TOS- Overrated?

[horatio83]

What I find so interesting in this thread is that folks who are against the TOSish PD case from INS are also against the TNGish PD case from Homeward and seem to prefer TOS to TNG.
In other words, TNG bashing based on anti-intellectualism, intellectual laziness concerning the problem interspecies ethics and advocating imperialism seem to be correlated.
Fascinating ...

 

[BillJ]

What I find so interesting in this thread is that folks who are against the TOSish PD case from INS are also against the TNGish PD case from Homeward and seem to prefer TOS to TNG.
In other words, TNG bashing based on anti-intellectualism, intellectual laziness concerning the problem interspecies ethics and advocating imperialism seem to be correlated.
Fascinating ...

What's so funny to me is that the TNG fans don't seem to understand just how "right-wing" the TNG version of the Prime Directive is. It is essentially every species or alliance for themselves.

While the TOS version is actually the anti-imperialist version, it's your planet and your lives to do with as you please. But we may pull some strings from behind the scenes to ensure you don't get smashed by an asteroid whether you know it's coming or not.

Way to evade Picard's dilemma...

 

[sonak]

What I find so interesting in this thread is that folks who are against the TOSish PD case from INS are also against the TNGish PD case from Homeward and seem to prefer TOS to TNG.
In other words, TNG bashing based on anti-intellectualism, intellectual laziness concerning the problem interspecies ethics and advocating imperialism seem to be correlated.
Fascinating ...

What's so funny to me is that the TNG fans don't seem to understand just how "right-wing" the TNG version of the Prime Directive is. It is essentially every species or alliance for themselves.

While the TOS version is actually the anti-imperialist version, it's your planet and your lives to do with as you please. But we may pull some strings from behind the scenes to ensure you don't get smashed by an asteroid whether you know it's coming or not.

Way to evade Picard's dilemma...

yeah, this is pretty much it in a nutshell. The TNG-era PD is basically right-wing Social Darwinism dressed up in the cloak of "anti-imperialism."(since imperalism, as we know from Horatio and others, can pretty much mean whatever you want it to mean)

 

[Anwar]

What's so funny to me is that the TNG fans don't seem to understand just how "right-wing" the TNG version of the Prime Directive is. It is essentially every species or alliance for themselves.

It can be heartless, yes. I've gone to lengths pointing out how these "helping hand" type things can spiral out of control though.

While the TOS version is actually the anti-imperialist version, it's your planet and your lives to do with as you please. But we may pull some strings from behind the scenes to ensure you don't get smashed by an asteroid whether you know it's coming or not.

Way to evade Picard's dilemma...

They didn't have any problems making deals with non-FTL civilizations that weren't very different from pre-Medievel societies (Friday's Child, for example) that would probably lead to dependent Vassal Worlds in the future (all the better for the Feds, with their dilithium) but I suppose we can cut them slack because of the Klingon situation.

 

[sonak]

What's so funny to me is that the TNG fans don't seem to understand just how "right-wing" the TNG version of the Prime Directive is. It is essentially every species or alliance for themselves.

It can be heartless, yes. I've gone to lengths pointing out how these "helping hand" type things can spiral out of control though.

While the TOS version is actually the anti-imperialist version, it's your planet and your lives to do with as you please. But we may pull some strings from behind the scenes to ensure you don't get smashed by an asteroid whether you know it's coming or not.

Way to evade Picard's dilemma...

They didn't have any problems making deals with non-FTL civilizations that weren't very different from pre-Medievel societies (Friday's Child, for example) that would probably lead to dependent Vassal Worlds in the future (all the better for the Feds, with their dilithium) but I suppose we can cut them slack because of the Klingon situation.

I don't understand why you insist that intervening would have to be an all-or-nothing precedent.

let's look at it from a modern perspective and humanitarian intervention. There was a humanitarian intervention backed by military force in the Kosovo campaign in '99. However, there was no intervention in Rwanda, and no large-scale military one in Darfur. (let's try to avoid debate on motivations or the politics behind intervention, just the recognition that there was intervention in some cases and not others)


from your perspective, this should be baffling. Doesn't one intervention or lack of one guide precedent from there on out?


The answer is of course not. The UFP would not be straitjacketed into specific courses of action by a cettain intervention somewhere. They would make a judgment call based on ethics, logistics, and whether they thought they could accomplish more good than harm.


In other words, they'd be pragmatic and help out if they could. The same thing many of us do in our own daily lives.

 

[Anwar]

let's look at it from a modern perspective and humanitarian intervention.

You can't: whatever kind of interventions we have today, they don't compare to evacuating an entire planetary population and resettling them and making sure they don't die off in the next 50 years.

They would make a judgment call based on ethics, logistics, and whether they thought they could accomplish more good than harm

The general attitude from the Anti-TNG crowd is that the judgement should ALWAYS be "save them, damn the consequences or if we're signing our death warrants doing so!".

 

[sonak]

let's look at it from a modern perspective and humanitarian intervention.

You can't: whatever kind of interventions we have today, they don't compare to evacuating an entire planetary population and resettling them and making sure they don't die off in the next 50 years.

They would make a judgment call based on ethics, logistics, and whether they thought they could accomplish more good than harm

The general attitude from the Anti-TNG crowd is that the judgement should ALWAYS be "save them, damn the consequences or if we're signing our death warrants doing so!".

as to your first point, it's only different as a matter of scale. The UFP has the resources to do what you mentioned.

as to the second point, it's clearly an exaggeration. The TNG Prime Directive has nothing to do with not putting Starfleet personnel at risk or fear of consequences, it's about holding up non-intervention as some kind of noble principle.

 

[Anwar]

as to your first point, it's only different as a matter of scale. The UFP has the resources to do what you mentioned.

Does it? Where are the hundreds, if not thousands, of ships needed for planetary evacuation, transport and resettlement supposed to come from? How long do they have to be held in transit before a compatible world is found that the refugees won't damage with their transplant? How long do the Feds stay with them to make sure they survive?

as to the second point, it's clearly an exaggeration. The TNG Prime Directive has nothing to do with not putting Starfleet personnel at risk or fear of consequences

I'd say it is. There is the non-interference thing, but the main point of the PD is to keep Fleeters from being put into the position where they must be Gods.

 

[BillJ]

A great discussion like this only happens when people are not only passionate about their viewpoint, are able to articulate them and are actually listening to and understand the points being made and are not simply arguing to be arguing.

In that spirit, I'd like to thank Anwar, sonak and horatio83 for a fun and insightful discussion.

I'll leave this particular subtopic with one of my favorite quotes from all of Star Trek:

I don't know how to communicate this, or even if it is possible, but the question of justice has concerned me greatly of late. And I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.

Not every situation squares itself with a rule from a rulebook.

 

[7thsealord]

Well said.

 

[sonak]

A great discussion like this only happens when people are not only passionate about their viewpoint, are able to articulate them and are actually listening to and understand the points being made and are not simply arguing to be arguing.

In that spirit, I'd like to thank Anwar, sonak and horatio83 for a fun and insightful discussion.

I'll leave this particular subtopic with one of my favorite quotes from all of Star Trek:

I don't know how to communicate this, or even if it is possible, but the question of justice has concerned me greatly of late. And I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.

Not every situation squares itself with a rule from a rulebook.

I agree that this has been a good discussion. Threads like these are why I come here.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It was the high point of an unfortunately pretty embarrassing episode, in which drama was manufactured by Picard's incompetence for being insufficiently familiar with the half-naked peoples' legal system.

 

[sonak]

It was the high point of an unfortunately pretty embarrassing episode, in which drama was manufactured by Picard's incompetence for being insufficiently familiar with the half-naked peoples' legal system.

what's funny is that there's a line that SPECIFICALLY says that Lt. Yar or somebody studied their laws. Why put that in there? If the plot depends on the contrivance of not knowing the laws, why make your protagonists look like idiots?

 

[BillJ]

It was the high point of an unfortunately pretty embarrassing episode, in which drama was manufactured by Picard's incompetence for being insufficiently familiar with the half-naked peoples' legal system.

Well, to be fair, he was depending on reports from Riker and Yar when he made his decision to send people ashore. Tough to fault him for the fact that they weren't very thorough.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

True, true. Sigh.

 

[Phantassm]

No need to be condescending. Not everyone is going to share your tastes.

...And there you have it. Not everyone is going to share your tastes as well. This really is an unfair thread and an unfair question. TOS is a product of its time just as all the other shows are and from that perspective it is breathtaking science fiction that dared to be different and single handily laid the foundation for not only the future star trek shows but many of the other science fiction shows that came afterwards. Your views in fact your verdict about TOS is really closed-minded and you obviously fail to see the larger picture. No matter what you might think of the show itself it is the easily the most recognizable assembly of cast and mythology of all the star trek series and frankly, though you seem to appreciate it for its historical value-I do not believe that you really like the show at all. You are just appeasing fans here on this site.

 

[jk82]

Hi everyone I have not had the time to read all your posts but I would like to know if it possible for any of you to recommend some good episodes from TNG and DS9. I do remember watching DS9 a few times way back and even remember Worf had a girl friend! But somehow I thought Quark was Worf's brother! Anyway I am basically ignorant about TNG and DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise, just like I was ignorant about TOS 5 months ago.

In the last few months I could not get enough of TOS, but seriously after watching most episodes over 10 times, I think I need to, I must, move on. My friend recommended a couple episodes: one is about Picard going back in time, changing his course of life, and regretting it, the other is In the Pale Moonlight. Unfortunately I found the first one very dull, with surprisingly uninspiring acting and an unoriginal story, and 10 minutes into Pale Moonlight I guessed the ending and even the last line. LOL So naturally I fell asleep through the rest of the episode and woke up to find out I was right (I did watch the tribbles episode and although it is OK I again found acting less inspiring). I got my friend upset! He said if I don't like these two episodes there is no need to see more since I simply would not accept TNG and DS9. But it is not true! I wanted to like them but there is something missing: energy, perhaps?

Maybe these two episodes are not the best representation of these two shows? Are there better episodes out there? I am practically new to Star Trek and I do want to be better educated. I cannot afford watching all 14 seasons (already lost too much sleep over TOS). So...I'd appreciate it if someone (especially those who love TOS ) can recommend some good episodes to me . The Corbomite Maneuver and Balance of Terror are two of my most favorite episodes but I do not care for big, chaotic special effects-laden battles that much. So episodes that have original/creative plots, inspiring acting, and don't have something exploding every 2 minutes would be the best. Thanks.

 

[horatio83]

So we have pragmatic, discretionary help vs. the horrors of open-ended help.

I think the problem of the former are to be found in a rough comparison with the intraspecies issues Sonak mentioned. We interfered in Yugoslavia and Libya but not in Central Africa because it is closer to "home" and because of economic interests.
Something similar would happen in the Federation, if there is no general rule but you can help at your discretion you will naturally help people who will repay you in some fashion. Or as Carlin would have said it, I stroke you and you stroke me so why not call it the United Strokes of Planets.

About the latter, something as tremendous as helping pre-warp species cannot be a half-a*sed job. In addition to the tremendous resource commitments Anwar wrote about you'd also have to commit personal. You'd have to stay, encounter unanticipated problems and be willing to solve them, independent of the cost of resources, manpower or just sheer will. As T'Pol said so succinctly: "The Vulcans stayed to help Earth ninety years ago. We're still there."

The issue might be compared to charity vs. actual problem solving. You cannot escape these charity posters with a small kid starring sadly at you with its big eyes and whose first impulse isn't "oh my God, let's just help the poor kid".
But instead of enjoying this warm feeling that we get when we give a few bucks per year to charity organizations we might actually make a real difference and e.g. stop subsidizing our agricultural sector so massively or forbid our companies to buy fertile land or water-rich areas in third world countries.
While I am all for this on our planet on which we are all connected it can hardly be our ethical imperative to help trillions of lifeforms in the Quadrant, help meaning again real help instead of merely some quick feel-good-about-ourselves measures.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

...And there you have it. Not everyone is going to share your tastes as well. This really is an unfair thread and an unfair question. TOS is a product of its time just as all the other shows are and from that perspective it is breathtaking science fiction that dared to be different and single handily laid the foundation for not only the future star trek shows but many of the other science fiction shows that came afterwards. Your views in fact your verdict about TOS is really closed-minded and you obviously fail to see the larger picture. No matter what you might think of the show itself it is the easily the most recognizable assembly of cast and mythology of all the star trek series and frankly, though you seem to appreciate it for its historical value-I do not believe that you really like the show at all. You are just appeasing fans here on this site.

That was my quote, not Gary 7's.

It's very ignorant to argue that I am "close minded" simply because I don't share your tastes in Trek. By your math, everyone that dislikes the original series is close minded simply because they don't agree with you. Who's really the more close minded person, hmm?
And what is this "larger picture" that you speak of, that you claim I fail to see? Please enlighten me.
And frankly, I could care less whether you believe I like this show or not. I'm not someone that tries to appease the masses. If I don't like something, then I will say that I don't like it, regardless of whether or not people will agree with me (and vice versa). I've said on multiple occasions that there are episodes of TOS that I really enjoy. If you can't take my word for it, then I'm not going to waste time proving my sincerity.

 

[BillJ]

So we have pragmatic, discretionary help vs. the horrors of open-ended help.

I think the problem of the former are to be found in a rough comparison with the intraspecies issues Sonak mentioned. We interfered in Yugoslavia and Libya but not in Central Africa because it is closer to "home" and because of economic interests.
Something similar would happen in the Federation, if there is no general rule but you can help at your discretion you will naturally help people who will repay you in some fashion. Or as Carlin would have said it, I stroke you and you stroke me so why not call it the United Strokes of Planets.

This is about as pessimistic a view on helping others as anyone could possibly take. You and Anwar take the positions of “if you can't help everyone, then help no one” and “to help may actually cost us something”. Which is morally repugnant on many levels and completely ignores the fact that every situation is different. What is the “after care” costs of deflecting an asteroid?

About the latter, something as tremendous as helping pre-warp species cannot be a half-a*sed job. In addition to the tremendous resource commitments Anwar wrote about you'd also have to commit personal. You'd have to stay, encounter unanticipated problems and be willing to solve them, independent of the cost of resources, manpower or just sheer will. As T'Pol said so succinctly: "The Vulcans stayed to help Earth ninety years ago. We're still there."

You're essentially saying this, “because the Vulcans were unable to control their urges, that no one can forever in perpetuity until the end of time”.

The issue might be compared to charity vs. actual problem solving. You cannot escape these charity posters with a small kid starring sadly at you with its big eyes and whose first impulse isn't "oh my God, let's just help the poor kid".
But instead of enjoying this warm feeling that we get when we give a few bucks per year to charity organizations we might actually make a real difference and e.g. stop subsidizing our agricultural sector so massively or forbid our companies to buy fertile land or water-rich areas in third world countries.
While I am all for this on our planet on which we are all connected it can hardly be our ethical imperative to help trillions of lifeforms in the Quadrant, help meaning again real help instead of merely some quick feel-good-about-ourselves measures.

Where you see obligation, I see opportunity.

If left alone, the Boralaans are dead. Nothing will have come of their existence.

Now if Starfleet had taken the situation seriously, they could've used a unique situation to educate themselves.

A) Can you move a select group of primitive humanoids to another ecosystem and what are the results? How does ecosystem contribute to evolution of a species?

B) What can you learn by tinkering with the Boralaan atmosphere? Your efforts trying to save a primitive species today could have pronounced effects on a Federation world in the future that faced the same or similar catastrophe.

Starfleet exists first and foremost to acquire knowledge.