would be like telling a woman who was raped and was pregnant due to that rape that she had no choice but to carry that baby to term. It's her body, her choice. Same applies to Riker and Pulaski's clone situation.
Riker and Pulaski only had to walk away.
Foreign soil.Their genetic material? Their rights.
Their genetic material? Their rights.
So despite all that fresh meat, they want nothing to do with the vagina business, when what's really happened is that Picard has supplied them with a hundred tons of vital genetic material to continue their clonetropolis.
Must respectfully disagree. The rape victim has to carry the rapist's child, feel it growing inside her, nourish it with her body, and bring it agonizingly into the world. Riker and Pulaski only had to walk away. Completely different level of violation.
that doesn’t applies to humans.The non interference directive totally applied.
one of the issues pertained the cloning process itself. Sure, they could go on decades by cloning the newcomers, but if they want to pass on their genes they have to do it the old fashioned way now.So despite all that fresh meat, they want nothing to do with the vagina business, when what's really happened is that Picard has supplied them with a hundred tons of vital genetic material to continue their clonetropolis
I imagined since the 80s that the planet was containing billions of clones. But given the distribution of the family units, it was closer to 500. Unless only 500 clones where allowed to breed with the Irish and the other 2 billion continued their march to extinction.I'll agree that it's a different level of violation, but a violation is still a violation, especially after they said no. There's a pesky thing called consent that's key to so many things.
You're basically saying it's okay for anyone to take samples of you whenever they want, to do with whatever they want. That's a bad Pandora's Box.
that doesn’t applies to humans.
one of the issues pertained the cloning process itself. Sure, they could go on decades by cloning the newcomers, but if they want to pass on their genes they have to do it the old fashioned way now.
PICARD: Come.
RIKER: The colonists are all on board, sir.
PICARD: How many finally?
RIKER: Twenty three.
PICARD: If we ever needed reminding of the importance of the Prime Directive, it is now.
RIKER: The Prime Directive doesn't apply. They're human.
PICARD: Doesn't it? Our very presence may have damaged, even destroyed, their way of life. Whether or not we agree with that way of life or whether they're human or not is irrelevant, Number One. We are responsible.
RIKER: We had to respond to the threat from the core fragment didn't we?
PICARD: Of course we did. But in the end we may have proved just as dangerous to that colony as any core fragment could ever have been.
In-vitro conception is a thing.Passing on your Genes is disgusting and horrific if you f%ck with the lights on.
There is no hint at them being superior.Masterpiece Society dropped the ball by not explaining if these people were Supermen, and therefore more than human, who would never see basic humans as their equals.
Trek being inconsistent? How surprising!So? Does the Priime Directive apply to Humans who are not part of the Federation?
Ask the Maquis.
In-vitro conception is a thing.
There is no hint at them being superior.
Trek being inconsistent? How surprising!
CONOR: You see, this is an engineered society.
RIKER: Engineered?
CONOR: Genetically engineered. Our ancestors came from Earth to develop a perfect society. They believed that through controlled procreation, they could create people without flaws and those people would build a paradise.
TROI: All of you have been selectively bred? Your DNA patterns chosen?
CONOR: Eight generations of us.
MARTIN: We have immeasurably extended the potential of humanity, physically, psychologically. We have evolved beyond, beyond
LAFORGE: Beyond us.
MARTIN: Frankly, yes. No one in this society would be blind, for example. No offence intended.
I'll agree that it's a different level of violation, but a violation is still a violation, especially after they said no. There's a pesky thing called consent that's key to so many things.
You're basically saying it's okay for anyone to take samples of you whenever they want, to do with whatever they want. That's a bad Pandora's Box.
one of the issues pertained the cloning process itself. Sure, they could go on decades by cloning the newcomers, but if they want to pass on their genes they have to do it the old fashioned way now.
Trek being inconsistent? How surprising!
Never said it was right. But I do question whether it justified Riker's actions. If killing your own clone is still murder, then so is killing someone else's clone of you.
Be that as it may, I do believe that Riker had the right to refuse, but did he have the right to speak for 1000+ others?
that doesn’t applies to humans.
Riker did look at Pulaski first before drawing his phaser on her clone... she nodded in agreement of destriying it. She gave her consent to eradicate what was stolen from her. 100%, Riker was justified.
Put it another way: someone steals your car. You find it. Do you just let them keep it, or do you take steps to either get it back and get the person who stole it arrested?
Their genetic material is even more their own property than any material possession, but it's the closest real world comparison I can come up with at the moment.
Also, Riker didn't speak for the entire crew in that meeting. He voiced his opinion, Pulaski concurred, and so did Picard. Picard was the one who told them 'I believe you'll find that attitude prevalent with the rest of the crew.' Picard didn't say no on behalf of the crew, but he told them that talking to the crew would likely prove just as useless as the trio in the conference room.
In the Eugenics War, was that about clones too? Once you get the perfect soldier, you have to mass produce them, if you have the technology, right?
After the war, normal people would insist on legal protections, for general abuse or theft of their genetic code.
Put it another way: someone steals your car. You find it. Do you just let them keep it, or do you take steps to either get it back and get the person who stole it arrested?
Picard didn't say no on behalf of the crew, but he told them that talking to the crew would likely prove just as useless as the trio in the conference room.
Retrieving a stolen car does not involve murdering an innocent person. Riker's actions did.
person
But we can continue the debate on another thread, if you like. I'm just not sure what else I have to say on it. Maybe agree to disagree?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.