What of the Husnock?

[Sci]

It is not plausible, within the conceits of the Star Trek Universe, to infer that the general nature of a species of seven billion individuals is represented by the actions of a single known starship crew.

There have, in fact, been numerous examples of starship crews in the Star Trek Universe whose behavior deviates from the norm for their species. The Ferengi encountered in "The Last Outpost" were much more violent and hostile than most Ferengi, for instance. The Federation crew of the U.S.S. Equinox certainly weren't representative of what most Federates are like. The crew of the I.K.S. Rotarran were nothing like most Klingon crews before Worf and Martok whipped them into shape. Etc., etc., etc.

So the idea that it's reasonable, within the rules of the Star Trek Universe, to infer what the Husnock are like based on one ship's behavior is, again, just absurd.

It's an infinite universe. There are infinite numbers of ways a species can act. Many times we've already seen examples of a species being absolutely unified in purpose.

No, we haven't. ST is generally very consistent in depicting alien cultures as possessing multiple competing factions, or people who deviate from their cultural norms.

Why can the Borg, for example, be so single-minded, but the Husnock can't?

The Borg are not a species; it's an AI gone mad, that's all.

Seems odd that he wouldn't have "sent" a bigger fleet if he'd encountered a bigger fleet.

Kevin was just trying to frighten the Enterprise crew away. Assuming the Husnock did send an entire fleet to destroy the colony, it would have been overkill in the extreme for Kevin to do the same. He wasn't trying to *destroy* the Enterprise, just scare them off.

Fleets tend to be scarier than single ships.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ But *too* scary, and it would have immediately aroused the suspicions of Picard and crew. Didn't take long even as we saw it, but if it had been a fleet, no one would have ever fell for it.

 

[Christopher]

The argument can be made more simply: Even if we concede it's possible that all Husnock were uniformly as belligerent as that starship crew, there's no way to prove that was the case. Just saying "it could've been that way" is empty speculation, because without hard evidence there's no way of knowing whether it actually was that way. And the same goes for Sci's position. We can't prove that all Husnock were like that ship's crew, but we can't prove they weren't either. They could always be an exception to the rule, like the Borg. But we don't have enough evidence to support either hypothesis. The only thing we know is that we can't know.

 

[Timo]

We also have to take into account that we don't know the actions of the Husnock ship - or even if there ever was one! All we have is Kevin's word on it.

For all we know, Kevin killed all the colonists and then came to regret it, either because it had been a mistake and an accident all along, or because he found the results not to his liking. The very existence of a Husnock species remains in doubt, prior to the loss of the colony just as much as after it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Wasn't the damage to the colony consistent with weapons fire from a starship (or fleet of same) in orbit?

 

[BrotherBenny]

^ Wasn't the damage to the colony consistent with weapons fire from a starship (or fleet of same) in orbit?

Kevin could have simulated that like he did against the Enterprise.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Wasn't the damage to the colony consistent with weapons fire from a starship (or fleet of same) in orbit?

Kevin could have simulated that like he did against the Enterprise.

No, all he simulated was the house, because it disappeared (after he faked a subsequent Husnock attack on it) and then reappeared again. All the damage to the rest of the planet remained there throughout the whole thing, there was no indication any of it was fake.

 

[MemoryOmicron]

The argument can be made more simply: Even if we concede it's possible that all Husnock were uniformly as belligerent as that starship crew, there's no way to prove that was the case. Just saying "it could've been that way" is empty speculation, because without hard evidence there's no way of knowing whether it actually was that way. And the same goes for Sci's position. We can't prove that all Husnock were like that ship's crew, but we can't prove they weren't either. They could always be an exception to the rule, like the Borg. But we don't have enough evidence to support either hypothesis. The only thing we know is that we can't know.

Exactly! Unfortunately, we only have Kevin Uxbridge's account of the destruction of the Federation colony on Delta Rana IV. We only know of the Husnock from a being whose perception is clouded by hatred and anguish for the murder of a loved one and the murder of 11,000 colleagues and the destruction of the colony. His description of the Husnock as "a species of hideous intelligence who knew only aggression and destruction" is totally biased and unobjective considering his emotional and other investments in the Delta Rana IV colony and the previous sequence of events.

Since Uxbridge has killed all Husnock, we will never get their version of the events leading up to the destruction of the Delta Rana IV colony or their motivations for committing them. What if the Federation colony on Delta Rana IV was in Husnock space and the colony was considered by the Husnock to be an invasion into their territory? What if the Husnock attempted to communicate with the colonists in the past and these communications were misunderstood or ignored by the colonists?

Perhaps the motivations of the Husnock were similar to the Gorn in the Star Trek: The Original Series episode "Arena." Remember that Kirk was intent on destroying the Gorn ship because he believed a crime had been committed and the perpetrators must be punished.

In the same way, Uxbridge, with his biased viewpoint, in a fit of hatred and anguish decides to punish all Husnock for the murder of Rushon, the other 11,000 colonists, and the destruction of the Delta Rana IV colony.

Picard, not knowing the Husnock or their true nature, is not in a position to judge Uxbridge's actions:

"We are not qualified to be your judges. We have no law to fit your crime. You're free to return to the planet, and to make Rishon live again."

At the end of the episode, Captain Picard writes in his log:

"We leave behind a being of extraordinary power... and conscience. I am not certain if he should be praised or condemned. Only that he should be left alone."

So in the end, we just don't know the true nature of the Husnock. Picard can't take Uxbridge at his word that the Husnock were "a species of hideous intelligence who knew only aggression and destruction." There are doubts in his mind. Picard, and the audience, are not in a position to praise Uxbridge for eliminating a potential threat or condemn him as a monster for the genocide of an entire sentient species.

Why can't we as an audience just accept that the true nature of the Husnock will never be known and we are not in a position to be the judges of Uxbridge's action? Why does everything have to be spelled out to the audience in black and white?

Isn't the point of the episode that an intelligent, loving, being with conscience is capable of a terrible act? Uxbridge is left to wrestle with his conscience and contemplate whether his action was justified or whether he is a monster who committed genocide.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I submit that Kevin, despite what he has done, is not a monster. If he were, he would not be agonizing over what happened - he simply wouldn't care. The fact that he DOES care - that he is taking the time to brood - is proof that he has a conscience and is ashamed of his actions.

 

[SicOne]

I know the Destiny trilogy would have been about one page long if they had gone this route, but...with multiple civilizations in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants on the line against the Borg invasion, why wouldn't Picard, et al, consider traveling to Delta Rana and asking Uxbridge for assistance?

He needn't necesarily wipe out all Borg, everywhere, but certainly toss a little deus ex in there in some capacity.

Was this something the authors tossed about between themselves during the literary run-up to Destiny, before deciding on the Caeliar?

 

[Sci]

I know the Destiny trilogy would have been about one page long if they had gone this route, but...

Not just that, but it would have lost its thematic content and unity. Destiny was about both beginnings and endings, about accepting mortality. The Caeliar and their role in both the Borg's origins and their final destiny is what gave the trilogy that thematic unity.

with multiple civilizations in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants on the line against the Borg invasion, why wouldn't Picard, et al, consider traveling to Delta Rana and asking Uxbridge for assistance?

He needn't necesarily wipe out all Borg, everywhere, but certainly toss a little deus ex in there in some capacity.

Was this something the authors tossed about between themselves during the literary run-up to Destiny, before deciding on the Caeliar?

I certainly can't speak for David Mack, but, frankly -- isn't it somewhat of an odd question to ask if Mack and his editors considered using a one-off character from an obscure episode? I certainly wouldn't have remembered anything about Uxbridge before this thread.

And this is just my guess, but it seems likely to me that the Caeliar were intrinsic to the Borg's story arc from the beginning of Destiny. Like I said, they're just too important to the story's themes.

ETA:

I submit that Kevin, despite what he has done, is not a monster. If he were, he would not be agonizing over what happened - he simply wouldn't care. The fact that he DOES care - that he is taking the time to brood - is proof that he has a conscience and is ashamed of his actions.

Sure. But even people with a conscience can deliberately choose to do unspeakably horrible things. If anything, the fact that he has a conscience but still chose to commit genocide arguably makes him worse than, say, a sociopath who honestly just has no sense of morality at all.

Which is worse -- a man who sins because he's never been told it's wrong, or a man who sins even though he knows better?

 

[Christopher]

^But the question is whether Kevin really did know better at the time. It wasn't a measured, careful decision to exterminate the Husnock, but the unthinking impulse of a being stripped of reason by overpowering grief. He called it a moment of insanity, although we have no way of determining if that's literally true, since we have no baseline for the psychological evaluation of a Douwd. But it seems to me that a mind of such power and complexity might plausibly be prone to such extremes of emotion and mental state. If he genuinely was temporarily insane, if he wasn't in control of his actions at the time or had lost the ability to recognize that they were wrong, then that would be a valid legal defense.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

About Kevin's evaluation of the husnock:

When he made it, he wasn't a being angered at the husnock's actions, demonising them.
Indeed, Kevin felt overwhelming shame at his own actions when he painted the husnock as genocidally xenophobic. If anything, at that point, Kevin was prone to idealise their 'good' side, their qualities.

Also, Kevin was strong enough to wipe an interstellar civilization off the map in a second. Considering his demonstrated capabilities, he had the ability to easily gain a very exact psychological profile of anyone, if he so wanted.


About logistics:

Yes, any species capable of interstellar flight had to have cooperative behaviour among its members.
So what?
The borg had such behaviour - and they were nasty pieces of work (hopefully, they won't return as the 'familiar, yet new' enemy from the last titan book).
Knowing cooperative behaviour does not mean that, toward any outsiders, a species is not exactly as Kevin said it is.


About 'we don't know anything about what happened; Kevin's testimony can very well be utterly false':

It was the scenarists' intent for Kevin's testimony to be entirely accurate. It's, of course, fiction, but within the trekverse, it's true.

Which is worse -- a man who sins because he's never been told it's wrong, or a man who sins even though he knows better?

When talking about humans, this is, of course, a philosophic problem with no easy answer - an utterly amoral person is worse or better than one that has morals, but breaks them?


When talking about Kevin, the answer is somewhat simpler:
It's irrelevant what human morals say about him; just as it would be irrelevant what hypothetical ant morals say about ants infestation professionals.

Kevin is one of the 'gods of night' while the federation are 'mere mortals' - and 'destiny', which you seem to like so much, Sci, made the difference between the two clear.

The only morals that matter to Kevin are the gods' morals - the caeliars', for example.
The federation is irrelevant/powerless on that level; Kevin is not for humans to imprison or otherwise punish (unless he wants it so).
Humans can only bicker about his actions or amuse the 'gods' with their speeches (as Picard does for Q).

 

[Idran]

solved Fermat's last theorem the way Fermat did it

You mean incorrectly?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Kevin was strong enough to wipe an interstellar civilization off the map in a second. Considering his demonstrated capabilities, he had the ability to easily gain a very exact psychological profile of anyone, if he so wanted.

That is why I am inclined to take Kevin at his word. If he is powerful to completely destroy the Husnock species, I assume he is also smart enough to be a good judge of character. Would a being that powerful, make mistakes? I doubt it. If he says the Husnock are a certain way, I see no reason to doubt him. He's powerful enough to do large things, he must also be powerful enough to do the small things.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It was the scenarists' intent for Kevin's testimony to be entirely accurate. It's, of course, fiction, but within the trekverse, it's true.

Agreed to this also, in addition to the passage just quoted by Mr. Laser Beam. If it were the writer's intention that the exposition provided by Kevin for who the Husnock were was in any way questionable, then Picard would have expressed such doubts. Picard had demanded the whole truth from Kevin, and expressed no further doubts regarding Kevin's story. Ergo Kevin's exposition about the Husnock was intended by the author to be taken at face value, as true.

 

[JB2005]

^But the question is whether Kevin really did know better at the time. It wasn't a measured, careful decision to exterminate the Husnock, but the unthinking impulse of a being stripped of reason by overpowering grief. He called it a moment of insanity, although we have no way of determining if that's literally true, since we have no baseline for the psychological evaluation of a Douwd. But it seems to me that a mind of such power and complexity might plausibly be prone to such extremes of emotion and mental state. If he genuinely was temporarily insane, if he wasn't in control of his actions at the time or had lost the ability to recognize that they were wrong, then that would be a valid legal defense.

If we're bringing law into it, then it wouldn't be insanity, but Provocation (Loss of Control)

Not sure about American Law, but in English Law he'd be guilty of "loss of control" and would be convicted of voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder.

If I was defending I could make a fairly persuasive case that he only has actus reus for the crime, but by contrast if I was prosecuting I could make a fairly persuasive case that he has Mens Rea as well...

Legally it would be a lot easier to establish his guilt.

 

[Sci]

Which is worse -- a man who sins because he's never been told it's wrong, or a man who sins even though he knows better?

When talking about humans, this is, of course, a philosophic problem with no easy answer - an utterly amoral person is worse or better than one that has morals, but breaks them?

When talking about Kevin, the answer is somewhat simpler:
It's irrelevant what human morals say about him; just as it would be irrelevant what hypothetical ant morals say about ants infestation professionals.

Kevin is one of the 'gods of night' while the federation are 'mere mortals' - and 'destiny', which you seem to like so much, Sci, made the difference between the two clear.

The only morals that matter to Kevin are the gods' morals - the caeliars', for example.

Uh, no, the entire point of Destiny was that the "gods" are not gods, and in fact needed to adopt "mortal" (aka Federation) values in order to survive. Destiny made it very clear that the Caeliar, though powerful, were stagnant and doomed because of their homogeneity. Only when they adopted the Federation value of heterogeneity, when they became a diverse, polyglot society, did they save themselves.

In other words: The idea that having more power than another culture means you're somehow fundamentally different from them is nonsense. The Caeliar are not gods of night; all are but mere mortals.

The federation is irrelevant/powerless on that level; Kevin is not for humans to imprison or otherwise punish (unless he wants it so).

You are confusing power with morality. A humanoid may not be able to punish a non-corporeal being that commits genocide, but that does not mean she is incapable of judging that non-corporeal being's behavior.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If we're bringing law into it, then it wouldn't be insanity, but Provocation (Loss of Control)

Not sure about American Law, but in English Law he'd be guilty of "loss of control" and would be convicted of voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder.

If I was defending I could make a fairly persuasive case that he only has actus reus for the crime, but by contrast if I was prosecuting I could make a fairly persuasive case that he has Mens Rea as well...

Legally it would be a lot easier to establish his guilt.

Extreme emotional disturbance? That's not an absolute defense, but if Kevin were somehow put on trial for murder, he could claim it. He himself said that he "went insane" and his "hatred exploded". At that point he may have had no control over what his powers could wreak.

I don't think Kevin ever *intended* to wipe out the Husnock. He just went so crazy that he ended up doing it 'accidentally'.

 

[JB2005]

If we're bringing law into it, then it wouldn't be insanity, but Provocation (Loss of Control)

Not sure about American Law, but in English Law he'd be guilty of "loss of control" and would be convicted of voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder.

If I was defending I could make a fairly persuasive case that he only has actus reus for the crime, but by contrast if I was prosecuting I could make a fairly persuasive case that he has Mens Rea as well...

Legally it would be a lot easier to establish his guilt.

Extreme emotional disturbance? That's not an absolute defense, but if Kevin were somehow put on trial for murder, he could claim it. He himself said that he "went insane" and his "hatred exploded". At that point he may have had no control over what his powers could wreak.

I don't think Kevin ever *intended* to wipe out the Husnock. He just went so crazy that he ended up doing it 'accidentally'.

I've gotta say, if it was my partner's body I found, I know how I'd react, I'd completely lose it - we've been together less than half a decade, if it happened to her after half a century...

I think JK was right...love's the most powerful force, and if you have the power to back up your desire for vengeance...

Hand on heart...I can't be sure I wouldn't lose control and do something similar...