Enterprise: weekly discussion [prob spoilers too]

[Don]

I guess I'm in the minority as I didn't like the episode at all. The "moral" of the story was the worst of all. Based on false logic, Archer chooses not to help the aliens? Oh boy... (rimshot) Maybe this'll be the episode where Sam will leap into to "make things right that once went wrong". (rimshot)

By their logic, it would be better not to heal X kind of people because they might become Hitlers or something. Or we should stop trying to find a cure for our growing rate of cancers so that we'll stop surpressing dolphins in their evolutionary route to dominance.

If you're not going to help a race facing extinction, then you're defying your own logic by helping individuals when they need it (for who's to say they were not genetically inferior and being deselected in the evolutionary sense for the very reasons that they're sick?). To refuse to help people based on what might happen in the future is foolishness. It's that kind of thinking that plagues human rights groups everywhere.

In fact, if you carry their argument (that one should not interfere with evolution) to the furthest extent, then they should be doing everything that comes naturally. It is part of the universal evolution of life that one species should help another. Why confine this argument to one planet? In doing so you are interfering with the universal evolutionary development of sentience, and violating the very ideal you set out to uphold.

The story-line of this episode comes from the kind of minds that do not understand that things like television sets and ships are as natural as trees and dogs and the little leaf-boats that carpenter ants manufacture to cross rivers (think about that). Everything we do is natural. There really is no such thing as something unnatural. Why people draw the conclusion that "anything that occurs as a result of sentience is unnatural" is beyond me. Following that logic, the birth of babies is mostly unnatural- whoops, I'm ranting again. ;-)

Yes, I was very disappointed with this "morality tale", as it were. Archer made a foolish decision. I understand why he made it, but his reasoning was flawed (as was the Vulcan's, but the Vulcans in Star Trek have proved time and time again that their logic is often false...they were invented by humans after all .

Who's to say that, in the Star Trek universe, evolution ends when a species reaches sentience (which seems to be what Archer, T'Pol, Phlox, et al, seem to think)? Why should evolutionary protection be confined to a planet? Maybe, in their universe, the ultimate goal of evolution is to become gods (and the most evolutionary advanced member of that race perhaps outlasting all the rest and becoming THE God). Look at Q, for example. If that's the case, then it is clear that evolution doesn't stop once a species leaves the planet.

There's no logical reasoning, then, for not helping another species due to their genetic inferiority (which you could cure). We have lots of examples of species here on earth that help each other for mutual benefit. We wouldn't be alive if it weren't for the various bacteria in our gut. Archer's helping of the alien race would, in the universal evolutionary sense, be perfectly acceptable.

"Even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf

 

[Malcor Sylverwood]

~is in agreement with Don~

~shrugs~

I've yet to be terribly impressed by Enterprise. So far about the best thing I can say for it is that I'm still watching and trying to like it. Followed by 'It doesn't suck as much as I feared it would (like Voyager sucked)'.

Edited to say: Whatever you think of the themes from the other series, that song is HORRIBLE. Fortunately, my mute button works just fine!

 

[A2Z]

I liked the episode. The doctor is becoming an interesting character. T'Pol and him are the only two aliens on board and it's interesting to see the differences in their outlooks towards the rest of the crew. Was Phlox's love interest the same officer who was on the away team during the second or third episode? That's the one were the T'Pol's emotions started going haywire.

I disagree with the idea that they should have given away the warp technology. I think we are starting to see the why's of the Primary Directive. They were faced with the choice between saving one race at the expense of another. I think it was fairly well presented. Especially from the doctor's point of view. I liked Archer's comment to T'Pol. "I'm starting to understand why the Vulcans acted as they did".

 

[Troll]

I'm going to have to disagree with Don.

The evolutionary arguments, and all the rest of it, are really secondary to the primary question: Do we have the right, as an outside agent, to set the course for two entire species. To put it in more american terms, we take away the rights of two peoples to determine their own destiny by deciding it for them. Archer's statement, "I have to remind myself we didn't come out here to play god," is consistent with the morality of star trek.

One could argue, as was often been done in the past, that we have a moral responsibility, as the "more advanced" species, to make those decisions for them, to guide them. That's not really consistent with the morality of star trek though.

Troll

 

[Wolf72]

didn't mean to put down G'kar ... just the company he was keeping this time around. (I wonder if he managed to *create* some Narn telepaths ... )

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I haven't seen this episode yet, but I'd have to say overall the show is good, but not great yet. It's starting off better than Voyager did, but will it go on to ge as good as Voyager? I still think the ship should have been even MORE low tech. At the rate they are going they will have photon torps and full shields by seasons end, I thought it would have been cool if they had lacked the whole subspace viewscreen, as TOS said at the time of the Romulan War they lacked subspace communications, which obviously they have in this show.

 

[Don]

I'm going to have to disagree with Don.

The evolutionary arguments, and all the rest of it, are really secondary to the primary question: Do we have the right, as an outside agent, to set the course for two entire species. To put it in more american terms, we take away the rights of two peoples to determine their own destiny by deciding it for them. Archer's statement, "I have to remind myself we didn't come out here to play god," is consistent with the morality of star trek.

Troll

You can't take out the evolutionary arguments. That was the *entire* basis of the dilemma. They even made a point that the crewmen felt the superior species was improperly treating the inferior species (akin to your American meddling example), but it didn't seem to be a big dilemma whether or not to mess with that (I was expecting Archer to at least do something about that, but it never came up).

If the entire dilemma was simply "should we cure these people who'll continue to opress the inferior species", then, yes, I can agree with your points. But, like I said, the entire dilemma was an evolutionary one, which is a different story (as I described in my previous post).

Star Trek has "played god" numerous times by saving a planet from extinction. I can recall at several episodes from TOS and TNG where stuff like this happened. Why didn't they invoke the Prime Directive and say "Your race is suffering from a terrible plague? Oh well, that's evolution for ya!"

Just wait. This whole "do we have the right to mess with another species" question will go out the window many times before Enterprise is done. Planets will be saved, plagues will be cured, and interspecies conflicts will be rectified, all flying in the face of evolution.

 

[Tom Cashel]

I thought the last two episodes (this one included) were pretty lame. Even *gasp* boring.

The Next Generation (as long as it's not season 1) is still my favorite.

The coining of the term "directive" was total cheese, the theme song is total cheese, every time Archer tells T'Pol to come with him I expect him to add, "and bring your breasts with you."

They are so obvious in their desire to not offend any Trekkies; a show that started out with promise has become what they said they were trying to avoid: "A bunch of medium shots of people talking, from the waist up."

I'll keep watching, in the hope that they do something with the Temporal Cold War subplot, but will they surpass TNG? Will they surpass some of the Deep Space Nine episodes from the height of the war with the Dominion? Doubtful.

And the logic behind the Prime Directive is a load of malarkey. Rather than making sense in any real way, it exists only to prop up it's own existence in shows which occur "later" in time. Which is the major problem with prequels anyhow.

But don't get me started.

 

[Markus]

I also must disagree with Don.
I felt the decision to not lend aid was a very difficult one, but, that they made a good decision, if what I inferred from the story is correct.

I may have missed it, please someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn't it come down to saving one species would destroy the other? I thought, by the way the doctor was reacting, that the only way to remove the disease, was to remove the other species, or, that the cure for one species, would kill off the other.
Now they didn't come right out and say that, so I could be pursuaded that it was otherwise.

As for the series, I am very impressed. I love the feel to early exploration. The vulcans not always being best buddies and 'hiding' things from us.
I love the theme song and media. That is what ST is all about in my opion. Mankinds struggle to advance to the stars.
IMO this show is already better than Voyager (not tough), DS9, TOS and is doing better out the gate the TNG did (remember its first season?). Now it will be interesting to see if they can keep it going

Markus

 

[Umbran]

Not quite, Marcus.

Saving the one species would not destroy the other species, but it would keep them in servitude, and prevent them from reaching their own potential.