medicine can offer, and only ending with "Turnabout Intruder"); their accomplices get wished the best for their future ("Turnabout Intruder"); and those undergoing therapy are excused their antics, including further murder ("Whom Gods Destroy"). That Kirk is able to talk down M-5 by referring to "punishment for murder" is in itself a sign that the machine and the mind behind it is seriously insane, and only to be pitied for holding on to such antiquated beliefs.
It is of course possible that the institute was named for a completely different Daystrom. Perhaps Dick was riding on his grandmother's reputation?
Timo Saloniemi
Stories of the great (in some cases, unsung) heroes of Star Trek verse invention and innovation?
Daystrom didn't intend for the M5 to kill people.
Yeh yeh he refused to "kill" it but he'd gone around the bend by then. Perhaps a bit torn apart from the guilt.
Nobel invented dynamite etc that killed a lot of people, famous scientists invented the nuclear bomb. George Washington owned slaves.
We don't erase their achievements from history
Yeh yeh he refused to "kill" it but he'd gone around the bend by then. Perhaps a bit torn apart from the guilt.
Nobel invented dynamite etc that killed a lot of people, famous scientists invented the nuclear bomb. George Washington owned slaves.
We don't erase their achievements from history
Actually dynamite was rarely used for weapons though a lot of people were killed by dynamite accidents. Alfred Nobel did invent Ballistite in 1887 which has been used as a propellant in guns and as a solid rocket fuel, and when cordite was invented in 1888 Nobel claimed it infringed his patent for ballistite.
Similar threads
