Re: TNG - Half a Life
Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:48 pm
Ironically, some of the faceplamingly idiotic responses on YT are likely to drive me to an early grave.
An opinionated discussion of all things SFDebris
https://sfdebris.net/forum/
This kind of thinking is dangerous. Other people are entitled to their opinions of your actions, and choices come with consequences that arise naturally instead of being imposed. If you take a decision that lots and lots of people disagree with, you're going to have to live with their disagreement. If you're not willing or capable of doing that, you're a slave to mass opinion.
There is a difference between something being objectively wrong, and having a strong negative response to that thing. And I believe you are mistaking one for the other.
It is of course a principle that breeds isolationism and also complete disdain for other races as the assumption that they cannot survive contact with other one is born from a misguided sense of superiority.Frustration wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 7:46 pm The principles which dictate that the Federation should not interfere in the internal matters of other civilizations, including but not limited to the "Prime Directive", aren't needed to protect decisions that the Federation approves of. By definition, those decisions don't NEED protection. The principles exist for the cases where the Federation disapproves of the actions, views them as abhorrent.
Sadly, there is no lack of people who sincerely believe the world should be remade in a form acceptable to them, using force if necessary. We've yet to develop culturally to the level of the fictional Federation.
I think the episode really failed to realize what it was presenting since its not euthanasia when it's forced by society and they would rather die than accept help from a member. Its ageism and abelism to the extent of eugenics. Which is not actually a comparison I normally throw up but the society is explictly of the view the elderly are a burden and to be exterminated.drewder wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 10:24 pm The ironic part is in this episode we're supposed to agree that the society is wrong and the system should be abolished but the system is what has worked for this society and no attempt is made to understand why the society is the way it is. It's that sort of short sighted, knee jerk reaction that the prime directive is supposed to protect against. You might say that Lwaxana isn't in star fleet but she is listed as a federation ambassador so she should be held to the standards of the federation even more than a pseudo-military officer. This is exactly what the prime directive is supposed to govern even if the show seems to believe that it's mostly about moralizing while letting primitive people die.
I don't think it's a matter of surviving, just influence to a significant degree. I don't really like how such knowledge seems to be a rite of privilege for contact in order to fulfill one's socialistic or technological needs, but I get the merit in no influencing highly problematic developments to a society. I think a bit more of this comes into light when you consider the conflicts that the Federation takes to the face.CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 11:18 pmIt is of course a principle that breeds isolationism and also complete disdain for other races as the assumption that they cannot survive contact with other one is born from a misguided sense of superiority.Frustration wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 7:46 pm The principles which dictate that the Federation should not interfere in the internal matters of other civilizations, including but not limited to the "Prime Directive", aren't needed to protect decisions that the Federation approves of. By definition, those decisions don't NEED protection. The principles exist for the cases where the Federation disapproves of the actions, views them as abhorrent.
Sadly, there is no lack of people who sincerely believe the world should be remade in a form acceptable to them, using force if necessary. We've yet to develop culturally to the level of the fictional Federation.
I think the two sentences before that one in that paragraph of my statement are kind of essentially to understand what I mean. "In this case adding back a little nuance the thing that strikes me is that it is unclear that the planet here is really practicing ritual suicide. This rule sounds so stark that it sounds suspiciously like all the people don't voluntarily kill themselves." Context matters.Frustration wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 7:18 pmThis kind of thinking is dangerous. Other people are entitled to their opinions of your actions, and choices come with consequences that arise naturally instead of being imposed. If you take a decision that lots and lots of people disagree with, you're going to have to live with their disagreement. If you're not willing or capable of doing that, you're a slave to mass opinion.
Probably better to just not look at them. He needs all the engagement he can get for the algorithm.CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 11:16 pmTurning off comments is a matter of survival for many.
Name one? I think the only one that came close was New Zealand, and they're a small island, so they were able to basically seal the borders. And they still have lockdowns. Meanwhile Sweden is a country that had no restrictions... and about the same numbers as anywhere else.RobbyB1982 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:45 pmOther countries locked down, *really* locked down for two months, and universally wore masks, and cleared out all their cases, 100%.clearspira wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 5:25 pmNo option we had for the bulk of 2020 to avoid lockdown did not sound like it had come out of an eugenics textbook: kill the old and the sick so that the young and healthy may flourish. And I don't think we'll have the answer by the next pandemic either although hopefully by then we'll have better methods of curing viruses.
We could have licked it in a single month if everyone just ACTUALLY done what they were supposed to. Don't make "wear a damn mask" a political issue. But its too late to fix that mentality now.
I think that statement falls apart when fear is driven by people dying. It's kind of like, "Fear should not drive us to avoid jumping off bridges." Mind you, I am of the fact that as bad as Covid-19 has been, it would have been explicitly much worse if we hadn't shut down the economy and isolated for months.Swiftbow wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:49 am Name one? I think the only one that came close was New Zealand, and they're a small island, so they were able to basically seal the borders. And they still have lockdowns. Meanwhile Sweden is a country that had no restrictions... and about the same numbers as anywhere else.
The lesson from Covid is that we can't let fear drive policies. Especially unfounded fear. This was never a deadly illness for 99% of the population. Even the vulnerable had a death rate of less than 2%. All the lockdowns did was slow the spread of herd immunity and give the virus more time to mutate. (I'm not saying it wouldn't have mutated anyway... but the naturally immune are still immune to the new permutations. The vaccinated are only resistant.)
For context, my wife and I had Covid last February. After getting better at home, I went back to work. It felt like the flu, though actually a little less severe.