Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really work

[EEE]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

It was a Technical Manuel I read years ago, though if they changed the statement since then I suppose that's valid.

The only tech manual that would come close to "counting" for the purposes of your "the creators" statement would be the one by Franz Joseph. And even that one is rumoured to have angered Roddenberry (something about Roddenberry never would've allowed any ships with odd numbers of engines).

I think if a transporter were more than a plot device, it would kill the original person, if a "soul" does exist (and who doesn't really want one to exist... especially as you put on the decades). I've never seen a satisfactory definition of what/why/where/how of a soul. Just lots of differing theories. If it can't be defined, I doubt it could be "locked on to."

As stated above, even if everybody is happy with the duplicate (including the duplicate, that still leaves the original dead.

No way I'd ever use one. What if a fly got in there with you? Or David Heddison? Or Jeff Goldblum?

 

[Anwar]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

They mentioned stuff about how the transporter saves your individual patterns and stuff, meaning if a bug did get in there with you it would have it's own pattern saved in the computer individually from yours.

Of course, this is all overlooking the immense power and computer processing ability it would take to run something like the transporter.

 

[EEE]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

They mentioned stuff about how the transporter saves your individual patterns and stuff, meaning if a bug did get in there with you it would have it's own pattern saved in the computer individually from yours.

Which is a worthless assurance given the subject of this thread! (if not the fifth Star Trek ever filmed!)

 

[Anwar]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

Whatever, I'm just pointing out what's said in the show itself.

 

[plynch]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

He may have been more than the sum of his parts, but those "parts" needed rescuing.

Those parts did not exist. Nothing unreal exists. How could something(s) nonexistent need rescuing?

 

[Kathryn_Janeway]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

I think you misunderstand, when I said

"He may have been more than the sum of his parts, but those "parts" needed rescuing".

I was referring to Tuvok and Neelix.

 

[DonIago]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

So if a couple died during childbirth (yes, we're being hypothetical), and you could _possibly_ (I don't recall the episode stating there would be a 100% success rate) bring them back by killing the baby...that's worth doing?

 

[EEE]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

So if a couple died during childbirth (yes, we're being hypothetical), and you could _possibly_ (I don't recall the episode stating there would be a 100% success rate) bring them back by killing the baby...that's worth doing?

Bad analogy. A baby's existence wouldn't depend on the death of both parents. (whereas that is the only way Tuvix could exist) Not to mention intent... the intent of the act that created the baby was to procreate (whether the parents thought so or not). Tuvix was never intended to exist.

 

[DonIago]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

Well, in the example I proposed the baby's existence _does_ depend on the death of both parents. And how does intention matter? People get pregnant by accident, Tuvix was created by accident...

 

[EEE]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

Well, in the example I proposed the baby's existence _does_ depend on the death of both parents.

What situation could possibly require that for the birth of a baby?

And how does intention matter? People get pregnant by accident, Tuvix was created by accident...

Repeating:

the intent of the act that created the baby was to procreate (whether the parents thought so or not). Tuvix was never intended to exist.

People don't get pregnant by accident. They had to do something for it to happen. Falling off a ladder is an accident. Sex is not.

 

[DonIago]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

It's called a hypothetical for a reason, you know.

People _do_ get pregnant by accident. Condoms break, for instance.

 

[EEE]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

It's called a hypothetical for a reason, you know.

If you're going to use science fiction/fantasy in an analogy to help people relate to, or understand a science fiction idea, you lose the point of an analogy.

People _do_ get pregnant by accident. Condoms break, for instance.

Nature wants everybody to procreate. Nature made sex enjoyable and gave people the drive to do it... to procreate. The intent of sex is to procreate (Period). It is a primal instinct. Whether the potential parents play Russian Roulette or not. Tuvix was not intended to exist.

If potential parents don't intend on having a baby, don't have sex. Anything else is gambling they can circumvent the intention of sex (and gambling is not accidental).

Try a different analogy. I'd really like to hear a plausible one! (really!)

 

[DonIago]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

Not to change the subject, but I would be curious to hear how my being gay figures into nature wanting me to procreate. Seems somewhat counter-intuitive.

 

[EEE]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

Not to change the subject, but I would be curious to hear how my being gay figures into nature wanting me to procreate. Seems somewhat counter-intuitive.

Where you use your procreation-based urges, is not germane to the subject at hand. ...can't come up with a better analogy yet? *grin*

 

[DonIago]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

Honestly? Not all that interested in trying. I feel my analogy was sufficient, but perhaps you can come up with a better one as you feel mine is lacking?

 

[Kathryn_Janeway]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

Homosexuality is one of nature's mechanisms to prevent over-population.

Whether a situation is hypothetical or real, there should always be the basic principle of possibility.

and to answer your situation, if the baby's survival did depend on the death of the parents and vice versa, then it would obviously depend on many factors including but not limited to the health of each individual and on some level and in Voyager's situation it would depend on their importance and contribution to the ship.

This is of course my opinion.

 

[DonIago]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

Kill an Ensign to save two Lieutenants?

Yikes.

Then again, I've never had to do triage.

 

[Tanagra]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

The TNG episode with Tom Riker definitely seems to support this idea... he was a total clone, 'replicated' from the transporter pattern of the original Will Riker. Just an accident created two clones, instead of the usual one.

Remind me never to use a transporter.

 

[Thestral]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

I think you misunderstand, when I said

"He may have been more than the sum of his parts, but those "parts" needed rescuing".

I was referring to Tuvok and Neelix.

And I think you misunderstand, when plynch said

"Those parts did not exist. Nothing unreal exists."

He was referring to the fact that so long as Tuvix existed, Tuvok and Neelix did not. Those "parts" did not need rescuing because those "parts" had ceased to be. You cannot rescue something that no longer exists. Janeway killed Tuvix and parcelled him up into recreations of Tuvok and Neelix. The real Tuvok and Neelix died in that accident as sure as the Miles O'Brien we knew for many years died several hours in the future and was replaced by his counterpart from the future.

Homosexuality is one of nature's mechanisms to prevent over-population.

Ummm... what?

 

[Brit]

Re: Tuvix and its disturbing implications for how transports really wo

He was referring to the fact that so long as Tuvix existed, Tuvok and Neelix did not. Those "parts" did not need rescuing because those "parts" had ceased to be. You cannot rescue something that no longer exists.

But the potential of their existence does, just as surely as the potential of Tuvix exists. There have been other transporter accidents. There is probably some kind of unwritten agreement that should a transporter accident occur, every effort would be made to return the individuals to their original state, or you might not have gotten anyone to use it in the first place.

Just because you "liked" Tuvix, isn't reason enough to abandon Tuvok and Neelix, they had every reason and probably more reason due to relationships and accomplishments, to live than Tuvix did in the first place. You can argue this around and around in circles because every argument either for or against Tuvix is colored by the viewer's own prejudices.

We are not talking about one life at the expense of two; we are talking about one life at the expense of the lives that each one of those two touched. Tuvok's wife and children had more right to a living husband and father than Tuvix had the right to remain. Kes had more of a right to have Neelix back than Tuvix had the right to remain. The Voyager crew had the right to an intact officer in Tuvok and an intact guide in Neelix than Tuvix had the right to remain. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Janeway made the only decision she could, and I think she made the right one.


Brit