TNG - Homeward

[Frustration]

Making contact with them destroys their culture. They weren't stupid - the Federation could have kidnapped their children, raised them, and produced good Federation citizens.

That's what the Borg do, after all. And it works so well.

Pre-warp cultures are not to be contacted. There was no method of saving that species that didn't at least risk obliterating them in the process of saving them. The alien who found out about the deception killed himself.

[Frustration]

I don't think there's any historical scenario comparable to this episode. The best I can come up with is a futuristic scenario where the Sentinel Islands are going to sink into the ocean, and the Indian government (or whatever) knocks the Sentinelese out and dumps them on to a different island.

The Sentinelese? The people that well-intentioned Good Samaritans keep trying to contact, to bring medicines and technology, and who are killed by the islanders? The people that the Indian government has to quarantine, just to ensure that religious missionaries don't wipe them out with a disease while they indoctrinate them into the One True Faith (whichever one the missionary happens to hold) and to keep the idiot moderns from being speared and beheaded by the primitives?

Pre-warp cultures must be left alone, to work out their destinies, and this culture's destiny was to perish in a natural disaster.

There are more important things than satisfying the urge to 'do good'. Such as restraining and controlling that urge, so that it doesn't wreak incalculable harm. ST was enlightened enough to recognize that. You people... aren't.

[TGLS]

Pre-warp cultures must be left alone, to work out their destinies, and this culture's destiny was to perish in a natural disaster.

Define "destiny".

There are more important things than satisfying the urge to 'do good'. Such as restraining and controlling that urge, so that it doesn't wreak incalculable harm.

OK, how exactly are they harmed any more than "everyone dying", especially in the case where almost none of them are aware that anything happened apart from a long trip on foot?

[Frustration]

I'm sure you're perfectly capable of looking up the definitions of words, TGLS.

Do you truly not understand the idea of risk as harm? If I take a six-chamber revolver, load a bullet into a chamber, spin it, close it up, point it at your head and pull the trigger - and nothing happens - have I done you a harm, or not?

[clearspira]

I'm sure you're perfectly capable of looking up the definitions of words, TGLS.

Do you truly not understand the idea of risk as harm? If I take a six-chamber revolver, load a bullet into a chamber, spin it, close it up, point it at your head and pull the trigger - and nothing happens - have I done you a harm, or not?

''Destiny'' lol. Same crap as fate and luck. It doesn't exist. Except when something horrific needs to be justified by human beings against his fellow human beings. ''Accept your place because of destiny/God commands it''. Screw that.

And as for your analogy, I don't think its at all as clear cut as you make out. Sure, if you put a revolver to MY head, I would probably shit myself and dwell on it for the rest of my life. But i'm just some guy with nothing better to do than to debate a Star Trek episode online. But if you put a revolver to the head of a Navy Seal, he would use the experience to grow stronger. He would use the experience as determination to kick your ass. He would use the experience to maybe even build something better - such as build a semi-automatic that would have done the job already. Not all ''harm'' is equal and it is not always a bad thing because harm is also a motivator.

Point is, without meaning to, you've kind of just harmed your own argument and corroborated Chuck's opinion on the PD all in one go: You do not know what is going to happen if you rescue these people Maybe they will do a Clearspira and collapse in a pool of their own vomit at the sight of a gun. Or, maybe they will do what great, strong, resourceful people do and use the experience to grow, fight and better themselves. You don't know. But in the eyes of PD followers like you its best not to try I guess.

[Frustration]

The simple fact is that, within the fictional universe of Star Trek, the Federation does not consider itself obligated to save as many lives as possible, or even to save any lives at all, when dealing with pre-contact, pre-warp societies. It's not obliged to save individuals, cultures, or even entire species. It even forbids doing so! And this is for the good of everyone - both the pre-contact people, and the Federation itself.

It could, if it chose, refuse to deny the opportunities and benefits of Federation citizenship to those less privileged. It could provide perfect nutrition, ideal medical care, limitless creature comforts, and endless necessities of life. It could grant the benefits of Federation culture and education to countless trillions of beings.

It doesn't choose to do that. Ultimately, either you understand why, or you don't.

[TGLS]

I'm sure you're perfectly capable of looking up the definitions of words, TGLS.

I know what the general definition of destiny is. It's often wrapped up with supernatural connotations. That's why I want to know if you have a private definition that's actually worth arguing about.

Like, if a tiger was about to maul someone, and I was in a position to shoot the tiger, would it be breaking the that person's destiny to be mauled by a tiger? Is it my destiny to shoot the tiger?

Do you truly not understand the idea of risk as harm? If I take a six-chamber revolver, load a bullet into a chamber, spin it, close it up, point it at your head and pull the trigger - and nothing happens - have I done you a harm, or not?

Sure you are. But if there a maniac with an M16 threatening to splatter my brains all over the floor unless you do, you'll be saving me from a great harm. It's like vaccinating a toddler or stopping a kid from having a cookie. You're causing a relatively small harm to prevent a greater harm from coming to them.

[Frustration]

It's like vaccinating a toddler or stopping a kid from having a cookie. You're causing a relatively small harm to prevent a greater harm from coming to them.

It's not the responsibility of the Federation to prevent harms from coming to people. Nor is it its responsibility to decide what cultures or species are worthy or preservation and which are not. A world ended. All life on it was destroyed. It's not their task to judge whether anything on it was deserving of preservation, or to arrange for its preservation.

Toddlers typically have caretakers. Usually, parents. Is the Federation the parent of all less-developed societies?

[TGLS]

It's like vaccinating a toddler or stopping a kid from having a cookie. You're causing a relatively small harm to prevent a greater harm from coming to them.

It's not the responsibility of the Federation to prevent harms from coming to people. Nor is it its responsibility to decide what cultures or species are worthy or preservation and which are not. A world ended. All life on it was destroyed. It's not their task to judge whether anything on it was deserving of preservation, or to arrange for its preservation.

Legally, pragmatically? Sure. The Federation is absurdly wealthy but they don't have the resources to play rescue rangers for the galaxy, especially with all the other threats around. But to declare that it is moral to stand around and do nothing while tons of people die, when you could trivially do something to save some? That's just stupid. Saying a closely related argument, that it would be immoral to save some and not others, is falling for a perfect solution fallacy.

[Frustration]

It would be immoral for the Federation to usurp the mantle of parenthood for that species merely because they have less technological power. They're given the freedom of absence from interference, and allowed to determine their own destiny. In this case, that destiny was to all die in a natural disaster.

Either you understand this... or you do not.