NationStates Jolt Archive

If anyone can remember Star Trek 9: Insurrection, who was doing the correct thing? Picard's Crew or the Sona?

For those that are not familiar with the plot allow me to explain.

A planet which is sorrounded by a sort of radiation has rejuvenating properties to humanoid lifeforms by haulting the age proccess and in some cases even healing ailments(blindness for example). A few hundred people known as the Baku who stettled on this planet long ago have given up all forms of advanced technology and refuse to use any technological means to assist in their every day lives or even defend themselves.

A dying race called the Sona have failed on many attempts to stop the aging process however they find a way to extract the radiation from the planet's rings, but if they were to do so it would make the planet uninhabitable for years, therefore they are required to move the small population off the planet first(due to an alliance and guidance by The Federation they have been ordered to do so before they begin extraction).

When Picard's crew arrives and finds out their intentions and the fact that the Sona have full support from starfleet they begin a rebellion to prevent the removal of the Baku.

Now I will list the pro's and con's of both sides.

Sona Side
Pro's: Their research could possibly help billions of people. The Baku would be removed without any casualties.

Con's:The Baku who have lived there for generations would be forcibly removed without their conscent. The planet would become uninhabitable for years to come.

Picard's Side
Pro's: His intervention would stop the removal of these people. The planet would not be left desolate and ravaged.

Con's: By acting Picard would deny the research and the aid to billions of people with ailments.

Who was right and why do you think they were?

Picard & Company were right. For generations, the measure of a society's worth and decency was how well it treated it's minorities. Granted, it's been rare that we've measured up to that, but that's the idea at least. They have to treat the Ba'cu decently, even though it would benefit billions of people. The alternative is utilitarianism, where it would be perfectly legitimate to kill the Ba'cu to benefit billions.

As Spock once said - the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.

The Baku should have been moved and the nautral resource of the planet made usable. However, I think the federation and the Sona chose the wrong way to achieve this goal. Not to mention that the Sona looked so absolutely disgusting :p

Ein Deutscher']As Spock once said - the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.

The Baku should have been moved and the nautral resource of the planetmade usable. However, I think the federation and the Sona went about it wrong. Not to mention that the Sona looked so absolutely disgusting :p

Whenever this scenario arises I just think of how Native Americans were treated. They should NOT have been forced out of where they lived for thousands of years just so the US Government could build towns. I would have to go with Picard on this one.

If the native Americans had not been removed, the US would not exist as it does today. So ultimately, you're right, it was wrong. A non-existant US would be preferrable today ;)

However, this is the same thing. The US just chose the wrong way to achieve their goal faster. They simply killed the indians and that's that. The end result being, that the many benefit from the territory that was previously inhabited by the few. It's a simple natural result, however quite barbaric and should not happen like it did. It's basically the same as Hitler who said the Germans needed more "Lebensraum" in the East. However the US are not being condemned as much for what they did to the Indians, so I guess it is more accepted in society for some reason.

Ein Deutscher']If the native Americans had not been removed, the US would not exist as it does today. So ultimately, you're right, it was wrong. A non-existant US would be preferrable today ;)

However, this is the same thing. The US just chose the wrong way to achieve their goal faster. They simply killed the indians and that's that. The end result being, that the many benefit from the territory that was previously inhabited by the few. It's a simple natural result, however quite barbaric and should not happen like it did. It's basically the same as Hitler who said the Germans needed more "Lebensraum" in the East. However the US are not being condemned as much for what they did to the Indians, so I guess it is more accepted in society for some reason.

I just believe in co-existence. That would have been much more prefible. The government has treated Native Americans SOOOO shitty in the past, there aren't even a lot of them left. As Chris Rock said, "When have you ever seen a Native American family just chillin out at Red Lobster?".

Ein Deutscher']If the native Americans had not been removed, the US would not exist as it does today. So ultimately, you're right, it was wrong. A non-existant US would be preferrable today ;)

However, this is the same thing. The US just chose the wrong way to achieve their goal faster. They simply killed the indians and that's that. The end result being, that the many benefit from the territory that was previously inhabited by the few. It's a simple natural result, however quite barbaric and should not happen like it did. It's basically the same as Hitler who said the Germans needed more "Lebensraum" in the East. However the US are not being condemned as much for what they did to the Indians, so I guess it is more accepted in society for some reason.

So what happens when you become a minority? Can we shoot you?

So what happens when you become a minority? Can we shoot you?

I AM apart of a minority, and I can say quite a few people I've met sure wish they could do that.

So what happens when you become a minority? Can we shoot you?
I'm gay, so I am in a minority. However, shooting gays doesn't benefit anyone - particularly not the majority. So it would go against this principle.

And as I said, I think they did it the wrong way, since shooting people is not a nice way to achieve a goal. So no, you're chosing the wrong way aswell.

Ein Deutscher']I'm gay, so I am in a minority. However, shooting gays doesn't benefit anyone - particularly not the majority. So it would go against this principle.
I have a double joint in one pinky, but not the other. Minorities unite!

Ein Deutscher']I'm gay, so I am in a minority. However, shooting gays doesn't benefit anyone - particularly not the majority. So it would go against this principle.

And as I said, I think they did it the wrong way, since shooting people is not a nice way to achieve a goal. So no, you're chosing the wrong way aswell.

But what determines what we can do to the minority? Is it only what we can get out of it? It has to be big enough to justify the act?

There is a wonderful Chinese story to illustrate this. A sage (I forgot which one) is asked if he could save humanity by pulling out one hair, would he do it. He replied that he wouldn't. He said that if he said yes, the person would then ask him if he would pull two hairs. Pretty soon, he would be bald. Shortly after that, he would be losing his whole head. Where does it stop?

Society must treat the minority the same way that it treats the majority, else we fail the majority as well.

Hmmm...is no one going to point out how totally selfish the Baku are in this matter?

Why do you expect moral behavior from one side (allowing millions to die, nobly), and expect nothing from the other (not willing to suffer inconvenience, ignobly)??

Oh, and nice job finding your sole example of conquest/oppression in the history of the US. WHERE, on the face of the earth, are the current inhabitants the ORIGINAL inhabitants??

(This would include merrie olde Englande, methinks.)

Stick to philosophical/logical principles on this one, the historical arguments reek of the knee-jerk, ubiquitous anti-Western prejudice that naively romanticises aboriginal peoples. (And I hope that wasn't a flame...old habits die hard. Sorry.)

Well I still think that if something greatly benefits a huge number of people and a minority prevents the majority from enjoying the benefits, then measures can be taken to make sure that the minority is NOT the stopping factor in the equation. This however does not include killing this minority, thus why I think that moving the Indians or living next to them peacefully, would have been a better solution than killing most of them or that moving the Baku and making the resource of the planet available to many people would have been better.

It's just the same with i.e. the Catholic Church - if they'd have their way, mankind would still sit in the dark ages, women would have no rights whatsoever and people would be put to the stake for heredity if they believe in some other religion. By regulating the influence of the church somewhat and thus removing some of it's power, mankind as a whole benefits from things that would be forbidden otherwise, i.e. birth control, free science, freedom of religion, universal suffrage, etc.

Hmmm...is no one going to point out how totally selfish the Baku are in this matter?

Why do you expect moral behavior from one side (allowing millions to die, nobly), and expect nothing from the other (not willing to suffer inconvenience, ignobly)??

Oh, and nice job finding your sole example of conquest/oppression in the history of the US. WHERE, on the face of the earth, are the current inhabitants the ORIGINAL inhabitants??

(This would include merrie olde Englande, methinks.)

Stick to philosophical/logical principles on this one, the historical arguments reek of the knee-jerk, ubiquitous anti-Western prejudice that naively romanticises aboriginal peoples. (And I hope that wasn't a flame...old habits die hard. Sorry.)

Technically the natives here in North America didn't originate here at all. They migrated here when the world was in Pangea from Asia. Therefore they share a similar charactersitic with the Baku. They didn't originate from the planet but they've been there for a VERY VERY VERY long time, and in peace.

Who the fuck are the Sona to bust up in there and kidnap them? What gives them the right? They aren't gods, they are regular humanoids just like everybody else. The same applies to Europeans who came over and killed, raped, and push out the natives. That bullshit about being anti-western, well me being African American for one and not being able to trace back my history to my point of origin GREATLY disturbs me. I am however thankful for the fact that I am here in America and not in Africa due to how fucked up it is at the moment. I love America, there's just a shitload of actions that my goverment has done to fuck up other people's lives and misrepresent me.

Hmmm...is no one going to point out how totally selfish the Baku are in this matter?

Why do you expect moral behavior from one side (allowing millions to die, nobly), and expect nothing from the other (not willing to suffer inconvenience, ignobly)??

The question was not if the Ba'ku should move or not. The question was if they should be forcibly moved. They were not given a choice, so we can't fault them. The reason that they lived where they did was because they wanted to live away from everything else (kinda like why some people come to Alaska). Eternal youth was jsut an extra benefit. If they could have found another secluded planet, I think that they would have been willing to move. However, they were not given that choice.

Ein Deutscher']Well I still think that if something greatly benefits a huge number of people and a minority prevents the majority from enjoying the benefits, then measures can be taken to make sure that the minority is NOT the stopping factor in the equation. This however does not include killing this minority, thus why I think that moving the Indians or living next to them peacefully, would have been a better solution than killing most of them or that moving the Baku and making the resource of the planet available to many people would have been better.

It's just the same with i.e. the Catholic Church - if they'd have their way, mankind would still sit in the dark ages, women would have no rights whatsoever and people would be put to the stake for heredity if they believe in some other religion. By regulating the influence of the church somewhat and thus removing some of it's power, mankind as a whole benefits from things that would be forbidden otherwise, i.e. birth control, free science, freedom of religion, universal suffrage, etc.

You are correct that the minority should not be able to steamroll over the majority. However, there must be some basic rights given to every individual, else the majority can do anything that they want. This is mob rule, which is definately not in the best interest of society.

Speaking logically, the Sona are in the right-which is why Starfleet was backing them. Picard should've been court-martialled and cashiered for his actions-Piracy is Piracy, even with the noblest of motives behind it.

You are correct that the minority should not be able to steamroll over the majority. However, there must be some basic rights given to every individual, else the majority can do anything that they want. This is mob rule, which is definately not in the best interest of society.
Democracy is mob rule then :p
It's unfortunate for some minorities, that the majority usually has the say in decision making processes. So long as a minority does not suffer unnecessarily to get the benefits to everyone, I think the majority can have it's way. There just needs to be a careful control over how far this can go. As long as nobody suffers injuries to their body or life or great reduction in life comfort, I think the majority has a right to "rule" over the minority.

Ein Deutscher']Democracy is mob rule then :p
It's unfortunate for some minorities, that the majority usually has the say in decision making processes. So long as a minority does not suffer unnecessarily to get the benefits to everyone, I think the majority can have it's way. There just needs to be a careful control over how far this can go. As long as nobody suffers injuries to their body or life or great reduction in life comfort, I think the majority has a right to "rule" over the minority.

They have the right to rule, but do they have the right to oppress? I would argue that forcibly moving the Ba'ku is oppression.

Okay, the matter of "choice" is central here, is it not?

The Ba'ku should NOT have selfishly enjoyed the benefits of their idyllic existence while letting millions of others die.

The Sona should NOT have selfishly taken it upon themselves to forcibly remove the Ba'ku from tht idyllic existence.

The only real solution would be to study the effect and try to replicate it, providing the benefit without the oppression.

I just wonder how many people's opinions on the matter are affected by the lameass Hollywood slant of making one side good-looking and bucolic and the other nasty-looking and technological. Shallow and propagandistic, in its own way...

PS) The statement that the Indians in North America lived here "peacefully" is bogus, and perfectly exemplifies my statement about 'naively romanticising aboriginal peoples'. With regard to prejudice, "we bad, they good" is as unproductive an attitude as "we good, they bad".

They have the right to rule, but do they have the right to oppress? I would argue that forcibly moving the Ba'ku is oppression.
Well I think we can agree on that then. As I said, they chose the wrong way to achieve their goal. Killing or harming others is not a good way to rule over a minority.

So what happens when you become a minority? Can we shoot you?

No, you are not morally allowed to shoot the minority.
(You Can technically, I suppose)
If I remember right, it's in chapter five of J. S. Mill: Utilitarism.
Minorities are protected by the principle that two people in the same situation are to receive the same treatment. (Very short and rough summing, I'd have to go and pick it up, but it's in the cellar and I'm not concerned enough, since nobody cares about scientific ethics anyway... :mad: *leaves general to rant on in privacy*)