Sfdebris.net

So, does the Tuvix protocol still apply to the two Kirks? Was it worth sacrificing two new lives in order to resurrect, in effect, a dead man?

*ducks*

EDIT: Also, just had an interesting thought: since the transporter is able to duplicate (with variation) users under certain circumstances, how would the Enterprise crew react to a species which had done away with traditional reproduction, and instead subjected themselves to transporter accidents in order to reproduce without simply copying the originals? Sometimes you get a Thomas/William Riker situation, sometimes you get Id Kirk and Superego Kirk, and sometimes you get the original plus a child-sized copy!

I think a civilization that did that would quickly run into copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy problems: each copy of a person contains miniscule errors that, over time, add up into huge problems that leave them unable to function.

Isn't that basically what they came across in "Up the Long Ladder?" So I think you have an answer to that question.

While the copy idea has not been deliberately used to my knowledge. There was a ToS Novel that I thought would make a good episode. The Enterprise hit a space fold and got tossed out of the Alpha quadrant. The nearest planet to limp to had odd signals. No communications but it seemed transporter activity off the charts. The people of the world had come up with hand held personal transporters and used them for everything. Stairs? Elevators? Talking to someone? You just beam over and speak. Walking was around one or two rooms.
They also had replicator technology but it was a stumbling block for the Enterprise because Scotty would hand them a broken part and they would make the new part exactly like the broken one. Burn marks and all.

Sorry off topic but it was another exploration of what could be done with transporters.

As to the misogyny by having attempted rape in the show. I think it may have been glossed over because it showed it in a negative light. Something out of character for Kirk. And it was not dismissed in the episode till the very end by Spock. Where the lampshade gets hung by Chuck.

Personally I never had a finger to put on the two Kirks. Naked aggression Kirk screams for himself. But the indecisive milquetoast didn't seem good, or moral. He seemed sedated. Maybe that was Shatner or the director. But he did not come off as on opposite. Like purely analytical or justifying or well anything decisive. Hence personally I would have scored this one lower.

Heh, I actually have a library copy of Incubus here on my desk. I've been meaning to check it out if only out of morbid curiosity.

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:52 pm Why would an evil Kirk be a coward? Why wouldn't he be super brave? Reckless, aggressive to the point he doesn't care if he dies?

Because he's running more on instinct and is incapable of much foresight or planning, only a basic in-the-moment cunning. Most animals don't pick fights they don't think they can win without much effort, because even being slightly injured can be a death sentence to a wild creature with no access to medical science. Generally it takes an extreme situation--i.e. the continued survival of the animal or its genes--to force an instinctual creature into a life-and-death struggle, like being cornered, starvation, illness, protecting a mate or offspring, or the mating combats of some species.

Jeez, I felt sorry for that dog, it did not look happy wearing all that shit.

Makeshift Python wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:31 am

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:15 am I dunno. I think fear is good, despite what Yoda says. Fear can help you make good decisions that save your own life, or protect the safety of others. This strikes me as... Gene being Gene. My "perfect humans" will never be afraid! Only their evil halves are terrified!

Like I said earlier, its really all about a balance that both Kirks are lacking when separated. Fear can be helpful, but without the intellect that calms one’s emotions one can’t be able to control that fear properly. The episode is arguing that all aspects of Kirk’s personality are perfectly valid for the whole, only they’re weaker when separated. To take even one aspect of Kirk away is to make him a lesser person.

Exactly. One only need look at how fear absent of intellect is creating real world health problems over people failing to understand vaccines and falling for a relentless propaganda machine fueled by fear and ignorance.