Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x08 - "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"

Agreed. The 'no reason to mutiny' argument falls apart when you consider that not only did Saru destroy his teams' only means of communicating with Discovery, he did so because he wanted them to have no way of leaving the planet. That is kidnapping.

 

So, I still haven't had a chance to re-watch, and someone else may have already mentioned this, but I seem to remember some indication that Saru's actions weren't purely selfish. Didn't he also say something about bringing the war with the Klingons to Pahvo being morally wrong because it would disturb the Pahvans' harmony? He wanted to stay there with them and keep enjoying himself, but he also wanted to protect them by keeping them out of it. Of course, that might have been a conscious rationalization for what was subconsciously something he just wanted for himself, and maybe at the end he realized this back on Discovery. But it seemed to me there was ostensibly a little more depth/nuance to it from his point of view than simply "poor Saru doesn't want to go back to the scary!"

 

The exact definition and elements of kidnapping are jurisdictional. At the very least, in most US jurisdictions, this would qualify as false imprisonment.

I don't mean to be a douche, but I'm a lawyer, and, like Vulcans, we tend to embrace technicality.

Still, I agree that a good faith argument for mutiny could be made against him.

 

In general, the writers really need to do more work to flesh out all of the characters beyond what is needed to service the plot. Out of all of them, I think they've done the best job with Tilly, because her different "quirks" are what makes her shine. But what do we really know about say Stamets besides that he's in a gay relationship and usually grumpy? What does he do for fun? Does he have living parents? Stuff like that really helps being characters alive.

 

Differences between the CG matte image vs the actual practical set design, perhaps.

 

That's what they WERE before they became organized. Remember, all we've been seeing so far is what the Federation has to deal with in a UNIFIED Klingon Empire, one with a strong and centralized High Council and a (relatively) loyal KDF backing up its power. PRIOR to this, the "Empire" probably lacked any central authority to speak of and was governed more by consensus and enlightened self interest than any sort of cohesive cooperation.

The comparison to the Ottoman Empire is especially apt: the scattered remnants of the Ottoman Empire mostly fight amongst themselves (or even AGAINST themselves) so we occasionally have small regional wars in Iraq, or Syria, or Palestine, or Egypt, etc. What we're seeing now is what Osama bin Laden assumed would happen right after 9/11: every islamic country banding together under one flag and collectively declaring war on the United States. If that had actually worked, it would have been a shitstorm: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Algeria and Syria have some pretty impressive firepower between them and if you add nuclear-armed Pakistan to the mix, the collection of them would more than rival the United States. If they were fighting a limited war with the goal of simply crippling us and stealing some of our colonies (lol I mean "regional interests lol") we would have a REALLY rough time winning that war.

Ir's more similar to Japan before the Meiji reforms, under the various shoguns that each controlled their own territories. Theoretically they are all beholden to the "Empire" just like the shoguns were, but it's worth pointing out at this time that the Klingon Empire doesn't actually have an EMPEROR and thus its very existence is more of a technicality than a fact.

 

"Hey, Michael, I know what we can do for fun -- let's go pull Airiam apart and see what makes that girl tick!"

 

Much like how Mirror Universe O'Brien was equally skilled in mechanics and engineering and very intelligent but instead of being easygoing and the kind of guy who'd throw his arm around your shoulders and have a beer with you he was cynical, beaten down by years of being a slave laborer on Terok Nor and only willing to trust after a lot of effort.

 

Yup, something like that, only a bit maniacal instead. Who said mirror universe versions of us have to be starkly different?

A couple different choices in upbringing may render many of similar but different.

I'm a pretty dispassionate person, on one hand im overly calm and reasonable, on the other my wife says arguing with me is like arguing with a brick wall, its unfruitful and frustrating.

Who's to say a tweak or two in my upbringing, an abusive parent or something, I wouldn't be equally dispassionate, but sadistically violent?

I think the idea of polar opposites in mirror universe type episodes is over done.

I did like how Garrak was still kinda Garrak,

 

And Mirror Quark was still basically Quark, just the more hardened and conniving Quark who lived on Terok Nor before the Federation and Bajoran takeover of the station in our universe.

 

Even worse, mirror stamets is straight.

 

Yet he would still be a grumpy bastard.

Yeah, I hope they don't do that. Really would be a stupid move. What would be the point of doing that, honestly?

 

I give that joke a tardigrade of A+.

 

Okay... Mirror straight Stamets wandering around on regular Discovery has a raunchy noight with Keyla... Which means that after the two boys switch back, the little redhead gets to look at him like forbidden food for the next seven years and cry a lot, and make some drunk outbursts about how she is "So much better for him!" banging and banging on the door to his quarters, begging for Stamets to come out, and prove that he's really gay.

 

I would be more than happy for them to flip that trope by using Tyler and Lorca

 

I wasn't joking,

I genuinely think that would be stupid.

 

I agree.

 

I’ve been thinking a lot about this, myself, and wondered just how this was all supposed to suss out. Earlier on, before the series aired, they kept on talking about how the Kelpians were subject to this kind of apex predation and I got the impression that this predator was non-sentient. I have nothing to back this up other than the way they spoke of them. After all, you don’t call humans and Klingons the apex predators of Earth and Qo’noS, respectively, even though that is true in some respects. Not giving a name to this apex predator feels as if they are implying that it is just another animal—or whatever passes for one on the Kelpian homeworld.

But then, when the series began, Saru said that his people were hunted, bred, and farmed, like the livestock of old (among humans). That implies something far different from my earlier assumption. Non-sentient creatures cannot farm or breed other species, save in the most generous and expansive definitions of the latter (which is clearly not the case here). So when Saru said that, my mind immediately scrambled the picture. The only thing that makes any kind of sense now is that, perhaps, the Kelpians were initially pre-sentients (like, say, an early hominid) and this apex species selectively bred them for specific characteristics. As a by-product of that—perhaps completely accidental—they achieved sentience. One thing led to another and, eventually, the Kelpians revolt.

The problem with this, though, is that it leaves us with a homeworld that is certainly not ideal for Federation membership. How would that work? Correct me if I’m wrong but does not membership require a unified planetary government? How does that work if you have two sentient species at war with one another or one having just gained political independence? Can you imagine a circumstance where they’d agree on a single, unified polity? It just beggars the imagination.

Which brings me back, full-circle, to the idea that the apex predator is non-sentient, in spite of Saru’s comments regarding farming, breeding, etc. But that stretches credulity to the breaking point. How on earth could a species like the Kelpians have evolved a warp-capable civilisation and not become the apex predator, themselves? So you’ve a situation where the top dog on the Kelpians’ homeworld isn’t the Kelpians…and yet the Kelpians, somehow, have a warp-capable civilisation? That’s…odd, to say the least, and doesn’t seem to comport with the definition of an apex predator/prey relationship or the common sense definitions of “farm” and “breed.”

And one more thing: Kelpians are congenital cowards. Literally. However useful that might be on their homeworld, it’s a distinct liability outside. A good case could be made that they are simply not a good fit for Starfleet which, I suppose, is what we’re finding out, seeing how Saru is “the first.” Were I Starfleet Command, I would be carefully watching Saru’s progress. Species, presumably, evolve characteristics suitable to their environments and adaptive to the circumstances they’d historically faced. They are unique to the ecological niches they occupy. That means—though we haven’t seen it yet in any “Star Trek” series—that there might very well be sentient species who simply cannot, for various reasons of biology or temperament, be integrated into Starfleet. The Kelpians, depending on how they’re fleshed out, might very well be one such species.

I think, realistically, that during preproduction the idea of the Kelpians was too exciting not to go forward with but that, as things progressed, the producers did not realise all the potential problems the arrangement they were suggesting would have. If you think this through, consider what has been said, what is implied, and what we know of Federation membership requirements, Kelpians might be seen as somewhat problematic.