The moral premise - Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) Discussion

[–] shandy8 16 years ago

I understand your point. All humans covet; it's our nature.

"I love corn!"

reply

[–] Jordanus 16 years ago

Another thing that no one has brought up so far as I have seen is that it isn't as though the Federation found this planet, the Sona'a brought it to their attention. They did so because they were quite literally falling apart and many of them wouldn't have survived long enough for the natural metaphasic radiation concentrations to do their work. Their response is to dupe the federation, who have the planet in their territory, though as mentioned the Baku are NOT Federation citizens and do not fall under eminent domain, into the sinister plot of the movie. The Sona'a don't care about the Baku and actively hate them so they attempt to go for the quick and easy way. Basically the Sona'a duped Admiral Dougherty and the federation into this scheme, and the Federation were too greedy to follow their own rules. The idea that the bigger people can take the smaller peoples' stuff when they want it, and on a larger scale, that we can trample the rights of a few if we can help many, are the cause of much of the violence, pain, and suffering in the world, past and present.

reply

[–] shockabsorber 15 years ago

Interesting debate. There are a few things though...

Billions could be saved? I am not sure about the logic of this. Saved from what? Death by old age? This makes it sound like everyone has a right to live forever. These people owned it, established it first, albeit only 300 years ago, and settled there. They aren't members of the Federation and so aren't subject to "Compulsory purchase orders" any more than an oil-rich sovereign island in the middle of the Atlantic would be in current times, even if the inhabitants were only using it to fry their chips.

USA was only established about 200-250 years ago, are we to believe that the rest of the world has a right to come and take their resources? Maybe leave enough for the native Americans. How many millenia they've been there is irrelevant, it's their home now and has been for hundreds of years.

But the other point is this. 600 people take up a tiny part of an entire planet. Anyone else who wants to benefit from it, simply come and live on that planet, establish an exclusion zone (presumably the Baku wouldn't like intruders and it's only fair, they were there first).

I believe Picard mentioned this, and the response was something like, "Who would want to?"

They couldn't crack the technology? That is the Federation's own problem. They'll just have to keep working on it, they have the thing there to observe. You want eternal life, you'll have to work for it.

One other thing, and that is on Federation policy. The feds pride themselves on non-interference and each world having a right to govern themselves, live their lives how they see fit, and not to be interfered with. It is one of their highest values. OK the Baku didn't evolve on this planet, which exempted them from the Prime Directive, but this is just using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. (And as someone else posted, their civilisation has actually been around longer than the Federation)

If the Federation did this, they would have to admit they are no better than the Cardassians and would be forced to admit that their "Prime Directive" is a sham which can be overlooked whenever it suits them, as opposed to the fundamental guiding principle that they claim it to be.

__________________
I said there'd be a pandemic when pigs fly!
But the swine flu.

reply

[–] klonkey 15 years ago

Another point I haven't seen brought up, which I now mention just to complicate the discussion more, is that this film takes place during the Dominion War, which at the time, the Federation/Klingon alliance was losing in dreadful fashion. Remember also that, by the end of DS9, the Sona'a had allied themselves with the Dominion. Thus, the Briar Patch had more than a little strategic importance to the Federation--Dougherty might have himself been blinded by the possibilities of the medical benefits, but it's more likely the brass back at the Starfleet HQ realized if the Dominion got a hold of the Briar Patch, they'd figure out all sorts of great ways to make their already imposing Jem'Hadar armies even more unstoppable, and the Alpha Quadrant would have been toast. So while perhaps the wrong decision was made in a moral sense by Starfleet, at the time it'd be hard argue that, strategically and militarily speaking, it was something that probably should have been done.

reply

[–] GaMEChldREBORN 15 years ago

I just want to draw everyone's attention to the fact that I originally posted in this thread on Page 2 on (Fri May 30 2008 07:19:08). The original post was (Fri Oct 26 2007 10:12:36).

It is now Page 8 and October 2, 2009. I think this movie was successful in drawing debate over the premise. Clearly, there are arguments being made for every side of this case.

So in that, I think the movie did its job. The scenario in the movie was a point of controversy for everyone here.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] crooky-3 15 years ago

China and India would make us all live in the ocean so they could spread out and live comfortably.

The exact notion to understand is when Picard asked the Admiral "how many people does it take for it to be wrong?" As much as I would like to agree that 600 people blocking the potential life and prosperity of billions is ridiculous, Picard has a point there.

reply

[–] zephyr-123 15 years ago

Does anyone else think it's a little strange that they have been living on this planet for at least 300 years and yet there's only 600 of them? Shouldn't there be thousands of them? I don't think they should have been relocated but with as much space as there was left on the planet, anyone should be allowed to move there.

Buffy: "Alright, I get it. You're evil. Do we have to chat about it all day?" -Amends

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] prototypepariah 15 years ago

That planet would be like taking a cup of water out of the ocean, to save all the fish. Really it's likely more like taking a drop as far as planets in the galaxy go.

The moral dilemma in this flick shouldn't be about the sona or the feds(see what i did there!) moving people that should or shouldn't be moved for the benefit of the galaxy. It should be about people that know the costs, trials, tribulations, of "real" life. Yet they hide and hoard their treasure. Not sharing that gift, would be just as bad as trying to take it away from someone.

reply

[–] merdiolu 15 years ago

Ba'ku were not hoarding anything...They only wanted to be left alone on the planet. Whatever actions Son'a or Federation took against them ( remove them by force , destroying them or leave them in peace and find another way to use metaphysic radiation ) these actions were the responsibility of Son'a or Federation...It was their decision...not Ba'ku's. The basic moral premise was : how far are we willing to go to get what we want , what we crave no matter what the outcome or costs are for everyone else ?

reply

[–] happy_apostate 15 years ago

The problem with this movie is that the writers never bothered to watch the TNG series to understand the characters and that this story had already been done before with the characters doing the exact opposite of what was done in the movie.

RedLetterMedia on YouTube does an excellent job of deconstructing this crapfest of a film....but then al the TNG films are retarded crap.

---
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. - David Hume

reply

[–] [email protected] 13 years ago

Most of them are. I will continue to defend First Contact, though. Good character study, exciting, showcases the genesis of Star Trek's bright future and what it's all about...That movie cemented my status as a fan.

Also, Michael Piller (the writer) was actually on TNG from way back. He wanted to do a fountain of youth story that had Picard standing up for a small group of people who would be used by Federation brass who had forgotten their own ideals. It went through a LOT of revisions and back'n'forth waffling on creative decisions before we ended up with a "meh" script that painted a pretty lame picture of paradise. If the Bak'u weren't so dull and hypocritical, then I might have given a damn.

reply

[–] Star-Spawn 15 years ago

I think the premise would have worked a lot better if there were billions and not hundreds on the planet's surface.

reply

[–] NewDivide1701 13 years ago

Would you say the same thing if this happened to Earth? Would you want aliens to steal our planet from us because they need it for their own Federation? Hm?

I seem to remember a similar incident with the Halkans over a century before where Kirk reminded them that even though they have the power to take the dilithium crystals from them, they chose not to.

Why? Is it really simple numbers? Millions vs. 600? A little girl whose only possession is a gold necklace her mother gave her that can be sold for food to feed hundreds. Would you just take it from her? Rip it from her neck?

Of course you would because stealing that necklace from a harmless girl will help others. Push the little bitch aside, why should she matter when hundreds are at stake?

reply

[–] NewDivide1701 13 years ago

Or another way to put it is that YOU, Dougherty and Ebert say it is moral to rob from the poor to feed the rich because the poor has something the rich desire. Not need, DESIRE!!

reply

[–] nasor 13 years ago

Would you say the same thing if this happened to Earth? Would you want aliens to steal our planet from us because they need it for their own Federation? Hm?

Whether or not I "want" them to do it isn't really relevant to the question of whether or not it's right and moral for them to do it. I don't WANT to pay taxes, but that doesn't mean taxes are immoral. If some aliens wanted to move humans to another planet because doing so would save a billion billion alien lives, then yeah, I would absolutely expect them to move us and I won't blame them for it, even if I personally didn't like having to move.

I seem to remember a similar incident with the Halkans over a century before where Kirk reminded them that even though they have the power to take the dilithium crystals from them, they chose not to.

You can't compare mining some dilithium (that the Federation could get elsewhere anyway) with saving billions of lives. If instead of dilithium the Halkans has been hording some amazing drug that was needed to save the lives of billions of Federation citizens, and the Halkans were the only source, then of course Kirk would have taken it by force if necessary.

Why? Is it really simple numbers? Millions vs. 600?

Actually it was moving 600 people to save the lives of billions.

A little girl whose only possession is a gold necklace her mother gave her that can be sold for food to feed hundreds. Would you just take it from her? Rip it from her neck?

Of course you would because stealing that necklace from a harmless girl will help others. Push the little bitch aside, why should she matter when hundreds are at stake?

If it's the only way to save those hundreds of people from STARVING TO DEATH, then yes, OF COURSE you would take the necklace. How is that even a question? What about all the little girls in that groups of starving hundreds? You would rather see dozens of little girls starve to death rather than take a necklace from one little girl? Do you not realize how *beep* up that is???

reply

[–] NewDivide1701 13 years ago

But under that same logic:

-Picard shouldn't have dropped the Enterprise's shields when the Romulan warbird had its diruptors trained on it while in orbit around Galorndon Core. He risked the lives of over 1000 people just to save Geordi LaForge.

-Data should have surrendered his rights as an individual to Commander Maddox so he could replicate Data and save countless lives especially during the Dominion war. My guess is that a small squadron of Datas would have slaughtered a whole infantry of Jem'Hadar.

-Picard should have let the Bandi keep that jellyfish creature because look at how much it improved their economy and their livelihoods.

-Kirk should have let the Zetars take over Lt. Mira Romaine because they are survivors, survivors plural, of a long dead planet while Mira Romaine is one woman.

-Kirk should have let the Eymorg keep Spock's brain because the Eymorg civilization is dependent on that brain.

When you get down to it, it's simple numbers. The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. Best to sacrifice the few or the one to save the many.

reply

[–] jaerrynn33 13 years ago

I'm actually really glad that this thread exists. This kind of debate is at the heart of what Star Trek's about!

reply

[–] [email protected] 13 years ago

This sort of scenario has happened before on Star Trek. For example, the TNG episode "Journey's End" deals with the possible relocation of NATIVE AMERICANS from the colony planet they occupy. Picard is there himself, negotiating to get them off the planet and saying that he can help find a new home for them.

But there are some important differences here. The guy at sfdebris.com made some good points. For one thing, the Bak'u are being moved because the planet would be uninhabitable once the radiation was harvested, which needs to happen quickly if the Son'a are to survive. As he says, "It's kind of like damming a river to provide water and electricity for a city that would die without it, and then wanting to relocate the cluster of cabins downstream that would be affected by it. 'I'm not kicking you out of your house so that I can come and live there or rob it, but because what's happening elsewhere is gonna affect you sooner or later.'"

It's certainly destructive to just force people out of their home for your own gain. But the script is going out of its way to make the 'bad guys' go ahead with this plan before any negotiations take place. The Bak'u wouldn't die the moment they leave; they would sacrifice their immortality so that billions of other people can be helped by new medical miracles. Continuing sfdebris's commentary: "How could the Bak'u then pretend to be so enlightened if they choose their own longevity over the lives of countless people? That's why IT'S NEVER ASKED OF THEM DIRECTLY," (emphasis mine) "because there's no answer that would not make them look like selfish a**holes. They would become just as much villains as the villains are."

If this issue had been tweaked, it might have given our heroes a more 'heroic' position in the story. As it is, there's some weak storytelling going on here, even if we got a lively debate out of it.

Fore more detailed analysis, go to http://sfdebris.com/startrek/film9.asp

reply

[–] conquerorallen 13 years ago

If Spock were there, he might say: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,or the one."

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

"What I don't get is, why not just set up a Federation/Son'a base and utilize the power of the planets rings on the far side of the planet, far away from the Baku village, and leave each other alone."

That's Exactly what picard suggested!

people don't seem to get that the basis is that dougherty jumped the gun and was performing an illegal operation. the federation ordered him to STUDY the briar patch, but he was impatient.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply