What "insurrection?" ?!

[DonIago]

I believe the phrase is "receipt of stolen property."

Hell, it's not that far removed from the fact that if you deposit a check which bounces because it wasn't good to begin with, you get hit with a service charge. Nevermind that it's not your fault the check issuer wasn't good for the money.

 

[zar]

What it all boils down to is this: The Federation does not have the luxury, or the right, to give up its moral principles. Principles should be absolute, or they do not exist at all.

But reality doesn't work that way. No mortal being is smart enough to create rules that are so perfect that they deserve to be absolute.

He established no such thing. He refused Picard's attempt to gain access for his people to the research to find an alternative method.

His reason for refusing it was because the best minds already worked on it. There was apparently some technobabble explaining that they could only use the rings of the planet. Nothing in the story disproved this so I assume it's meant to be true.

Then none of those trillions are safe. What will they say when THEY are called upon to give up everything "for the greater good"?

The 600 actually wouldn't have to "give up everything" because after the magic rings were harnessed and its power spread across the galaxy they would presumably be among the recipients. But instead of embracing the opportunity to spread that miracle a billion-fold these people decide to hog it, sit on the planet and become xenophobes... and we're supposed to accept that they aren't the ones being selfish and immoral?

The Baku are knowingly allowing trillions to suffer, while they have the ability to stop it, but choose not to. Their only justification is homesickness. And we're supposed to accept that it's the right thing for the Federation to step aside and let them continue in their selfishness so as not to disrupt their chosen way of life. Why is it okay to resist the Borg's way of life of assimilation but not okay to resist the Baku's way of life of condemning every other being to death?

 

[DonIago]

Disclaimer - I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here!

At least a good number of the Borg -didn't- choose their current lifestyle. The Baku are fully aware of the repercussions of their decision and are making it anyway.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

What it all boils down to is this: The Federation does not have the luxury, or the right, to give up its moral principles. Principles should be absolute, or they do not exist at all.

But reality doesn't work that way. No mortal being is smart enough to create rules that are so perfect that they deserve to be absolute.

There are points at which some principles may need to be set aside in theory or in practice. Modern warfare has turned into the socio-political clusterfrak that it is because of the attempt to fight the "humane war" on the part of the good guys and the exploitation of that on the part of the bad guys.

But that threshold has not been reached in the case of the Baku.

He established no such thing. He refused Picard's attempt to gain access for his people to the research to find an alternative method.

His reason for refusing it was because the best minds already worked on it. There was apparently some technobabble explaining that they could only use the rings of the planet. Nothing in the story disproved this so I assume it's meant to be true.

Given the overwhelming amount of deception engaged in by Dougherty and the Son'a, you would be unwise to do so.

Then none of those trillions are safe. What will they say when THEY are called upon to give up everything "for the greater good"?

The 600 actually wouldn't have to "give up everything" because after the magic rings were harnessed and its power spread across the galaxy they would presumably be among the recipients.

But would this technology be as effective as the natural conditions on the planet? Would it even work at all? that is a big unknown.

But instead of embracing the opportunity to spread that miracle a billion-fold these people decide to hog it, sit on the planet and become xenophobes...

What moral principle requires them to be out and about in the galaxy? They prefer the peace and serenity of their planet. Nothing wrong with that. The "prisoners" were treated with respect and courtesy by the Baku. hardly the mark of the "xenophobe".

and we're supposed to accept that they aren't the ones being selfish and immoral?

Under what moral theory did they have any duty to give up the perfection they had found just to accomodate what the Son'a and the Federation wanted?

The Baku are knowingly allowing trillions to suffer, while they have the ability to stop it, but choose not to.

No, they simply chose not to leave their homes. Other options were available to the Son'a and the Federation.

And we're supposed to accept that it's the right thing for the Federation to step aside and let them continue in their selfishness so as not to disrupt their chosen way of life.

If the Federation truly stands for what it says it does, yes.

Why is it okay to resist the Borg's way of life of assimilation but not okay to resist the Baku's way of life of condemning every other being to death?

Who would have died sooner or later in any event.

 

[DonIago]

If I thought by staying in my home I was enabling the suffering of even a few hundred people, I'd probably try to move, whether or not I was specifically invited to.

 

[zar]

What moral principle requires them to be out and about in the galaxy? They prefer the peace and serenity of their planet. Nothing wrong with that. The "prisoners" were treated with respect and courtesy by the Baku. hardly the mark of the "xenophobe".

The reason they seem immoral to me is the fact that they're not ignorant - they understand the situation just as well as Starfleet does. They're warp-capable and know there's a whole galaxy of other beings out there, and they know that their planet is unique. Their response to this is to shun the technology that enlightened them... act as if all those other trillion people don't exist and just keep their perfect eternal life to themselves while everyone else dies.

You're only looking at the "morality" from one side. Sure, the Federation has a moral obligation to respect the Baku's desire to stay on the planet. But the Baku have a much stronger obligation to respect the desire to survive of the entirety of sentient existence outside their own little planet.

Given the overwhelming amount of deception engaged in by Dougherty and the Son'a, you would be unwise to do so.

Overwhelming deception? They were spying on the planet with cloaking devices. How is that any different than every time Starfleet uses ship's sensors to scan a planet without wanting to alert the inhabitants?

If there were another way, then what was Dougherty's motivation for wanting to relocate the Baku? Is he "just evil"? There was nothing in the story to indicate anything else would have worked, all we get on the matter is a line stating they can't find any other way.

The audience is meant to take Picard's side that it's still wrong despite the fact that it's the only way... which I can't do. If your house is sitting atop a mineral deposit that is proven to cure cancer, you ought to move for the sake of everyone else on Earth. And the ratio here is far more vast than one person versus the rest of Earth - it's 600 versus the rest of the galaxy.

 

[T'Girl]

RIKER: The Federation Council has asked me to inform you that the Ba'ku relocation will be halted, while they conduct a top-level review.

Which isn't the same as saying the Federation aren't eventually going to do it, after the review process the metaphasic particles surrounding the planet might still have been collected. By the time of the movie Nemesis the planet could have been uninhabitable.

After what Picard uncovered about the Son'a? Doubtful in the extreme. Ruafo was absolutely right, the people of the Federation would have debated the question to death, and Picard would still be there to keep them honest.

The motivations of the Son'a in no way negates the health benefits of harvesting the metaphasic particles.

In Journey's Ends, The Federation Council were ask by Admiral Necheyev to reconsider their decision to move a colony, it took two day for them to decide to reaffirm the Councils original decision to relocate the colony. The question wasn't debated to death. Two days. Ruafo was likely wrong.

PICARD: I strongly urge you to request an emergency session of the Federation Council. The issue of Dorvan Five must be reopened.
NECHEYEV: Captain, I made that request two days ago. The answer was no.

Either the Federation believes in it's own rules or it doesn't.

But moving colonies is within the Federation's rules, morals and ethics. They did so in Ensigns of Command, for the "the good of the many," so it is one of their established procedures. How are they breaking their own rules?

The colony in Ensigns of Command had over fifteen thousand people.

The Federation had no right to ask them to leave.

Wait. They had no right to ask?

The Federation was going to STEAL the Baku's world

Again, neither the Federation nor the Son'a wanted the world itself. They wanted the nearby rings.

Take ONE man's rights away and ALL are chained.

And move 600 people to lovely new homes elsewhere and many billions of people prosper.

 

[Timo]

The question of whether X did right or wrong in ST:INS according to one's personal moral views is an interesting one, I guess. The question of whether X did right or wrong in ST:INS according to UFP laws and practices is more clear-cut, though. We know how the UFP works, after all.

Common misconceptions:

1) The UFP would never relocate people against their will, because they are the good guys.

False. "Ensigns of Command" was already mentioned. "Journey's End" also showed that UFP legislation catered for forced relocation in theory, and that UFP government was willing to proceed with that in practice. Long before this, "This Side of Paradise" had shown the very same thing. Further examples exist, and more importantly, there are no counterexamples.

2) The UFP would never decide upon the fates of people it doesn't consult, because they are the good guys.

False. Among others, "Who Watches the Watchers" and "First Contact" showed that the UFP finds it benevolent and right to operate covertly for the good of people it doesn't consult, apparently because it knows best what this good is (this is typical government behavior, and part of most nations' legislation). Kirk based basically his entire TOS career on that premise, too. And Picard made a religion out of it. Nobody arrested either of these skippers for acting against UFP laws, mores or interests.

3) The UFP would never claim a planet it hasn't physically planted a flag on, especially if there are competing claims.

False. For example Sherman's Planet was to be subjected to a tug-of-war, not through negotiating with the competing claimants, but through far more direct means. The UFP seeks to expand and to exploit the worlds it can get its hands on. Furthermore, it covets territory for strategic purposes, wishing to ban hostile transit in order to protect its interests.

Besides, nobody ever said the UFP hadn't gone and planted a flag on the Ba'ku planet.

4) The UFP would respect the sovereign rights of X to ownership of a planet, as established by X setting foot there first.

Unknown but unlikely. Why should the UFP respect a barbaric practice like that? And why should setting foot on a specific square decimeter of soil mean that the entire planet is claimed? Should setting foot on that square decimeter mean that the entire star system is claimed, too? The entire sector? The entire galaxy?

Besides, there's no place in the galaxy where somebody wouldn't have set foot before the Feds came around. Peoples come and go. Ownership of resources comes and goes, too. In most examples, the UFP disputes such ownership by the force of arms, not by legal twiddling, because that's the nature of frontier life.

5) The UFP would never allow the Prime Directive to be broken.

False. It's a rule created by the UFP. They're perfectly free to uncreate it whenever they wish.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kaziarl]

a lot of good things i'd like to comment on, but as i'm about to go to bed I'll limit it to this one that jumped out at me for now.

Again, neither the Federation nor the Son'a wanted the world itself. They wanted the nearby rings.

I want your front yard, so I'm gonna take it. Oh, by the way, in doing so I accidentally demolished your house. Sorry about your luck.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The reason they seem immoral to me is the fact that they're not ignorant - they understand the situation just as well as Starfleet does. They're warp-capable and know there's a whole galaxy of other beings out there, and they know that their planet is unique. Their response to this is to shun the technology that enlightened them... act as if all those other trillion people don't exist and just keep their perfect eternal life to themselves while everyone else dies.

Life would go on without the particle therapy. You act as if every Federation citizen was terminally ill and had 2 weeks to live without the metaphasic particles. Federation medical science was already well advanced without it.

You're only looking at the "morality" from one side. Sure, the Federation has a moral obligation to respect the Baku's desire to stay on the planet. But the Baku have a much stronger obligation to respect the desire to survive of the entirety of sentient existence outside their own little planet.

Shameless hyperbole. The Federation was not going to die without metaphasics.

Given the overwhelming amount of deception engaged in by Dougherty and the Son'a, you would be unwise to do so.

Overwhelming deception? They were spying on the planet with cloaking devices. How is that any different than every time Starfleet uses ship's sensors to scan a planet without wanting to alert the inhabitants?

Not only were they spying on them, but it was being done with the clear intent of STEALING their entire world from them and condemning them to slow death.

What if 6 months down the road it turned out that the Baku NEEDED the particles after all those centuries on the planet to survive? "OOPS...sorry...guess you're all gonna die...but WE'll be healthier...?"

If there were another way, then what was Dougherty's motivation for wanting to relocate the Baku? Is he "just evil"?

Bad things can be done with good intent. That doesn't make them good.

There was nothing in the story to indicate anything else would have worked, all we get on the matter is a line stating they can't find any other way.

And Dougherty rejected Picard's attempt to get a fresh look at the situation.

Even if it WAS the only way, it doesn't change the fact that the Federation had no right to take the Baku's planet. PERIOD.

The audience is meant to take Picard's side that it's still wrong despite the fact that it's the only way... which I can't do. If your house is sitting atop a mineral deposit that is proven to cure cancer, you ought to move for the sake of everyone else on Earth. And the ratio here is far more vast than one person versus the rest of Earth - it's 600 versus the rest of the galaxy.

And if you don't, then we'll kill you...

After what Picard uncovered about the Son'a? Doubtful in the extreme. Ruafo was absolutely right, the people of the Federation would have debated the question to death, and Picard would still be there to keep them honest.

The motivations of the Son'a in no way negates the health benefits of harvesting the metaphasic particles.

The motivations of the Son'a in lying to the Federation about their status as Baku and trying to get the Federation to do their dirty work for them of stealing the planet for their own selfish reasons have EVERYTHING to do with whether or not the Federation would trust them.

The Son'a already had a reputation as intergalactic outlaws, as Riker and Troi noted when reviewing their record. Slavery, drug running, development of subspace WMDs.

The Son'a were dirty "from the get go". The Federation had no business doing ANYTHING in conjunction with them.

In Journey's Ends, The Federation Council were ask by Admiral Necheyev to reconsider their decision to move a colony, it took two day for them to decide to reaffirm the Councils original decision to relocate the colony. The question wasn't debated to death. Two days. Ruafo was likely wrong.

And because the Council ruled it, it's automatically right? "Well, we voted...you undesirables will just have to report to the gas chambers!"

But moving colonies is within the Federation's rules, morals and ethics. They did so in Ensigns of Command, for the "the good of the many," so it is one of their established procedures. How are they breaking their own rules?

1) The Baku were not Federation citizens. They were not bound by Federation law.

2) Even if they had been, the Federation would not have had the right to steal from their own citizens. The DMZ colonies were turned over to the Cardassians by treaty. The planet in EoC was the Sheliak's by treaty. Different cases entirely.

The Federation was going to STEAL the Baku's world

Again, neither the Federation nor the Son'a wanted the world itself. They wanted the nearby rings.

You're smarter than that...they were taking the Baku away from the planet THEY chose to settle on, and were going to take away the longevity that the metaphasic particles gave them.

Take ONE man's rights away and ALL are chained.

And move 600 people to lovely new homes elsewhere and many billions of people prosper.

1) Only until they grew old and died.

2) those billions were prospering without metaphasics and would continue to prosper without metaphasics. It was NOT a life and death situation wherein the Federation would be destroyed entirely and the people wiped out if they did not have metaphasics.

3) The idea that you could find it so easy to dismiss the rights of a group you are not part of frankly chills my soul...you need to read and understand what a famous theologian once said about such thinking:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent; I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews, I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Common misconceptions:

1) The UFP would never relocate people against their will, because they are the good guys.

False. "Ensigns of Command" was already mentioned.

1) The colonists there were Federation citizens.

2) The planet in question was clearly Sheliak territory by treaty. The colonists arrived there by accident.

"Journey's End" also showed that UFP legislation catered for forced relocation in theory, and that UFP government was willing to proceed with that in practice.

And they were wrong to do so in that case as well. Same with the other worlds in the DMZ.

Long before this, "This Side of Paradise" had shown the very same thing. Further examples exist, and more importantly,

One could make the case that it was wrong in that instance as well. The people there were happy with their lives and prospering. Kirk acted unilaterally to determine their best interest. That doesn't mean he made the right call.

2) The UFP would never decide upon the fates of people it doesn't consult, because they are the good guys.

False. Among others, "Who Watches the Watchers" and "First Contact" showed that the UFP finds it benevolent and right to operate covertly for the good of people it doesn't consult, apparently because it knows best what this good is (this is typical government behavior, and part of most nations' legislation).

Also not applicable. The Federation was not DOING anything to the cultures in question, just observing. And when the government in FC said "Go away!" Picard honored their decision.

3) The UFP would never claim a planet it hasn't physically planted a flag on, especially if there are competing claims.

False. For example Sherman's Planet was to be subjected to a tug-of-war, not through negotiating with the competing claimants, but through far more direct means.

There was no disputing the claim of the Baku. They were clearly there first. The wider galaxy didn't even know they were there until the Son'a told the Federation about it.

The UFP seeks to expand and to exploit the worlds it can get its hands on. Furthermore, it covets territory for strategic purposes, wishing to ban hostile transit in order to protect its interests.

But only in accordance with it's own rules and principles. Witness Halka. By your logic, the Federation would have been right to take the Halkan dilithium by force. The same with the topaline ore in "Friday's Child. The Federation had the might, so by your logic they had the right to take whatever they wanted, rights of others be damned.

I stand by my earlier description of that position and people who take it.

Besides, nobody ever said the UFP hadn't gone and planted a flag on the Ba'ku planet.

4) The UFP would respect the sovereign rights of X to ownership of a planet, as established by X setting foot there first.

Unknown but unlikely. Why should the UFP respect a barbaric practice like that? And why should setting foot on a specific square decimeter of soil mean that the entire planet is claimed? Should setting foot on that square decimeter mean that the entire star system is claimed, too? The entire sector? The entire galaxy?[/quote]

Then they would respect NO claims at all. What would stop them from telling the Klingons "We want Quo'nos!" and invading?

Multiple parts of the Federation charter and law make it CRYSTAL clear that sovereign people have sovereign rights within their space, even when such is inimical to Federation interests.

5) The UFP would never allow the Prime Directive to be broken.

False. It's a rule created by the UFP. They're perfectly free to uncreate it whenever they wish.

Then they are a hypocritical, lawless government and we have every right to criticize them for same.

 

[Joshua Howard]

Insurrection is my favorite Trek movie, after First Contact. I think that the message is very fitting of Trek, and I loved Picard's "How many does it take?" speech, which is the high point of the film for me.

The movie addresses the very real issue of moral compromise in the name of "the greater good". In real life as individuals, or as groups, or as organizations, we often face the choice between doing what is right and doing what we feel to be wrong because we expect that the gain will outweigh the bad.

Would you murder one person in cold blood to save the life of 10 terminally ill people? You would be eliminating one lifetime - maybe 50 years - while increasing ten lifetimes - maybe by 50 years each. An immoral kind of logic might say that the numbers make it acceptable, because it is the loss of 50 to gain 500.

There is an old scripture text that says "What good does it do a man if he gains the world, but loses his soul?" I move that the soul of the Federation is its choice to follow moral directives which compel it to honor a code of ethics. Progress at the expense of those ethics would strip the Federation of everything that makes it what it is, lowering it to the status of mercenary.

 

[BillJ]

The Federation has to sit in orbit now to protect the Ba'ku. Once everyone knows that the planet is a 'fountain of youth' there'll be wars over it.

 

[DonIago]

Nuke the planet from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.

 

[BillJ]

Nuke the planet from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.

On a serious (in universe) note. The Federation has a hard choice to make. Either commit the resources to protect the Ba'ku for the long haul or allow them to be targeted by every major and minor power that learns about the 'meta-phasic radiation'. The Son'a collector technology will either be acquired by other races or developed independently by someone else. It's only a matter of time.

So the choices made not only impact the Ba'ku but the Federation as well over a long period of time.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Would it be better if the Federation took over every planet with strategic, economic or cultural value regardless of the wishes of it's inhabitants? "We're doing this for your own good. You'll thank us for it later?" Sounds rather like the colonial period in Africa.

Who's to say that the Baku won't join the Federation in some fashion? Some sort of agreement could be worked out exchanging access for protection. But it must be agreed upon not imposed.

 

[BillJ]

Would it be better if the Federation took over every planet with strategic, economic or cultural value regardless of the wishes of it's inhabitants? "We're doing this for your own good. You'll thank us for it later?" Sounds rather like the colonial period in Africa.

Who's to say that the Baku won't join the Federation in some fashion? Some sort of agreement could be worked out exchanging access for protection. But it must be agreed upon not imposed.

Think of it if the Federation had no interest in 'meta-phasic' radiation. Yet it still had the same regenerative properties as we see in Insurrection.

How long do you think those six hundred Ba'ku last before someone comes in and strips the rings of the particles? How many resources and how long are they going to have to commit those resources to protect the Ba'ku?

People seem to think the events of Insurrection exist in a vacuum. The 'evil' Admiral (of Section 31 ) is only there to rape the poor Ba'ku of what belongs to them. But there is much more to it. The events leading up to and that occurred in Insurrection casts serious doubts into the Ba'ku being a viable long term society without outside help (mutations anyone on such a shallow gene pool?). Plus they lack the ability or the will to protect themselves from an outside aggressor. Plus, based on their treatment of the Son'a, they are not ready to be a part of the Federation. The Ba'ku expelled those who disagreed with their quaker lifestyle.

So now you have a Federation protectorate, a group of people enjoying Federation protection (but not beholden to Federation values) of their insular lifestyle while providing nothing in return.

You could make the argument that the Federation's mission, while shortening the Ba'ku life-span, will in the long run save their culture.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Would it be better if the Federation took over every planet with strategic, economic or cultural value regardless of the wishes of it's inhabitants? "We're doing this for your own good. You'll thank us for it later?" Sounds rather like the colonial period in Africa.

Who's to say that the Baku won't join the Federation in some fashion? Some sort of agreement could be worked out exchanging access for protection. But it must be agreed upon not imposed.

How long do you think those six hundred Ba'ku last before someone comes in and strips the rings of the particles?

You mean like the Son'a and Dougherty were planning on doing? The Baku had been there a long time before anyone found them. Now that that's changed, perhaps so will the Baku. Just having the Son'a return is a change. More's the pity we've never gotten a follow up story.

 

[BillJ]

More's the pity we've never gotten a follow up story.

Agreed.

 

[zar]

You act as if every Federation citizen was terminally ill ... The Federation was not going to die without metaphasics ... It was NOT a life and death situation

This, as I understand it, is where you're wrong. As the saying goes, life is a terminal disease. But suddenly, Insurrection establishes that this is no longer true. There is a cure. What right do 600 people have to keep it to themselves?

Shameless hyperbole.

Hey, I'm not the one making Nazi references left and right. What I'm saying isn't hyperbole because that is literally what's happening in the movie. They discover eternal life in this movie, and I'm going to need a damn good reason to accept their refusal of it, a lot better than 600 people's attachment to their neighborhood. If metaphasics wasn't so insanely overpowered, the story would work for me. You're using a lot of speculation to justify Picard's side, like that they Baku would all die slowly after they were moved, but this isn't established anywhere in the movie. The movie presents it such that everyone could benefit from metaphasics just like the Baku do, and all it would take to harness that power would be to make the original planet uninhabitable. And so Picard's indignation just doesn't make sense. I don't know, maybe it makes more sense in the novelization... has anyone read it?

The motivations of the Son'a in no way negates the health benefits of harvesting the metaphasic particles.

The motivations of the Son'a in lying to the Federation about their status as Baku and trying to get the Federation to do their dirty work for them of stealing the planet for their own selfish reasons have EVERYTHING to do with whether or not the Federation would trust them.

The Son'a already had a reputation as intergalactic outlaws, as Riker and Troi noted when reviewing their record. Slavery, drug running, development of subspace WMDs.

The Son'a were dirty "from the get go". The Federation had no business doing ANYTHING in conjunction with them.

But T'Girl's point still stands... the benefit of the mission was too great to back down just because the Son'a were involved. In fact, it would have been worse to let the Son'a have it all to themselves, because their intentions would probably be less... philanthropic.

I'm not defending the Son'a. I'm defending Dougherty. Remember he was just as pissed off as anybody when he found out they wanted to kill the Baku, and he was murdered for it.

If the Federation had no business doing ANYTHING with the Son'a, does that mean Sisko never should have done anything with the Cardassians? Or there never should have been a Klingon peace treaty...?