Was Picard wrong in I,Borg?

[RobertScorpio]

Here's some interesting food for thought. Although I'm not sure there is a direct link (and none was ever inferred) but does anybody else think that there might have been a connection between Hugh's development of "individuality" and the eventual existence of Unimatrix Zero- which ultimately helped undermine the Borg (although it would've nice to have actually seen what happened to the "awake" Borg post-Unimatrix Zero Parts 1 & 2?)

I think it was established in "Descent, Part II" that Hugh's "individualized" Borg were cut off from the Collective by the time Lore found them. If the Borg cut them all off, I doubt they would have able to give rise to Unimatrix Zero.

Oh, they could have found some way around that. But that would have required "continuity", a big no/no behind the scenes at voyager.

Rob

 

[Anwar]

And anyways, all of Hugh's individualized Borg were supposed to have never been individuals before: They were the Borg babies we saw in "Q Who?". The Unimatrix Zero Borg were all assimilated ones, and Unimatrix Zero seemed to only apply to them (the leftovers of their individuality fighting against the Collective).

 

[JediKnightButler]

And anyways, all of Hugh's individualized Borg were supposed to have never been individuals before: They were the Borg babies we saw in "Q Who?". The Unimatrix Zero Borg were all assimilated ones, and Unimatrix Zero seemed to only apply to them (the leftovers of their individuality fighting against the Collective).

How do we know that Hugh, et. al were the Borg babies we saw in "Q-Who"? I realize, of course, anything is possible, however. In regards to a possible connection between "I, Borg" and "Unimatrix Zero", there probably is no real connection but I thought it was interesting how both episodes deal with Borg individuality. It's too bad there was never any follow up with Hugh OR the "Borg resistance" from Voyager. I was at least thinking that the "Borg resistance" might show up in "Endgame" and help the Voyager crew out but, of course, they did not.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But read my question CLOSER. If Q was able to guarentee that WW2 would not happen, at all, would you do it. If he took you to Stalins house when he was a baby and offered you a "two for the price of one" deal, and total peace would come to Earth, would you take the life of those two or not?

No, because killing babies is always wrong. I don't care who they will grow up to be.

And besides, why should I trust Q?

 

[Rush Limborg]

But read my question CLOSER. If Q was able to guarentee that WW2 would not happen, at all, would you do it. If he took you to Stalins house when he was a baby and offered you a "two for the price of one" deal, and total peace would come to Earth, would you take the life of those two or not?

No, because killing babies is always wrong. I don't care who they will grow up to be.

And besides, why should I trust Q?

Good point here. You don't know what a baby will grow up to be--which is why it's always "better safe than sorry".

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ And it's likely that even if you do kill Hitler or Stalin or whoever, someone else will take his place. You could go back in time, kill Hitler, then come back and hear "Why didn't you kill Whiffenberger like we asked you to?" or something like that.

 

[USS KG5]

So, I will mark both your answers down as no.

But read my question CLOSER. If Q was able to guarentee that WW2 would not happen, at all, would you do it. If he took you to Stalins house when he was a baby and offered you a "two for the price of one" deal, and total peace would come to Earth, would you take the life of those two or not?

Rob

To quote Boris Johnson "If we had some Ham we could have some Ham and Eggs, if we had any Eggs..."

The Straw Man approach doesn't help.

 

[Renvar]

This is an argument that will live in infamy in the Trek universe. In this case, there is no question in my mind that Picard made the right decision under the circumstances. Let me say that again. Under the circumstances. The threat to Earth, for the time being, had been averted. Borg activity was negligible; a Cube wasn't lurking around every nebula. At this point, Picard was faced with a decision. But there are many variables to the decision that are not easily noticed because of the nature of the story.

For one thing, there is no direct evidence to suggest that the paradox virus would have resulted in the destruction of the Borg. Sure, Data and Geordi put on a good presentation when they unveil it to Picard, but really, they expect us to believe that after only a few encounters with the Borg they've managed to circumvent every anti-virus technology they posess? For all we know, all this virus would have done is make the the Borg that much more interested in assimilating us, since we came up with such an inventive form of resistance. A fleet of Cubes assimilate Earth, and we all trash Picard for ever considering using the virus. I'm not saying it would have happened this way, but considering what we know of the Borg now and especially the insatiable nature of the Queen, you have to admit it's a possibility.

As to those that posed the hypothetical scenario of "If the Borg were in our solar system and the virus was our only chance to stop them", I would say yes, absolutely. Under those circumstances, we have nothing to lose. But you have to remember, those are different variables than what was going on in I, Borg.

Also, consider Nachayev's position. She's as much a politician as she is a Starfleet officer, that much is clear. When she tore into Picard in Decent, she was more than likely taking out the stress she felt from her superiors on Earth who just wanted the whole Borg threat to quietly die. If the Hugh incident had occurred prior to Wolf 359, I would not be surprised in the least if she had a very different attitude about Picard's decision.

 

[Mojochi]

In 6 pages, I've not seen anyone write what I think. So I'll write it. They were ALL wrong. Picard, Crusher, Nachayev, everybody....... except Worf, & the tragic thing is, that Picard knew it. Worf's suggestion was to kill it, & make it look like it had died in the crash. That's a true security man talking, right there

You do that, only if you think you can unequivocally leave no trace behind. (Which they could probably accomplish) Otherwise, you just leave well enough alone, & disappear. Picard knew, just like Worf, that the thing should never have been brought on board. Crusher let her Hippocratic oath get in the way, & the rest is history. (You're an officer too, Doc) It was dying when they got there, anyway. Maybe conduct a quick investigation to discern how & why it crashed, just to be certain that it wasn't somehow connected to you or yours.... Then, get lost!

The suggested invasive virus? Just provocation. No evidence, beyond Geordi's observations of Hugh, to irrefutably prove it would work, & solid logic suggesting that, were it unsuccessful, it would provoke the Borg, into another attack, which had been conspicuously on hold for quite some time, short of a 5 unit scout cube. The likely reason for that standoff, was the Enterprise crew's rather ingenious defensive stand at Earth, in BoBW

The Hugh-borne individuality virus? Also provocation! When the Borg had to cut links with Hugh's mothership, it would have likely provoked them. It could easily have been the catalyst for the Borg mounting their rather unconventional attack, on Earth & then its time line, in 1st Contact

Starfleet's position has always been that they will not start a war. That's not just because of some ideological love of all lifeforms, but from a more practical understanding that fighting wars gets your people killed, & jeopardizes your way of life. So, why on Earth, would you want to deliberately provoke the bloody BORG, under any circumstances? Fear! No Sir! You leave that bastard dying right where he is, & if you can help him get dead quicker, with out any endangerment, then, by all means do so, but whatever you do, don't go getting your nuts in a sling.

The irony is, that Worf's abruptly dismissed suggestion seemed either overly simplistic, or unacceptably dispassionate, at the time. There are times, when simplicity & dispassion are worthwhile attributes. That was one of them. I'd have had Worf & Riker drag her from the site. Let her bitch, if she wants. Write a formal protest. It'll make good fodder for an admiral's trash file

 

[SpyOne]

My 2 cents:
As Picard pointed out, Hugh was not a Borg anymore. He used personal pronouns. He refused an order from Locutus, which should have been impossible.

While it might be permissible to infect a Borg drone with a virus that would hopefully kill the collective(or most of it, anyway), doing so to some random stranger is totally out.
There was an episode of Voyager where some people had genetically engineered a child as a weapon against the Borg, with the plan being that the Borg would assimilate him and the disease he carried would attack the collective, and the reaction of the Starfleet folks was not "Cool! Wish we'd thought of that," it was horror, and "How could you do that to a child?"
Note that it was important that the child not know he was a weapon, since when he got assimilated the collective would learn everything he knew.

Hugh was an individual, and no longer a Borg. It would be horribly wrong to use him against the Borg against his will or without his permission, and if he knows what you are planning it won't work.

If Admiral Nacheyev was so sure that Picard's plan was the right thing to do, why not develop the virus and infect some random Vulcan you kidnapped, then dump him somewhere the Borg are sure to find him. Because that would be wrong.
Admiral Nacheyev believes Picard should have gone ahead because she does not believe that Hugh was no longer a Borg.

For that reason, I do not believe Picard was wrong. Hugh was no longer a Borg drone, he was an individual, he use personal pronouns, he recognized Picard as Locutus and still refused an order from him. Hugh was not a Borg.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There's no indication that when Hugh's cube was cut off from the collective, it 'provoked' the Borg. Indeed, by definition that is impossible, since it was *Hugh's* group who were individuals and prone to such things. The Borg, by excising that cube, were merely sterilizing an infection - that's how they'd look at it.

 

[Mojochi]

There's no indication that when Hugh's cube was cut off from the collective, it 'provoked' the Borg. Indeed, by definition that is impossible, since it was *Hugh's* group who were individuals and prone to such things. The Borg, by excising that cube, were merely sterilizing an infection - that's how they'd look at it.

No specific indication, true, but it's still a sound logical premise, whether they made a purposeful reference to it being the cause of the 2nd Borg invasion, or not. Alerting the Borg to your presence is provocation enough, for them to begin assimilation procedures, as is evident, following the events of Q-Who.

Within a year, The Borg attempt to assimilate Earth, and fail, because Data hacked their system. Following that outcome, there is an absence of Borg activity, until they discover Hugh's scout ship, a couple years later. It stands to reason that, a primary motive for not immediately sending another Borg invasion force, after their 1st attempt, was because that 1st conflict ended with them being seriously compromised. Good reason to stand off the invasion

All I'm saying is, if you're looking to avoid being stung, you don't kick the hive. Taking a Borg onto your ship & then releasing it to infect its mothership, whatever the infection, is undue provocation. It's a second instance of the UFP dismantling a Borg cube, & interfering with the collective, in an attempt to destroy the collective

Just look & listen to them at the beginning of I Borg. They all know they are making a big mistake taking that Borg from the crash site.... everybody but Crusher, who is too busy thinking like a doctor, instead of an officer, & right from the start, Picard's only thought was to use the drone against them. Provocative, especially for a group that stands against that kind of behavior, & Picard knows exactly what he's done at the end of the episode. He calls it "Pernicious". Too bad it wasn't 100% effective, because the result is that they may now see you as active threat, trying to dismantle their collective = bad times for you

 

[Mr Troi]

Its quite funny how there are people advocating genocide and murder in this thread and they're supposed to be Next Generation fans! You guys have missed the point of this show in the most spectacular way possible . I even read a post where someone actually had to point out that killing babies was wrong .

 

[Nardpuncher]

Its quite funny how there are people advocating genocide and murder in this thread and they're supposed to be Next Generation fans! You guys have missed the point of this show in the most spectacular way possible . I even read a post where someone actually had to point out that killing babies was wrong .

One question for you is: Would you kill a Borg that was coming at you? What if another one came? Then another? When would you stop and just give up or run away? Would you destroy a Borg cube headed for a populated planet? What about two cubes? What percentage of the Borg are you comfortable destroying? 100% just isn't fair?
Well, in this fictional Trek universe we're given a nice and clean option of doing that to all of them because they all act exactly the same. They each would pose the exact same threat as every other one.
Also, even if you think it's something you wouldn't do, Picard should have done it and then gone and sought counseling or had a beer or just shut up and the rest of the Federation or even the galaxy would rename whole planets after him.
Oh, and please learn the difference between killing and murder!

 

[Mr Troi]

One question for you is: Would you kill a Borg that was coming at you? What if another one came? Then another? When would you stop and just give up or run away? Would you destroy a Borg cube headed for a populated planet? What about two cubes? What percentage of the Borg are you comfortable destroying? 100% just isn't fair?
Well, in this fictional Trek universe we're given a nice and clean option of doing that to all of them because they all act exactly the same. They each would pose the exact same threat as every other one.
Also, even if you think it's something you wouldn't do, Picard should have done it and then gone and sought counseling or had a beer or just shut up and the rest of the Federation or even the galaxy would rename whole planets after him.
Oh, and please learn the difference between killing and murder!

That was more than one question.

I see your point but I think we are talking about two completely different scenarios and this has already been debated here. Trekker 4747 explained that the Federation was in a "cold war" with the Borg at the time of the I,Borg episode and not involved in the type of situation that you have described. You should go back and read page 2 and page 3 and that ought to explain it for you.
Also JRS pointed out that severed Borg drones can return to their former state - like Picard and Seven of Nine. The problem is that a person who has been assimilated by the Borg is not killed (or murdered) and his memory has not been erased. The individual continues to exist but he is overwhelmed by the collective. The objective has to be to try to liberate the individuals from the collective rather than destroying them. This is a very difficult thing to do though. However, it is a big problem for those who argue that the Federation should have wiped them all out.
You ask me to please learn the difference between killing and murder? My comment about someone having to point out that killing babies was wrong came from a post written by Mr. Laser Beam and he wrote: "No, because killing babies is always wrong."
My point was that advocating genocide, murder or killing babies - things like that - goes against the ethos of Star Trek: The Next Generation in the most clear-cut way possible. It would be impossible to miss the point of the show more.

 

[Nardpuncher]

One question for you is: Would you kill a Borg that was coming at you? What if another one came? Then another? When would you stop and just give up or run away? Would you destroy a Borg cube headed for a populated planet? What about two cubes? What percentage of the Borg are you comfortable destroying? 100% just isn't fair?
Well, in this fictional Trek universe we're given a nice and clean option of doing that to all of them because they all act exactly the same. They each would pose the exact same threat as every other one.
Also, even if you think it's something you wouldn't do, Picard should have done it and then gone and sought counseling or had a beer or just shut up and the rest of the Federation or even the galaxy would rename whole planets after him.
Oh, and please learn the difference between killing and murder!

That was more than one question.

I see your point but I think we are talking about two completely different scenarios and this has already been debated here. Trekker 4747 explained that the Federation was in a "cold war" with the Borg at the time of the I,Borg episode and not involved in the type of situation that you have described. You should go back and read page 2 and page 3 and that ought to explain it for you.
Also JRS pointed out that severed Borg drones can return to their former state - like Picard and Seven of Nine. The problem is that a person who has been assimilated by the Borg is not killed (or murdered) and his memory has not been erased. The individual continues to exist but he is overwhelmed by the collective. The objective has to be to try to liberate the individuals from the collective rather than destroying them. This is a very difficult thing to do though. However, it is a big problem for those who argue that the Federation should have wiped them all out.
You ask me to please learn the difference between killing and murder? My comment about someone having to point out that killing babies was wrong came from a post written by Mr. Laser Beam and he wrote: "No, because killing babies is always wrong."
My point was that advocating genocide, murder or killing babies - things like that - goes against the ethos of Star Trek: The Next Generation in the most clear-cut way possible. It would be impossible to miss the point of the show more.

Ha! You also saw my bad habit of saying "That's the one thing!" then I go on to list 5 things that either irk me or make me laug or whatever. Now I'm doing it withj questions! I have to quit that.

 

[cbspock]

Of course Picard couldn't man up and make the hard decision when the Borg were the bad assed bad guys of Star Trek, before they were changed and wusified in future encounters. Given Q Who, Best of Both Worlds, Picard should not have hesitated in wiping out the Borg. Sisko would have done it.



-Chris

 

[Anwar]

Except it wouldn't have worked, and if anything it would've made the Borg threat WORSE since they'd respond to attempted genocide with a REAL invasion.

 

[LaBarre]

Its quite funny how there are people advocating genocide and murder in this thread and they're supposed to be Next Generation fans! You guys have missed the point of this show in the most spectacular way possible . I even read a post where someone actually had to point out that killing babies was wrong .

I've read the responses to your post, but still wanted to go back to the original as my starting point, Mr Troi.

You make a fundamental philosophical point (and dare I say, theological to boot) here.

I'm glad that you did and support it wholeheartedly.

 

[Mr Troi]

I've read the responses to your post, but still wanted to go back to the original as my starting point, Mr Troi.

You make a fundamental philosophical point (and dare I say, theological to boot) here.

I'm glad that you did and support it wholeheartedly.

It is also interesting to read how these crimes are being justified: "they are just automatons", "they are not individuals", "they are zombies", "they are not a race", "I'm not sure if it is even genocide".
The implication is that they are inferior and so we can kill them with a clear conscience.