Species no longer exist 31st century?

[Christopher]

People have been proposing biological explanations for NDEs for decades. Doesn't necessarily mean they are correct.

The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

Many have reported that their experiences felt too real to be dreams or hallucinations.

Subjective perception is not scientifically useful, especially when dealing with situations where people's brains are deprived of oxygen and perhaps not fully functioning. (This is why I loathed the movie Flatliners. It claimed its characters were doing scientific research into near-death experiences, but science demands repeatability and objectivity. Anecdotal accounts of subjective experiences that are impossible to verify objectively or repeat consistently are scientifically useless.)

Some have accurately reported what people were doing nearby when their physical eyes were closed. Some have even accurately predicted future events.

I'm sure some coincidental similarities have been observed in some instances, but unless it can be methodically demonstrated to occur with a greater frequency than random chance would produce, it proves nothing.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Generally when we talk about "pure energy," that's a shorthand for talking about photons/electromagnetic radiation, particles that possess energy but no rest mass.

Bomp, bomp, bomp bomp, bomp-bomp, PURE ENERGY.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Enterprise1701]

People have been proposing biological explanations for NDEs for decades. Doesn't necessarily mean they are correct. Many have reported that their experiences felt too real to be dreams or hallucinations. Some have accurately reported what people were doing nearby when their physical eyes were closed. Some have even accurately predicted future events.

Well considering that it can't be replicated on any predictable basis, I consider such experiences to be frauds.

 

[Sci]

I suppose Earth had to make polygamous and polyandry unions legal to get the genetic testing bann on the books lol

I doubt it. Polygamy among consenting adults would almost certainly have been legal on United Earth territory long before the Federation was founded, since there are plenty of existing cultures today that practice it and there's a movement that wants it legalized in the West. Don't mistake "United Earth" for "the United States."

I would imagine that United Earth would have to legalize other practices that it might have otherwise prohibited upon founding the Federation, though. At least two of the Federation's founding worlds, Vulcan and Andor, both practice ritualize homicide (in the form of the Ushaan and the kal-if-fee), for instance; presumably United Earth would have had to legalize these sorts of dueling rituals (perhaps on the rationale that both parties have to consent to them first?) when it signed the Articles of the Federation.

I guess such rituals can only take place on member worlds but be illegal on Earth.

Why? I mean, in a free society in which mental illness is virtually a thing of the past and class-based, race-based, sex-based, and other forms of oppression have been abolished, why not allow consenting adults to engage in ritual homicide?

Plus to me, this just sounds like a recipe for legal chaos. Ritual homicide is essentially a fundamental right on Andor, but it's a crime on Earth?

(It reminds me of a line from the Broadway show Hamilton: An American Musical. Alexander Hamilton is speaking to his son, Phillip, who has just challenged a man who disparaged Alexander's name to a duel:

ALEXANDER: Where is this happening?

PHILLIP: Across the river in Jersey

BOTH: Everything is legal in New Jersey.)

But the Vulcan ritual is a secret no offworlder knows about it, unless they are married to a Vulcan.

Or at least was uncommon knowledge. It is possible that the Framers of the Articles of Federation knew about the kal-if-fee and agreed to stay quiet but designed Federation and Federation Member State law to allow it if it were to come to light.

More likely there is an agreement that the Federation would not interfer with cultural practices that did not effect the rights of the individual aka some Planetary law trumping Federation laws.

That just sounds like a recipe for chaos. What if Kirk had been killed on Vulcan, against his will? Would not his family on Earth be able to have Spock extradited to Earth to stand trial in a United Earth court for murder? After all, suddenly Vulcan's cultural practices would have been interfering with the rights of United Earth individuals.

Another example, any Earth ideas of free movement of labour and open migration between planets (Sorry European Alliance delegates) were tossed out the window! lol

Well, I'm not convinced interplanetary migration was ever going to be unregulated. You're talking about exposing a planetary biome to completely alien forms of life which may pose unintentional ecological risks. Who's to say United Earth itself didn't fight to impose import controls on Denobulan goods after a bunch of people in New York acquired Denobulan flu?

Many have reported that their experiences felt too real to be dreams or hallucinations.

People suffering delusions are always convinced that their delusions feel too real to be false.

 

[Nyotarules]

^Mental illness is not a thing of the past in the Federation, there were two TOS episodes on it.
Is there legal chaos in the USA where one state has the death penalty and another states does not?
Is there legal chaos in the EU where one nation has an age of sexual consent as 16 (UK) and another nation has it at 12 (Spain)? And the EU is a wanna be 'United States' over here!
If Kirk had been killed on Vulcan, how would his family find out about it, would McCoy tell, would T'Pring tell? I doubt it. The whole incident would be covered up by Starfleet no matter how much Spock wanted to be arrested, he was not in this right mind. (Personally I think he screwed up big time being so far away from T'Pring, he was using her as a place holder).
As for galactic migration, I agree with you there. I am sure there are even minor, migration restrictions on Earth between nation states, Australia would insist on it! lol

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If Spock had killed Kirk in the duel, I'm not sure what Kirk's relatives would be able to do to Spock. Kirk willingly engaged in it, after all.

If anything, the pressure would be on the Vulcans, who didn't TELL Kirk it was a fight to the death until he'd already agreed (and thus too late to back out).

Speaking of which, though: Given that it's legal for Vulcans to engage in death duels (even with non-Vulcans) as a matter of ritual, why did Picard take Worf to task for killing Duras? That was a death duel that took place on Klingon territory, according to Klingon law, and involved only Klingons.

I mean: If Worf had faced off against a Vulcan in the kunat kalifee and killed them, nobody would have done anything. Yet Worf engages in one of his OWN people's rituals, and gets reprimanded?

 

[Nyotarules]

If Spock had killed Kirk in the duel, I'm not sure what Kirk's relatives would be able to do to Spock. Kirk willingly engaged in it, after all.

If anything, the pressure would be on the Vulcans, who didn't TELL Kirk it was a fight to the death until he'd already agreed (and thus too late to back out).

Speaking of which, though: Given that it's legal for Vulcans to engage in death duels (even with non-Vulcans) as a matter of ritual, why did Picard take Worf to task for killing Duras? That was a death duel that took place on Klingon territory, according to Klingon law, and involved only Klingons.

I mean: If Worf had faced off against a Vulcan in the kunat kalifee and killed them, nobody would have done anything. Yet Worf engages in one of his OWN people's rituals, and gets reprimanded?

Picard could be a self righteous prig at times, this was one of em.

 

[Idran]

^Mental illness is not a thing of the past in the Federation, there were two TOS episodes on it.

He said "virtually", and both of those episodes were about how essentially rare it was by that point.

If Kirk had been killed on Vulcan, how would his family find out about it, would McCoy tell, would T'Pring tell? I doubt it. The whole incident would be covered up by Starfleet no matter how much Spock wanted to be arrested, he was not in this right mind. (Personally I think he screwed up big time being so far away from T'Pring, he was using her as a place holder).

Sci obviously meant what would the law say should happen in such a situation, though. If they found out, what would the law say?

 

[TheUsualSuspect]

Speaking of which, though: Given that it's legal for Vulcans to engage in death duels (even with non-Vulcans) as a matter of ritual, why did Picard take Worf to task for killing Duras? That was a death duel that took place on Klingon territory, according to Klingon law, and involved only Klingons.

Picard could be a self righteous prig at times, this was one of em.

Yeah, I think Picard may have been reaching the limits of his tolerance for Klingon customs.

It's been a while since I've seen the episode, so I might be mistaken, but I remember Worf beaming directly to Duras' ship from Kehleyr's quarters, still in his Starfleet uniform. So the problem that Picard might have seen would be that Worf is in effect representing Starfleet when he kills Duras. I admit, it's rather silly to suggest that if he just changed his clothes he would be acting solely as a private citizen of the Klingon Empire, but I think it highlights the real conflict that Picard perceives. The mission of Starfleet in the episode is so closely entwined with Klingon politics that there is no clear line between Worf's actions as a member of Starfleet and his actions as a Klingon. It's the blurring of those lines and Worf's choice to act according to Klingon values rather than Starfleet training and ideals that Picard is reacting to. It's an ethical dilemma with no clear resolution. Worf chooses one possibility, and Picard doesn't think it was the right choice.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Worf chooses one possibility, and Picard doesn't think it was the right choice.

That's easy to answer: Picard was wrong. The fact remains, it is hypocritical to allow Vulcans (and Andorians, who also have ritual death duels) to kill each other, but to prohibit Klingons from doing the same.

And you'll notice that Spock and Kirk kept their Starfleet uniforms on, when they fought each other. Yet anyone with an I.Q. higher than pastry would know they weren't acting on Starfleet's behalf. Same story with Worf - everyone (INCLUDING the Klingon government, I might add) knew Worf killed Duras to avenge K'Ehleyr's death. No more, no less.

Anyone who believes Picard was correct in reprimanding Worf, must also logically believe Spock deserved the same reprimand for fighting in the kunat kalifee. If Spock gets a free pass, so must Worf.

 

[Nyotarules]

^ Not really,100 years exist between the two actions, just because an action is allowed in 1917 does not not make it still legal in 2017. Amok Time was in 2267, Worf's fight was in the 24th century, the rules could have changed. However it seems the rules are at the discretion of ones commanding officer, Worf should have removed his uniform and so should Spock and Kirk.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And another thing: What about Gowron? Does Worf deserve a reprimand for killing Gowron as well? And that happened on DS9 - Federation territory - not a Klingon ship. Worf, a Starfleet officer, challenges Gowron for the chancellorship. And Sisko doesn't reprimand Worf for doing it. So it would seem that Sisko knows more about Klingon customs than Picard, eh?

 

[Idran]

Or.

Or.

Maybe we do think that Worf's killing of Gowron was morally questionable, that his killing of Duras was outright wrong regardless of whether or not it abided by Klingon cultural values, and that both are different scenarios than the fact that Spock literally couldn't not participate in his. It might be stupid biology that this urge in Vulcans is so strong that it can't be overcome, but it's still the case in universe.

 

[Nyotarules]

And another thing: What about Gowron? Does Worf deserve a reprimand for killing Gowron as well? And that happened on DS9 - Federation territory - not a Klingon ship. Worf, a Starfleet officer, challenges Gowron for the chancellorship. And Sisko doesn't reprimand Worf for doing it. So it would seem that Sisko knows more about Klingon customs than Picard, eh?

Or Sisko was less of a self righteous prig than Picard, after
In the pale moonlight saga he was probably open to anything. Plus I suspect Starfleet were glad to get rid of Gowron, he was a hindrance to the war and the Empire's stability.

 

[Idran]

Or Sisko was less of a self righteous prig than Picard, after In the Pale moonlight saga he was probably open to anything.

You really missed the point of that episode.

 

[DimesDan]

You really missed the point of that episode.

And what was the point of that episode, I bet you're just dying to explain to @Nyotarules.

And @Nyotarules, what exactly is a prig? Do you mean a self righteous prick? If so, he was meant to be from time to time, being French with a very Yorkshire accent after all.

 

[Nyotarules]

Or.

Or.

Maybe we do think that Worf's killing of Gowron was morally questionable, that his killing of Duras was outright wrong regardless of whether or not it abided by Klingon cultural values, and that both are different scenarios than the fact that Spock literally couldn't not participate in his. It might be stupid biology that this urge in Vulcans is so strong that it can't be overcome, but it's still the case in universe.

From what perspective? A Human one, A Federation one or a Klingon one?
Both are Klingons, both know the rules of their culture. Duras was not exactly beating the drum of 'Reform our militaristic society,' he was openly and happily part of it. If he had known Keyla was Worf's mate would he still murder her? I guess so, he was arrogant to believe he would win against Worf.

 

[Nyotarules]

And what was the point of that episode, I bet you're just dying to explain to @Nyotarules.

And @Nyotarules, what exactly is a prig? Do you mean a self righteous prick? If so, he was meant to be from time to time, being French with a very Yorkshire accent after all.

prig
prɪɡ/
noun

1. a self-righteously moralistic person who behaves as if they are superior to others.

In the 23rd century Yorkshire will dominate the European Alliance. The half German descendants of Michael Farrage will be happy.

 

[Nyotarules]

You really missed the point of that episode.

No I did not.

 

[DimesDan]

prig
prɪɡ/
noun

1. a self-righteously moralistic person who behaves as if they are superior to others.

Cheers, I did just generally think you meant prick, not prig.