You know what really irks me about "Insurrection"?
- Thread starter Lance
- Start date
I disagree. All life is precious and when we are explorers, the Federation shouldn't make the distinction of killing humans or killing birds or flowers. It's life. You are bringing your own morality to the question. You think sentience is limited to human beings. I don't think that it is and as we get more and more data that proves they have culture and emotional states, the lines become less clear between us and rest of the life on the planet.
Supposition. This is never addressed in the movie. How would you like to be the sample left of your culture, bred to keep the species alive?
Because it is damaging to the environment. I would rather the Federation study the rings for 10-20 years and find a way to synthesize the rings than let them destroy an entire planet worth of life.
You have no evidence that the Federation plan involved destroying the planet's lifeforms as opposed to relocating and/or repopulating them. For all we know Dougherty wasn't planning to move ahead for weeks or months. Ru'afo may have only accelerated matters because of Picard's interference.
Your plan involves letting millions suffer essentially needlessly for 10-20 years, and that's only assuming that the Federation -can- synthesize the rings' properties. I'm not saying that it's not a better option from an environmental standpoint, but it certainly doesn't seem more humane.
Your plan involves letting millions suffer essentially needlessly for 10-20 years, and that's only assuming that the Federation -can- synthesize the rings' properties. I'm not saying that it's not a better option from an environmental standpoint, but it certainly doesn't seem more humane.
I don't remember if it was mentioned, but do we know for sure that the collected particles (or whatever it was) would work away from that specific environment? If it hasn't been tested, destroying a planet is a pretty big gamble if there is no guaranteed payoff.
I have seen no data that plants have culture or emotional states. Also, fish don't have complex inner mental states nor do they have much of a sense of personal identity. Moreover, I doubt that you live by the moral code that you mention in the post. If there's a fire in a house do you put equal effort into trying to save the hamster as you do the family inside?
Of course if they can preserve some of the animals and plants they should, but again, the needs of sentient billions outweigh the needs of some plants and animals.
Howso? The planet was essentially valueless aside from the rings. Worst-case scenario, you've turned an almost-worthless planet entirely worthless. Best-case scenario, you've alleviated the suffering of millions or more.
Would destroying Ceti Alpha V post-TWoK be a big gamble?
Whether destroying a planet is a big gamble depends on the planet in question.
'birds or flowers'? lol
If you have this 'more and more data', then it should be no problem to produce said 'more and more data'.
Let's see it.
I wasn't referring to birds when I said "culture," but a simple Google search brought up something interesting (Do Birds hold Funerals?)
I suggest reading "The Moral Lives of Animals" by Dale Peterson and "The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates" by Frans De Waal.
Laugh all you want, but Primates are known to carry around a dead child on their back for days, to cry over their body. Elephants can have post-traumatic stress disorder.
This indicates more than an emotional state. It indicates symbolism.
HaventGotALife
You actually call what you posted 'more and more data'? Really?
'data' means peer reviewed papers, not propaganda from people with an agenda. BTW, actually read your blog post about birds and funerals - and see what the peer reviewed paper linked there actually says.
As for the rest - I see you went from plants to primates. Talk about moving the goal-posts.
You actually call what you posted 'more and more data'? Really?
'data' means peer reviewed papers, not propaganda from people with an agenda. BTW, actually read your blog post about birds and funerals - and see what the peer reviewed paper linked there actually says.
As for the rest - I see you went from plants to primates. Talk about moving the goal-posts.
As EDIT_XYZ wrote, you abruptly switched from birds, fish, and plants to PRIMATES, which of course are biologically much closer to Humans and DO have complex emotional states and cultures. That's a totally different place from where you started.
I wasn't talking about plants and birds. I have already stated that. Go re-read it. It talks about ALL LIFE, not just birds and flowers, which is what is shown in the film. It's a misunderstanding because you didn't read what was said.
HaventGotALife
?
You WERE talking about 'birds and flowers' - and putting the equal sign between killing them and killing humans.
Do you actually think rhetorical double speak can obfuscate this?
?
You WERE talking about 'birds and flowers' - and putting the equal sign between killing them and killing humans.
Do you actually think rhetorical double speak can obfuscate this?
I changed from talking about the life to talking about an interpretation that puts sentient beings like humans above all other life on the planet. It's not double-speak. Read.
HaventGotALife
"the Federation shouldn't make the distinction of killing humans or killing birds or flowers. It's life. You are bringing your own morality to the question. You think sentience is limited to human beings. I don't think that it is and as we get more and more data that proves they have culture and emotional states"
You made yourself quite clear about what 'they' you were talking about.
"It's not double-speak."
Ookie-dookie.
"the Federation shouldn't make the distinction of killing humans or killing birds or flowers. It's life. You are bringing your own morality to the question. You think sentience is limited to human beings. I don't think that it is and as we get more and more data that proves they have culture and emotional states"
You made yourself quite clear about what 'they' you were talking about.
"It's not double-speak."
Ookie-dookie.
It's not the intention. They is "life." The reference to birds and flowers is the scene before Picard says "I apologize for our intrusion." It was meant to make a larger point about how ridiculous the sentence that sentient beings is limited to humanoids. It was not meant to refer to the Birds and flowers. That was a Federation distinction. The mention of sentience is directed at the poster. You misinterpreted my post. I see your point, maybe it's sloppy writing, but that was never my intention.
Last edited:
My understanding is that a key element of sentience is self-awareness. AFAIA there's no evidence that birds or flowers possess self-awareness. Hell, in TNG's time it was even a question whether Data or the EMH possessed sentience.
In any event, I'm fine with the Feds relocating/repopulating the non-sentient life, and within the context of the film the only race that's brought up as a concern is the known sentient one, who are willingly squatting on what may essentially be an interstellar-scale cure for cancer, located on a planet that they only ended up on because they got lucky. Sure nobody likes moving, but show some damn compassion for your fellow sentient beings.
As was once pointed out to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "You're not better than us; you're just luckier."
In any event, I'm fine with the Feds relocating/repopulating the non-sentient life, and within the context of the film the only race that's brought up as a concern is the known sentient one, who are willingly squatting on what may essentially be an interstellar-scale cure for cancer, located on a planet that they only ended up on because they got lucky. Sure nobody likes moving, but show some damn compassion for your fellow sentient beings.
As was once pointed out to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "You're not better than us; you're just luckier."
What are people really supporting the federation engaging in 19th century style Imperalism, now of all times.
Of course it was nice of the federation to at lest be honest about it rather than hiding it behind a questionable referendum vote like another federation is currently doing.
Of course it was nice of the federation to at lest be honest about it rather than hiding it behind a questionable referendum vote like another federation is currently doing.
I don't see anyone here supporting the tactics used in the Imperialism you're comparing this scenario to.
Believing the Ba'ku should relocate is a far cry from advocating for giving them smallpox-laced blankets, forcing them into reservations, killing anyone who won't leave, etc.
Also, 19th century style Imperialism involved the relocation of people -from their homelands-, not from places that weren't theirs to begin with.
Also, the people who were moved hadn't opted to settle in one place and refuse to move upon being told that if they moved their land could be used to ease the suffering of millions of people.
If you're going to issue implicit criticisms of those who don't agree with your views, I recommend picking an analogy that would fit better.
Similar threads
