• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

"The Survivors"

Lord Garth

Admiral
Admiral
I've been working my way through TNG in order to prepare for the Picard Series. My goal is to get up to "All Good Things" before the new series premieres. I'm up to the third season right now and I just finished watching "The Survivors".

Kevin Uxbridge will not kill under any circumstances. Then something occurred to me when Picard asked if he would kill even if his wife was in danger. This episode premiered on October 9th, 1989. Less than a year after the 1988 US Presidential Election. During the Second Debate, the first question that one of the moderators, Bernard Shaw of CNN, asked Micheal Dukakis (the Democratic candidate) was: if his wife were raped and murdered would he still be against the Death Penalty. Then Dukakis replied that he would still be against it no matter what.

I have to wonder if this debate question sparked the influence for putting together "The Survivors" and took it to an extreme? Kevin wouldn't kill even if his whole colony was under attack. Then he went from one extreme to the other by killing every Husnock, the race that attacked, in existence.
 
Last edited:
Possibly.
But I think there are circumstances where I'd want to think a loved one would kill for me.
I'd kill for certain loved ones.
Well, I was in Army so I'd probably kill for not so loved ones too.
:shrug:
 
Actually it was Kevin who wouldn’t kill, not Rishon.

Rishon was killed helping to defend the colony, that’s what drove Kevin into a rage which wiped out the Husnock.
 
Kevin thought he was holding to his principles when he refused to use his power to attack the Husnock but when he saw his wife's dead body he committed genocide in a moment of grief. The episode says a lot about the dangers of absolute power and about supposed human goodness. Kevin probably thought his extreme pacism made him a better person than most.

There is a moral justification to kill in order to save life. There is no justification to commit genocide in a moment of fury.
 
Last edited:
There is a moral justification to kill in order to save life. There is no justification to commit genocide in a moment of fury.

But that is a matter of degrees - genocide is a number. If a single person attacks, do you need to wing him or decapitate him in order to terminate the threat? Depends on the situation. If a group attacks, do you kill all of them, or one of them? If the latter, did you really terminate the threat, or just postpone it?

Kevin Uxbridge may be acting in a specific state of mind, but we have no way to analyze or judge the states of mind of a Douwd. Perhaps his mental capabilities were diminished, perhaps heightened. Was the decision to kill all the Husnock a proper response to the threat? It didn't save anybody on the colony - everybody was already dead by the time Kevin acted. But it may have saved lots of lives in the greater context. A Douwd might know better than most folks.

Our only real cue here is Kevin himself: he shows no sign of feeling justified in having taken the action, and would have little motivation to hide such justification if he did believe he acted on such originally. But this applies to the case and individual at hand - it's not a categorical statement about morals or tactics as such.

Timo Saloniemi
 
I never thought of that question that possibles the Husnack could have later harmed others. It’s like the scenario, you find out your neighbor is a serial killer. He is not currently trying to kill you. Your only proof lacks strong enough evidence to relate to the police. Is it moral to kill him?

In this case though it’s clear Kevin’s motive was revenge, and if there was some argument for wiping out the attackers there was none for wiping out the entire race.
 
But that is a matter of degrees - genocide is a number.

Genocide is NOT just a number. No moral equivalencies, please. At this level, it is the complete annihilation of a people, the cessation of their existence at the hands of another. There is a difference.

For all we know, the Dawd might be aggressive by nature, and what Kevin says might be all spin. The one & only testimony about the alien species is from the one who killed them, all of them. So perhaps his word should be taken with a grain of salt, even if he looks sad about it.

So-called "logic" that justifies genocide also enables genocide to happen again. History's lessons need to be revisited.
 
I always assumed his pacifism came in some part from the extent of his power. If he allows himself to use his powers to defend the colony, how far should he take it? Wipe out the immediate attackers posing a danger to him or others nearby? Wipe out all the attackers on the planet? Wipe out all the attackers, and the ships in orbit?

And then, if his colony is safe but he hears of another colony nearby being attacked, should he use his powers to kill the Husnock attacking that colony, too? What about a colony on the other side of the galaxy?

If he was prepared to kill at all, he'd have to draw these impossible guidelines for himself about when it is and isn't okay to use the nightmare-genocide-power. The only real choice was to either use the power freely (which is obviously unthinkable) or never use it at all.
 
I think it was kind of weird that at the end of the episode, after Kevin confessed what he had done, Picard said this:
"We are not qualified to be your judges. We have no law to fit your crime. You're free to return to the planet, and to make Rishon live again."
Was there really an alternative other than let Kevin go, how would they capture him? Where would they hold him?

Another thing, why didn't Kevin recreate the entire colony so there would be no questions asked?
And yet another thing, Enterprise was forced to leave orbit but when they returned, Kevin showed no sign of knowing Enterprise had returned. Kevin didn't pay any attention after they fled? He just assumed Enterprise would not return?

It's an interesting episode but all these questions makes me not want to revisit it.
 
The only real choice was to either use the power freely (which is obviously unthinkable) or never use it at all.

Nothing said by Kevin made it sound like those were the only choices. Everything he said indicated that his rage was responsible for the scope of it. It's like saying we had to kill every single German everywhere during WWII, or none at all. A false choice. He was able to attack the Enterprise without attacking every Federation ship everywhere. He had choice and the ability to control his power.

All the same, you're definitely right about the weight of incredible power in the face of incredible responsibility and also incredible loss.
 
Last edited:
I think it was kind of weird that at the end of the episode, after Kevin confessed what he had done, Picard said this:
"We are not qualified to be your judges. We have no law to fit your crime. You're free to return to the planet, and to make Rishon live again."
Was there really an alternative other than let Kevin go, how would they capture him? Where would they hold him?

You just answered your own question. There really was nothing Picard could do other than let him go and leave him alone.
Another thing, why didn't Kevin recreate the entire colony so there would be no questions asked?

That's a good question. I think it would have complicated the script too much and taken attention away from Kevin and Rishon.
 
IIn this case though it’s clear Kevin’s motive was revenge, and if there was some argument for wiping out the attackers there was none for wiping out the entire race.

Kevin didn't have a motive, as such. He acted out of sheer instinct - he probably didn't even know what he was doing. Pure, unthinking, automatic rage. He even admitted that he "went insane" with grief. So if he can't think clearly, then he can't have a motive.

Who knows - until that time, Kevin may not have even known he was capable of destroying an entire species.
 
Kevin didn't have a motive, as such. He acted out of sheer instinct - he probably didn't even know what he was doing. Pure, unthinking, automatic rage. He even admitted that he "went insane" with grief. So if he can't think clearly, then he can't have a motive.

Who knows - until that time, Kevin may not have even known he was capable of destroying an entire species.

So it was 2nd degree genocide instead of 1st degree, a crime of passion. That doesn't make it better.
 
Kevin didn't have a motive, as such. He acted out of sheer instinct - he probably didn't even know what he was doing. Pure, unthinking, automatic rage. He even admitted that he "went insane" with grief. So if he can't think clearly, then he can't have a motive.

Who knows - until that time, Kevin may not have even known he was capable of destroying an entire species.

That was the point. He wanted to be a true pacifist but in a moment of grief and anger, all his moral standards were abandoned. With absolute power all humans are capable of such destruction. That's a classic Star Trek theme.
 
One thing I think gets overlooked about this episode is just how good a detective Picard is. He pieced together everything himself, and kind of kept the cards close to his chest.

Morality questions aside, this was a great showcase for Captain Picard and why he deserved to be in that chair.
 
I know this would ruin the story I kinda wonder with Kevin's level of power why didn't he just create a permanent forcefield around her, create a bunch of fake bodyguards at all times, instant teleport her away at any sign of danger, or do something at all with his magic powers to protect her
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top