You do realise in most of the English speaking world tabling means to present a motion for consideration.
The Worst Decision by a Starfleet Cpt/Cdr.
- Thread starter Azure-Dynamo
- Start date
You do realise in most of the English speaking world tabling means to present a motion for consideration.
Do you mean "What if it's a stranger?", O Lord Protector of the Mother Tongue?
Asked and answered for the most part, though it's a good question; and of course it's not always going to apply to everyone.
I was thinking of another scenario, in which a mother and infant are lost in the deep wilderness and surrounded by wolves. If the mother protects the baby with her life, the wolves will attack her then go for the helpless infant. Does the mother throw the baby to the wolves at that point, and try to get away? Or do they die together? I sincerely do not know, but I suspect with an infant, it's possible that she could reason that she could try to survive to have another baby.
And no, I am not advocating throwing babies at wolves, to any Marching Megaphone Paranoia Brigade who may be lurking.
Babies are mostly fatty.
Last edited:
I think you're referring to something being "On the table."
To table actually means the opposite:
table a motion
to postpone the discussion of something during a meeting. Mary suggested that they should table the motion. The motion for a new policy was tabled until the next meeting.
EDIT: Oh Macleod I actually see you are using British English ("realise"), and it seems there you also use "Table" as a verb in the sense you described. But I'm using American English, where the verb takes on the exact opposite meaning, as a synonym for "postpone". And it can certainly be argued that England is the authority of the English language; but it can also be argued that language evolves.
Thanks very much for the insight!
Last edited:
Let's transplant the argument to the real world. Would it be okay to have a few people sitting on a mineral that could cure cancer and have them not share it with the rest of the world? Just because they were the first to stumble on it.
I've watched people die from cancer. If there was a cure, I wouldn't be worried about moving people to get at it. I really don't care if they got there first.
Do you mean "What if it's a stranger?", O Lord Protector of the Mother Tongue?
Asked and answered for the most part, though it's a good question; and of course it's not always going to apply to everyone.
I was thinking of another scenario, in which a mother and infant are lost in the deep wilderness and surrounded by wolves. If the mother protects the baby with her life, the wolves will attack her then go for the helpless infant. Does the mother throw the baby to the wolves at that point, and try to get away? Or do they die together? I sincerely do not know, but I suspect with an infant, it's possible that she could reason that she could try to survive to have another baby.
And no, I am not advocating throwing babies at wolves, to any Marching Megaphone Paranoia Brigade who may be lurking.
Babies are mostly fatty.
I suspect she tries to save the helpless infant even if it costs both their lives.
^Well it seems reasonable. It's certainly not the kind of reaction a person has time to think about.
I forgot to add that without the mother present, the infant has no hope of surviving in the wilderness alone, it can't even walk. So if the mother dies, the infant dies anyway, of exposure. But if the infant dies, the mother could still survive.
So is there some point where the mother saves herself in the hopes of possibly bearing another child? Or does the mother sacrifice herself in a forlorn struggle?
I forgot to add that without the mother present, the infant has no hope of surviving in the wilderness alone, it can't even walk. So if the mother dies, the infant dies anyway, of exposure. But if the infant dies, the mother could still survive.
So is there some point where the mother saves herself in the hopes of possibly bearing another child? Or does the mother sacrifice herself in a forlorn struggle?
The real world with a super mineral that cures cancer? Sure... I'd hope there would be some negotiations instead of just unilateral decision to rob the mineral.
And the situation is not analogous anyway. We are not merely talking about stealing resources. We are talking about destroying the entire Ba'ku homeworld and irrecoverably damaging their culture. Not to mention of robbing them of their immortality.
The Federation could have negotiated with the Ba'ku the right to put a colony on the other side of the planet or just put a hospital and research station on the orbit.
@Triskelion, the whole wolf example is silly. Wolves do not attack people, but if they for some bizarre reason decided to, there's no fucking way that any of the people would escape.
Longinus, thanks for the generalizations; though I don't think these are quite germaine to the issue at hand. If it helps, consider the wolf as a symbolic threat.
One, Starfleet was going out of its way to not disturb the Ba'ku culture. I mean, if immortality is the defining trait of your culture then it wasn't much of a culture to begin with. Two, I agree with Dougherty, the Ba'ku weren't meant to be immortal. If they were, they would've been immortal when they showed up in the Briar Patch.
But, beyond that, they obviously didn't see their immortality as something worth protecting. At least until they found a rube to do it for them...
Meant by whom? How would you feel if your life expectancy would suddenly be cut in half? I mean at the stone age people usually didn't live to be forty, so people obviously weren't meant to live longer than that anyway.
This is like saying people who don't own guns deserve to be burglarised as they didn't find their wealth worth protecting.
Taking by force what does not belong to you is wrong, this should not be so difficult concept.
People shouldn't be allowed to suffer if resources are out there that can help them, this should not be so difficult a concept.
Also, we don't really know how what the Ba'ku would've received in the way of treatments from the meta-phasic particles.
In theory, I agree; we should strive towards a society where resources are shared equitably. But someone trying to 'share' someone else's resources by force is still not an acceptable way to do it.
And what is suffering and where do you draw the line? Maybe some Federation planets will suffer if SF has not enough ships to help and protect them, so Kirk should have taken the Halkans' dilithium by force, so that SF can build more ships? The Federation seems to have higher standard of living than Cardassians, so perhaps Cardassians are morally justified if they want to conquer some UFP planets in order to share some resources? And obviously the Ba'ku will suffer if you drastically shorten their lifespan, how does this factor in this?
But we're not talking about resources that a readily available all over the galaxy, like dilithium. We're talking about something that can help the health of billions and is located in one area. Which is just in an entirely different ballpark.
We have six hundred people who are usurping the resources of an entire planet for themselves. That, to me, is simply wrong. I don't really care if they stumbled upon. It is also obvious that they aren't interested in sharing the planet with those with differing opinions on how life should be lived or else they wouldn't have kicked the S'ona off the planet to begin with. And it really is a numbers game. With a planet with hundreds of thousands or even millions, the logistics simply don't work out to move them.
Sucks to be them.
No one tried to negotiate with the Ba'ku in the first place. And if we were talking about using the uninhabited parts of the planet or putting stations on the orbit, I could see value in the arguments that it is unreasonable for such a small number of people to hog an entire planet. But this is not about that, this is about forcibly removing them, dooming them to die and destroying the planet.
One of the many reasons people have claimed Star Trek: Insurrection isn't a very good movie.
If they banished their own children to die, what makes you think they would want a bunch of aliens around gulping up their meta-phasic particles?
Life if change and no culture is monolithic. They had their own private North Korea and the Ba'ku showed no signs of wanting to give it up. Which is fine, but their time simply ran out. The Ba'ku are simply lucky the S'ona took the collector idea to the Federation instead of the Klingons, Romulans or Dominion. Who would've went in their and collected the particles, scorching the surface of the planet with no regards for the people living there.
Which is valid criticism. But this discussion was about the Picard's decision and not about the quality of the film.
Maybe they wouldn't but their life wouldn't need to be affected in any way. And as I said, as long as the Ba'ku are left alone I can see at least some validity in the arguments that others should be able to use the rest of the planet and its orbit, even if the Ba'ku opposed it. In essence, instead of treating the Ba'ku as a planetary government, treat them as one nation on a planet, controlling the area they actually inhabit. This does still seem somewhat morally dubious, but at least no one would be actually harmed.
"Be thankful that we only mugged you and stole your stuff, some others might have killed you too!" Yeah, that's some moral high ground you've got there...
Think of it what you will. Life isn't easy, nor fair.
Ultimately, where wildernesses are concerned, your property will extend only as far as you can protect it (directly or indirectly, as with a jurisdictional justice system).
Consider Bajor, who were compelled to either fight or be enslaved. Pacificism vs Survival - survival wins. They did not defeat Cardassia with pacifism. They had to become bloody warmongers to do it. That they didn't recognize this possibility when shaping their culture was nothing short of guilty gross negligence.
With such a miracle cure-all freely available, the Ba'Ku would eventually be overrun with squatters and no meaningful way to stem the march of migration. Again: survival vs pacifism.
Imagining a honey-dipped future free of the forces of global migration is one thing. Trying to package it after the fact as a valid, sweeping prior claim is another. Right or wrong - good luck, don't hold your breath.
Right or wrong, once the secret was out, 600 vs billions was never going to last.
Consider Bajor, who were compelled to either fight or be enslaved. Pacificism vs Survival - survival wins. They did not defeat Cardassia with pacifism. They had to become bloody warmongers to do it. That they didn't recognize this possibility when shaping their culture was nothing short of guilty gross negligence.
With such a miracle cure-all freely available, the Ba'Ku would eventually be overrun with squatters and no meaningful way to stem the march of migration. Again: survival vs pacifism.
Imagining a honey-dipped future free of the forces of global migration is one thing. Trying to package it after the fact as a valid, sweeping prior claim is another. Right or wrong - good luck, don't hold your breath.
Right or wrong, once the secret was out, 600 vs billions was never going to last.
Last edited:
But half way through the movie the situation was made clear to them by Picard (after the he brought the captain's yacht down). At this point the Baku realizing the immense good the particle could be for billions of others, could have agreed to voluntarily leave the planet.
Which they didn't, The Baku then became selfish assholes.
Nothing says that after relocation the Baku wouldn't have enjoyed the same access to the particles as billions of other, they simply wouldn't of had exclusive use.
Or is a defining characteristic of their unique culture that only they can benefit from the particles, instead of sharing them?
.
