Re: DIS - Through the Valley of the Shadow
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:25 am
There's no consistent level of technology in the setting. I prefer limits versus, "The tech can fix everything."
An opinionated discussion of all things SFDebris
https://sfdebris.net/forum/
Particulary the later is just bonkers, as it's effect varies so much during the course of the franchise. Here you have Picard, who can be mostly healed in what is a matter of days, yet lateron it's implied, that some parts still remain within, because how could he "hear" the Borg in First Contact or magically daydream about them just as they make a completely random move after years of apparent inactivity?
That's True, even with a long running franchise like Star Trek I feel it's always struggled to keep it's world consistent.Madner Kami wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:21 pmParticulary the later is just bonkers, as it's effect varies so much during the course of the franchise. Here you have Picard, who can be mostly healed in what is a matter of days, yet lateron it's implied, that some parts still remain within, because how could he "hear" the Borg in First Contact or magically daydream about them just as they make a completely random move after years of apparent inactivity?
Or Annika Hansen, a girl who was assimilated at the age of 6, who, once removed from the collective 17 years later, clearly can not live without her implants whatsoever and needs a "skinsuit" to help her survive, given most of her skin was non-existant due to the Borg-implants having replaced almost all surface-area of her body. Picard could deal with that in a matter of days, she wears the suit for arguably 5 years (despite her sometimes being displayed without it and already having regrown proper skin, in one instance even within days after having been freed from the collective and from some implants). We can regrow skin nowadays already and while covering areas as large as an entire body is kind of problematic, it can be done and doesn't need years to work out.
And then there are "XBs" from Star Trek Picard, a series that is named and centers around a character once assimilated and essentially completely freed from the Borg Collective within a matter of days, who just can not function as normal human beings even after what is implied to be years of treatment and thus still remaining as semi-comatose and completely apathetic beings.
Gawd, if there's one thing I hate more than anything, then it's inconsistency. I mean, some parts will be missed, forgotten, misremembered, always, particularly if it's small things. But such big deals? Come on, how hard can it be?
Honestly, Crusher's doctoral ethics suck. She has no regard for the feelings of the patient when it conflicts with her views.DoctorWTF wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:49 pmAt least with the episode "Ethics", they had the excuse that they didn't know an awful lot about the Klingon nervous system (courtesy of the Klingons' "better dead than crippled" policy), and Worf didn't look like he'd be okay with living with a disability for even the few years it could plausibly have taken them to learn about it.
To be fair, her attitude towards the idea of Worf killing himself isn't that much different from what one would expect from the average real-world doctor.CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:47 am Honestly, Crusher's doctoral ethics suck. She has no regard for the feelings of the patient when it conflicts with her views.
Worf obviously would know this. I think it's that Worf considered it a betrayal of his cultural values to do so.It might have been nice for someone to explain to Worf that the Federation has a much more enlightened view of people with disabilities than his homeworld, that there'd be no danger of his peers seeing him as a burden or object of pity as he thought (even if there's no plausible way it would have changed his mind).
The thing about designing public spaces to be more accessible is that it can actually be helpful in ways that go beyond the accommodation that was originally intended. It's called the Curb-Cut Effect, named after those little ramps that many sidewalk curbs have. That design was meant for people in wheelchairs, but it ended up being quite helpful for shopping carts, bikes, hand-trucks and other such things.DoctorWTF wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:09 pmThat actually raises an interesting philosophical question I've sometimes pondered. With stuff like race, gender, and sexuality, treating people right pretty much boils down to "don't be an asshole" - it basically costs people nothing to refrain from wanton bigotry. Whereas allowing people with disabilities to properly function in society often requires designing public spaces to be accessible to them, which takes time and money.rickgriffin wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:22 pm I suppose you could have characters who WANT to remain disabled, but that doesn't work for representation because you've sorta shifted the subtext of the work given that in this situation it becomes a personal choice. Which is why I don't necessarily feel like it's completely a social construct like gender or sexuality, BECAUSE those constructs lean on choice, even if it's a biologically-prompted choice. A person who is disabled and chooses to remain disabled does throw their lot in with the "it's a choice" side of the social construct, but most do not, especially when they didn't grow up coming into this identity of their own will or self-discovery. Either way, if you say your future tech makes disability a matter of choice that is itself a whole can of worms and still leaves on the table representation for the sake of people who do not choose to tacitly accept disability.
I actually think these are easy answers. Yes, as far as someone who doesn't have a choice, and no. Basically, the right to life, freedom and dignity shouldn't have an entry bar. Perhaps I am proposing a radical position here, but these truths I hold to be self-evident, I guess.DoctorWTF wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:09 pm So the question then becomes: If people choose to live with disabilities which could otherwise be cured, would we owe them the same duty of accommodation as we do to people in real life today (who generally have no choice)? How far would we be obligated to go to prevent them from suffering as a result of the choice they made? Would the motivation behind them turning down the cure (say, if they hold some religious beliefs that would prohibit taking the cure) make any difference?
Indeed the answers are easy. People who have no choice, should be helped by society. People who choose not to be helped, have no right to demand society to bend over backwards to fullfill their whims. There is no right to be a burden to the society you live in or, in other words, your personal freedom ends where someone else's begins.Freeverse wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:28 pmI actually think these are easy answers. Yes, as far as someone who doesn't have a choice, and no. Basically, the right to life, freedom and dignity shouldn't have an entry bar. Perhaps I am proposing a radical position here, but these truths I hold to be self-evident, I guess.DoctorWTF wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:09 pm So the question then becomes: If people choose to live with disabilities which could otherwise be cured, would we owe them the same duty of accommodation as we do to people in real life today (who generally have no choice)? How far would we be obligated to go to prevent them from suffering as a result of the choice they made? Would the motivation behind them turning down the cure (say, if they hold some religious beliefs that would prohibit taking the cure) make any difference?
I mean, you can't force someone to accept help if they don't want to, and that includes potential treatments as well as accommodations. If they refuse to undergo treatment and refuse to use whatever accommodations that the majority of people with the same condition use, then we have to respect their choice, even if it leads to their suffering.
OK, so, assuming that there are absolutely no risks or trade-offs for treatment kind of makes the question moot, because if every available treatment is literally perfect we're dealing with a society so advanced that there would be no need for accommodations, or more accurately that accommodations would be so trivial that every member of the society could just make their own. Which means that we're talking about people who are simply not sure they want to take the risks, or are more willing to continue on as they are than to take whatever downside comes with the treatment. In which case...Madner Kami wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:35 pmIndeed the answers are easy. People who have no choice, should be helped by society. People who choose not to be helped, have no right to demand society to bend over backwards to fullfill their whims. There is no right to be a burden to the society you live in or, in other words have, your personal freedom ends where someone else's begins.Freeverse wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:28 pmI actually think these are easy answers. Yes, as far as someone who doesn't have a choice, and no. Basically, the right to life, freedom and dignity shouldn't have an entry bar. Perhaps I am proposing a radical position here, but these truths I hold to be self-evident, I guess.DoctorWTF wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:09 pm So the question then becomes: If people choose to live with disabilities which could otherwise be cured, would we owe them the same duty of accommodation as we do to people in real life today (who generally have no choice)? How far would we be obligated to go to prevent them from suffering as a result of the choice they made? Would the motivation behind them turning down the cure (say, if they hold some religious beliefs that would prohibit taking the cure) make any difference?
I mean, you can't force someone to accept help if they don't want to, and that includes potential treatments as well as accommodations. If they refuse to undergo treatment and refuse to use whatever accommodations that the majority of people with the same condition use, then we have to respect their choice, even if it leads to their suffering.