Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Don" data-source="post: 12771" data-attributes="member: 1371">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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />.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</blockquote>

Verification