No. The Borg are responsible for their actions, not Picard, whether or not he made the right decision.
Was Picard wrong in I,Borg?
- Thread starter indolover
- Start date
No. The Borg are responsible for their actions, not Picard, whether or not he made the right decision.
The virus wouldn't have worked, once a cube is infected with anything that could or might threaten the Collective, it's cut off from the Collective. End of problem. As could be inferred from Hugh's cube, it was cut off once Hugh's individuality "infected" the rest of the cube. As stated before, the attempt at infecting the Collective with a virus could have made the Federation more of a threat in the eyes of the Collective.
One last question, if the virus was one that the Borg would have concentrated more and more processing power on as they tried to figure it out, why didn't it cause Data to go out?
One last question, if the virus was one that the Borg would have concentrated more and more processing power on as they tried to figure it out, why didn't it cause Data to go out?
Oh come on! Are you telling me that if you found a remote island/planet populated solely by clones of Wesley Crusher, you WOULDN'T nuke it???
Yeah, unless your're Hat (from South Park)! Hey, he was just defendin' himself!. I even read a post where someone actually had to point out that killing babies was wrong.
Free Hat! Free Hat! Free Hat!
Actually, the Borg Collective is a single sentient being. Picard says it in I, Borg.
BlackestPanther
Lieutenant Commander
This question cannot be answered reliable because the entire premise of The Borg had changed so radically. When we first met them, they didn't assimilate other species. They grew replacement drones and outfitted them with cybernetic implants at birth. They wanted nothing to do with bringing other species into their collective. They just cared about technology. When Picard was assimilated, it was an entirely new, radical tactic.
Once I, Borg comes along, suddenly every member of the Borg collective is an unwilling participant in the hive mind and can be freed from it. This does not jive with what we were originally told about them. Therefore, the question cannot be answered due to conflicting data.
Further, how stupid is it that the Borg go all batty once they assimilate an individual? Aren't we supposed to believe that the Borg had been assimilating individuals for thousands of years? Why is it that Hugh suddenly screws them up?
Once I, Borg comes along, suddenly every member of the Borg collective is an unwilling participant in the hive mind and can be freed from it. This does not jive with what we were originally told about them. Therefore, the question cannot be answered due to conflicting data.
Further, how stupid is it that the Borg go all batty once they assimilate an individual? Aren't we supposed to believe that the Borg had been assimilating individuals for thousands of years? Why is it that Hugh suddenly screws them up?
BlackestPanther
Lieutenant Commander
Oh, yeah. And the virus would not have worked. You're telling me that an advanced intelligence can be felled by the 24th Century equivalent of:
10 print "Hello"
20 GOTO 10
I don't think so.
10 print "Hello"
20 GOTO 10
I don't think so.
Yes....thank you. The virus would not have worked. Then again they may have never seen I, Mudd and not be aware Starfleet's ability to use the liar paradox to stop machines.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I haven't bothered to read most of this thread, but felt compelled to finally weigh in because I just rewatched I, Borg tonight.
The solution -- to return Hugh withouth the invasive program, hoping his awakened sense of self-identity would cripple the Borg, or somehow change them -- was in keeping with the kinder, gentler Starfleet portrayed in TNG. However, as noted, the Borg are a lot more complex than our heroes think.
I point to the shifting portrayals of the Borg over the years. First, they were only interested in assimilating technology. Then, it's revealed that (all along), they also assimilated civilizations, their technology and people. Then, we discover some Borg, when separated from the hive mind, can become individuals again (Hugh, Seven). And then, we discover there are some who are both connected to the hive yet individuals also (the Borg Queen).
So given these contradictions, I think it's safe to assume the Borg are themselves a contradictory species. They assimilate others as part of their grand scheme to achieve perfection, yet there are some members who are both part of the collective and apart from it, like the Borg Queen.
If I were Picard, I would have loaded the invasive program, but I believe it would have had a disastrous impact. Once the Borg examined the program and managed to purge it -- owing to their ability to adapt -- they would have made assimilating the Federation a top priority, and sent many ships to accomplish this task.
Why? They would have identified humans as their most implacable foe, but add their biological distinctiveness to their own to gain that human edge as part of their quest for perfection. Their reasoning: Any species that could hatch such a plot is a continuing danger to the collective, and should be neutralized.
The solution -- to return Hugh withouth the invasive program, hoping his awakened sense of self-identity would cripple the Borg, or somehow change them -- was in keeping with the kinder, gentler Starfleet portrayed in TNG. However, as noted, the Borg are a lot more complex than our heroes think.
I point to the shifting portrayals of the Borg over the years. First, they were only interested in assimilating technology. Then, it's revealed that (all along), they also assimilated civilizations, their technology and people. Then, we discover some Borg, when separated from the hive mind, can become individuals again (Hugh, Seven). And then, we discover there are some who are both connected to the hive yet individuals also (the Borg Queen).
So given these contradictions, I think it's safe to assume the Borg are themselves a contradictory species. They assimilate others as part of their grand scheme to achieve perfection, yet there are some members who are both part of the collective and apart from it, like the Borg Queen.
If I were Picard, I would have loaded the invasive program, but I believe it would have had a disastrous impact. Once the Borg examined the program and managed to purge it -- owing to their ability to adapt -- they would have made assimilating the Federation a top priority, and sent many ships to accomplish this task.
Why? They would have identified humans as their most implacable foe, but add their biological distinctiveness to their own to gain that human edge as part of their quest for perfection. Their reasoning: Any species that could hatch such a plot is a continuing danger to the collective, and should be neutralized.
I agree to a point.
But shouldn't the Borg have been just as concerned that humanity was able to take Borg programming and turn it against them? I'm talking about the "sleep" cycle initiated in The Best of Both Worlds. Also, humanity has the entire internal "file structure" of Borg systems. Seems to me the Borg would be concerned by that.
YOU! ARE! WRONG! THERE ARE NO GODDAMN RULES OF WAR WHEN IT COMES TO THE BORG!! They are mindless totalitarians who will not hesitate to assimilate every. single. man. woman. and child. You can not NEGOTIATE with them, you can not reason with them, they are a force of nature! Only a fool would try to negotiate with an oncoming thunderstorm. The Borg are a plague to be eradicated! If you had a potential cure for the Ebola virus, would you not use it?! WOULD YOU TRY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE GODDAMN VIRUS?!
THE BORG ARE NOT A RACE! THERE ARE NO BORG CIVILIANS! There is no room for doubt, Picard was a fool not to use the virus. How many real species have been brutalized by the Borg? Arturus' people, the El Aurians, and thousands of other races have been scattered across the stars or worse because of the Borg. Would you honestly tell those who have lost loved ones to the Borg that wiping those things from existence is wrong? It is possible to rescue those who have been assimilated by the Borg, but it is just not practical! Janeway did the right thing in Endgame when she unleashed that virus. That may be why Janeway was an admiral while Picard was still a captain.
For far too long, the Federation and Starfleet have let their lofty goals get in the way of practicality and common sense. How sooner would Janeway have gotten to the Alpha Quadrant if she had not been so dogmatic in her views? How much longer would the Dominion war gone on if Section 31 had not infected the Founders with a virus? Why keep to the Treaty of Algeron when the Romulans are infamous for their duplicity and treachery? At times it appears Starfleet is its own worst enemy!
Having ideals and lofty goals is not a bad thing, just don't let them form a noose around your neck.
I feel that it is important to point out in this philosophical discussion the fact that Picard was right in the sense that he thought with his rational mind and made a choice. He didn't freeze or follow. He took responsibility and acted upon his rational conviction. Inevitably, a man - like Picard - reaches points at which it is necessary to make a choice, and the mark of true leadership is the rational presence of mind necessary to make a choice in a "Kobayashi Maru" kind of situation where there is not any good option. In a case like that, the proven ability to make a choice with sobriety is more important than the variety of the choice which is made.
Without a doubt, the question will continue of whether that distinct event benefited or harmed the Federation, and every leader under such circumstances would no doubt act differently and reach a unique moral conclusion regarding the matter. Nevertheless, I do not think that the circumstance made the issue a true right versus wrong scenario. It isn't something so simple that one may look at it and conclude merely with the two-dimensional appraisal: "He was wrong."
Without a doubt, the question will continue of whether that distinct event benefited or harmed the Federation, and every leader under such circumstances would no doubt act differently and reach a unique moral conclusion regarding the matter. Nevertheless, I do not think that the circumstance made the issue a true right versus wrong scenario. It isn't something so simple that one may look at it and conclude merely with the two-dimensional appraisal: "He was wrong."
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
At the time of 'I, Borg', the federation and the borg were in a state of war (since 'best of both worlds').
In war, in the vast majority of cases, one doesn't have a morally 'white' option.
One only has 'grey' options - either you kill the enemy, or he kills you. One can only choose the 'lesser evil'.
About the borg - in 'Scorpion', Picards' words established that ~'One should not expect reason or mercy from the borg. In their collective state, they feel no pity, no remorse, only the will to conquer'. The episode also established that the borg have at least hundreds of thousands of ships.
The borg attacking and destroying the federation is only a matter of time. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be defeated - normally. An implacable, unstoppable enemy.
And yet, even in this situation, Picard was still unwilling to accept that he has no morally correct, 'white' option.
So - that choice did he make? The choice that, on the short term, was apparently moral (not using Hugh), but in the medium - long term, was 'pitch black', by far the 'greater evil'.
Since 'I, Borg' until VOY's end, how many species did the borg assimilate? How many BILLIONS did they kill? How many BILLIONS did they assimilate? Death and suffering beyond human comprehension.
The blood of all those people stains Picard's hands, too, because he could have stopped it all and he didn't.
Edit:
As for the invasive 'logic paradox' not working - Data/Geordi were sure it would work - and given that their knowledge of the hows and whys of trek tech (even borg tech) vastly surpasses what we posters know (for example, they, too, know the borg adapt and, unlike us, they know much about how the borg do this magic trick), the chances are this 'logic paradox' would have dismantled the borg hive mind.
In war, in the vast majority of cases, one doesn't have a morally 'white' option.
One only has 'grey' options - either you kill the enemy, or he kills you. One can only choose the 'lesser evil'.
About the borg - in 'Scorpion', Picards' words established that ~'One should not expect reason or mercy from the borg. In their collective state, they feel no pity, no remorse, only the will to conquer'. The episode also established that the borg have at least hundreds of thousands of ships.
The borg attacking and destroying the federation is only a matter of time. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be defeated - normally. An implacable, unstoppable enemy.
And yet, even in this situation, Picard was still unwilling to accept that he has no morally correct, 'white' option.
So - that choice did he make? The choice that, on the short term, was apparently moral (not using Hugh), but in the medium - long term, was 'pitch black', by far the 'greater evil'.
Since 'I, Borg' until VOY's end, how many species did the borg assimilate? How many BILLIONS did they kill? How many BILLIONS did they assimilate? Death and suffering beyond human comprehension.
The blood of all those people stains Picard's hands, too, because he could have stopped it all and he didn't.
Edit:
As for the invasive 'logic paradox' not working - Data/Geordi were sure it would work - and given that their knowledge of the hows and whys of trek tech (even borg tech) vastly surpasses what we posters know (for example, they, too, know the borg adapt and, unlike us, they know much about how the borg do this magic trick), the chances are this 'logic paradox' would have dismantled the borg hive mind.
Last edited:
^ Using the same logic, let us use as an example the traditional early man, the founder of human civilization. For all intents and purposes, the Biblical story of Cain and Abel suffices.
Did the first man on earth who committed murder commit a single act, or did he create a resulting effect of retribution and vengance which has carried on to the present day? If the latter is true; if one man's anger was the starting pistol for hatred for thousands of years, then should that man be judged as having the blood of all men killed through violence thereafter on his hands, or should he not?
I suggest that he should not, because we rationally understand that if "Cain" had not been the first man to kill his fellow man, another man would have been. Likewise, I make some motion to the end that the event of "I, Borg" cannot be treated as a single catalyst which would have necessarily defined all future Borg engagements.
On the other hand, if we are to assume that the Borg virus would have been as entirely effective as it was hoped, we may look to a 20th century example of the same moral question: Was the nuclear bombing of Japan merciful, in that it ended the war, or was it genocide?
We might stamp endorsement upon the bombing of Japan, but would any of us dare to frown on someone who would, under those circumstances, refuse to wipe entire cities of unarmed civilians off of the map? Would anyone dare say, "Because you will not kill women and children, you are a murderer?"
Did the first man on earth who committed murder commit a single act, or did he create a resulting effect of retribution and vengance which has carried on to the present day? If the latter is true; if one man's anger was the starting pistol for hatred for thousands of years, then should that man be judged as having the blood of all men killed through violence thereafter on his hands, or should he not?
I suggest that he should not, because we rationally understand that if "Cain" had not been the first man to kill his fellow man, another man would have been. Likewise, I make some motion to the end that the event of "I, Borg" cannot be treated as a single catalyst which would have necessarily defined all future Borg engagements.
On the other hand, if we are to assume that the Borg virus would have been as entirely effective as it was hoped, we may look to a 20th century example of the same moral question: Was the nuclear bombing of Japan merciful, in that it ended the war, or was it genocide?
We might stamp endorsement upon the bombing of Japan, but would any of us dare to frown on someone who would, under those circumstances, refuse to wipe entire cities of unarmed civilians off of the map? Would anyone dare say, "Because you will not kill women and children, you are a murderer?"
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Joshua Howard
Cain and Abel and the atomic bombing of Japan are both straw-man arguments:
Cain and Abel:
Firstly, they're mythical characters (as in, never existed);
Secondly, Cain's inexistant murder didn't cause all the murders in human history.
Indeed, the first murder ever commited, probably, by a man-ape didn't caused all murders in human history.
And the absence of that murder would NOT have stopped the subsequent ones.
In 'I, Borg', Picard using the paradox would have stopped the unimaginable horror that followed.
Picard NOT using the paradox program led to the death and suffering of uncounted BILLIONS - an outcome highly predictable for Picard.
The atomic bombing of Japan:
The essential diference between the atomic bombing of Japan and 'I, Hugh' was that in 'I, Hugh', there was no other realistic option to stop the collective from their ongoing genocide, while in 1945, the atomic bomb gave the allies options for stopping the war that did not involve the extermination of two cities:
They could have blown up Mount Fuji if they wanted to shock the Japanese into surrendering;
They could have used smaller atomic bombs to wipe out the japanese military bases until Japan surrendered or its military infrastructure was completely demolished.
The allies could build 3 atomic bombs per month; there was no shortage of them.
About the 'logic paradox's chances:
I already addressed this point:
"As for the invasive 'logic paradox' not working - Data/Geordi were sure it would work - and given that their knowledge of the hows and whys of trek tech (even borg tech) vastly surpasses what we posters know (for example, they, too, know the borg adapt and, unlike us, they know much about how the borg do this magic trick), the chances are this 'logic paradox' would have dismantled the borg hive mind."
The chances the logic paradox had of working were very high.
Cain and Abel and the atomic bombing of Japan are both straw-man arguments:
Cain and Abel:
Firstly, they're mythical characters (as in, never existed);
Secondly, Cain's inexistant murder didn't cause all the murders in human history.
Indeed, the first murder ever commited, probably, by a man-ape didn't caused all murders in human history.
And the absence of that murder would NOT have stopped the subsequent ones.
In 'I, Borg', Picard using the paradox would have stopped the unimaginable horror that followed.
Picard NOT using the paradox program led to the death and suffering of uncounted BILLIONS - an outcome highly predictable for Picard.
The atomic bombing of Japan:
The essential diference between the atomic bombing of Japan and 'I, Hugh' was that in 'I, Hugh', there was no other realistic option to stop the collective from their ongoing genocide, while in 1945, the atomic bomb gave the allies options for stopping the war that did not involve the extermination of two cities:
They could have blown up Mount Fuji if they wanted to shock the Japanese into surrendering;
They could have used smaller atomic bombs to wipe out the japanese military bases until Japan surrendered or its military infrastructure was completely demolished.
The allies could build 3 atomic bombs per month; there was no shortage of them.
About the 'logic paradox's chances:
I already addressed this point:
"As for the invasive 'logic paradox' not working - Data/Geordi were sure it would work - and given that their knowledge of the hows and whys of trek tech (even borg tech) vastly surpasses what we posters know (for example, they, too, know the borg adapt and, unlike us, they know much about how the borg do this magic trick), the chances are this 'logic paradox' would have dismantled the borg hive mind."
The chances the logic paradox had of working were very high.
Data and Geordi knew all this from A FEW SECONDS TO MINUTES of poking are the Collective and getting a bunch of access denieds when they tried to get into sections of it?
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Data and Geordi knew all this from A FEW SECONDS TO MINUTES of poking are the Collective and getting a bunch of access denieds when they tried to get into sections of it?
Now you're just grasping at straws:
Data/Geordi have detailed knowledge of the trekverse's physical laws - unlike present day humanity (incuding us) who have only an incomplete knowledge of the universe's physics;
Data/Geordi have detainled knowledge about Federation technology - which is far more advanced that our present day tech;
As for the borg - Data/Geordi know in detail the Federation findings regarding borg technology (gathered in 'Regeneration', 'Q, who', 'Best of both worlds', 'I, Borg') - including, but not limited to sensor scans, borg implants analysis, Data/Locutus having access to the borg hive mind, etc.
Is this knowledge complete? No
Is this knowledge FAR more detailed and complete than the ridiculous superficial knowledge we have of borg tech? Yes
Does this mean Data/Geordi's statements regarding borg tech are FAR more accurate/certain than the affirmations of posters on this board? YES
Similar threads
