So what'dya think?
Printable View
So what'dya think?
The performances(Trip, Phlox, Archer) were great. What made this episode was the scene in Trip's quarters (sp) with Archer. Even though i lean towards action/plot oriented episodes, this one was pretty amazing. So if you like character driven episodes then this might be the one to catch. Archer really showed that he got a pair. The third season of Enterprise has been unbelievable. I hope it keeps up and I hope that Manny Coto delivers another great episode.
I like the way the ST Enterprise writing is going . THis one showed just why good people make the wrong choice .
Everyone knew why the clone was being created for spare parts and this is an evil thing to do . The clone trip wanted to live and who could blame him , but he will not let someone esle die .
Dr Phalops ( I can not think of the correct spelling ) actions in this matter was very narrow to save Trip and then give the clone the life saving . But the human clone would die from the transplant stopped him from even telling anyone about untlil caught .
I can type for pages on this show . Who knows maybe use correct spelling and grammer .
And the hits just keep on coming!
This was an outstanding episode. Characterizations were right on the mark. Each and every actor gave their all for this one and the ethical dilemma was so well played that I clouded up at the end- for a TV show!:eek:
But I gave it a 9. Why? Because they blew it with the science. I don't care how wimpy shuttlepod engines are- they produce more thrust than the Enterprise's attitude thrusters! Even a miniscule thrust is going to move the ship at some acceleration. Having it just sit there and then finally lurch into motion was very unrealistic- unless there was something physically holding it back. Then I withdraw my objection. (And don't anyone try to tell me that the crap on the hull would prevent acceleration imparted by towing shuttlepods.)
Fantastic work! Just one glitch.
I thought this was a very powerful episode. The ethical dilemmas were very well done, and engendered a great deal of thought on the part of the viewer.
Excellent acting and writing. Archer, Phlox, Trip, and the younger Trip's did an outstanding job.
Truly a great episode - this season is really turning into something outstanding!
Chris
I'll give the writers some credit for asking the hard questions. But at the end, Sim's change of heart allowed them to not answer those questions. That was good and believable for Sim's character arc, but it took away from the other character's responsibility for what they had done.
Powers, that quibble about the shuttle engines bugged me too. Doesn't the show have a science advisor? I learned that "Acceleration Equals Force Divided By Mass" way back in junior high.
I gave the show an 8. It didn't have a lot of action but was very thought-provoking. The ethical dilemma faced by Archer seemed very real to me. Even though he wasn't forced to make Sim go through the procedure, Sim really didn't have many options. There was no where for him to go, & unless Phlox performed the experimental surgery on him, Sim was going to die in a few days anyway. I wonder how Tripp feels knowing that Sim had to die to save him.
Of course, Archer & the crew could have saved themselves some of the emotional heartaches by keeping Sim unconcious in sickbay while he was maturing. They didn't have to interact w/ him. Of course, the story would be less interesting that way.
It also makes one think about the nature of ourselves. What makes us unique? Is it our memories? Our experiences? Our DNA? If my memories & DNA can be copied onto another being who looks just like me physically, is that creature/clone me? If everything I am can be copied by science, is there nothing about me which is unique & which only I possess?
We can already clone animals & human organs. It's really only a matter of time b/f someone will clone a human being (leaving crackpot claims aside). We may be forced to ask those questions very soon.
Woohoo! There it is - the obligatory "2" vote. I've been waiting all day....
Chris
chances are he or she didn't watch the episode
I loved this episode. And I also had a science issue, but not yours :) -- the clone having Trip's memories surfacing was completely bogus, but good for storytelling.Quote:
Originally posted by Cmdr Powers
Because they blew it with the science. I don't care how wimpy shuttlepod engines are- they produce more thrust than the Enterprise's attitude thrusters! Even a miniscule thrust is going to move the ship at some acceleration. Having it just sit there and then finally lurch into motion was very unrealistic- unless there was something physically holding it back. Then I withdraw my objection. (And don't anyone try to tell me that the crap on the hull would prevent acceleration imparted by towing shuttlepods.)
As far as the ship, the problem with the ship was that the interaction of the 'crud' on the hull and the 'cloud' they were in was generating some type of very strong magnetic field. This could conceivable keep the ship stationary until enough force was exerted to 'pop' them out of it.
I gave it an 8.
Generally a very well done show, but the choice they may, having Sim agree to sacrifice himself, did free them from answering questions about the ethical implications of what they'd done. As Sarge said, this worked to establish Sim as a sympathetic character. It's possible this was done precisely because the writer wished to pose the questions, start the exploration of the answers, and then leave it at that.
The other sequence that cost it was the towing sequence. In fact, *any* amount of thrust should have been sufficient to start the ship moving, unless there was some counterforce (like gravity) holding it there -- such was not mentioned. Also, the idea that they were barely 70 klicks inside the cloud, considering their initial speed, seems fairly hard to believe (~6 hours at 12kph). But, considering that this entire "trap" was really just a backstory, this is kind of a nit.
Overall, a fine episode, and whatever they've done, I hope they keep doing it.
Especially welcome was the idea that Archer has finally reached down and found a pair -- something he'll need, in order to survive cut off from Earth. Also, this episode opens the door for other stories -- what is it going to cost Archer and the crew, ethically, to succeed here. I hope the writers can explore this.
Well, I'm definitely looking forward to watching this on Sunday. :)
So far, I've really liked this season; I think this is the best so far. The issue was great; I really liked that Archer was willing to do the absolute wrong thing -- dragging him down to the sickbay by force. The acting was great from all the principal characters.
The shuttles not moving the ship didn't bug me much. The memories works with the 'genetic memory' theories that have still to be proven/disproven.
Slightly off topic,but I was just watching SpikeTV's Trek Uncut tonight.They were showing Gambit pts 1&2.The Vulcan Renegade Tallera I.D.ed herself to Picard as T'Pol of the Vulcan Intelligence Service.Hum kind of makes you wonder?;) T'Pol was an Intel agent earlier in her career on Enterprise,& she has been becomming very emotional as the series progress.:rolleyes:
The eidsode was okay. His Sim's last words were short and that made it a bit heart breaking. His last words were not what I'd expect to hear from a Good Ol' Boy. Usually a Good Ol' Boy's last words are "Hey Cletus! Watch this!"
this episode is definitly up for a Hugo along with Twilight and Cogenitor
Gave it a 7. Aside from minor techinchal quibbles - the thrust thing and all - it presents the thoughest ethical question ever seen on Star Trek. Sacrifice one not just for another, not just for the ship & crew, but for a whole planet.
Still, were it a RPG plot and I instead of Archer, I would´ve tried something different :)
Just when I thought season 3 might end up not to be that bad, they throw this at me. At the beginning of season 3 Archer turned somehow very angry and almost "evil" but he seemed to have found his way back to the "good" guys. But well in this episode he all blew it up - so now he is not only willing to torture people, but essentially became fascist all the way: "Hey your live is not as much worth as Trip's so kill yourself or I will kill you". And Doctor Phlox whom I remember to be an ethical person, always speaking about ethics ( e.g. in the episode where he has to treat somebody of an "arch-enemy species" ) and now he not only holdsback vital information but is willing to kill a person just to get spareparts.
There were two very bad sentences in that episode:
Archer answering Sim referring to be a murderer: "Don't make me one!" How ridiculous. Nobody makes you a murderer. But of course it is easier to blame somebody else for your own guilt. Definitely nice, Captain! "Hey its your fault if I disregard basic human rights!"
The next one was Sims words: "That is what I was meant to be!"
Great not only does Archer state rascist views, the victim even accepts it.
The episodes lesson is that there are different values of live - definitely Star Trek! I remember how rascist TOS used to be...mmhhh wait...
I would have liked it much more, if Sim would have agreed to sacrifiy himself right from the beginning, although that would have left out very interesting aspects of the plotidea - at least that very poor characters back-development of Archer, as well as the strange outcome of the episode would have been spared too.
Definitely a bad episode, so far the "untrekist" episode I have seen in any ST series.
I gave it a 6, so it is about average for the season.
As to Archer forcing Sim into the operation, what would you have liked him to do? Wait until Sim died and lose both of them? At least the solution saved one of them. I think that is a big check in the positive column. Remember Phlox said their was no evidence the drug would have extended Sim's life.
-----------------Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Novaes
Gave it a 7. Aside from minor techinchal quibbles - the thrust thing and all - it presents the thoughest ethical question ever seen on Star Trek. Sacrifice one not just for another, not just for the ship & crew, but for a whole planet.
"The needs of the many outweigh..."
"...the needs of the few?"
"Or the one."
-----------------
I gave the show an 8. T'Pol's reaction surprised me. The nit on the thrust thing didn't really bother me at all (never let the truth get in the way of a good story ;) ). Archer's gumption was refreshing.
Excellent character and ethical story.
Racist is probably an incorrect term in this case. Cold Blooded and Callous, on the other hand, describes Archer perfectly. However, I can sorta see his point. Sim is was enginnered for a 15 day life span and is walking spare parts.
The fact that the brain started to develop and the replicant (anyone got a better name?) was able to learn, speak, and had Trip's memories (still trying to figure that one out), does however raise all sorts of ethical questions.
I do not envy Archers position, but if forced to make the choice, I'd have to throw empathy out the window and make sure my chief enginner was back up and running, and damn the replicant's feelings on the matter. It's an ugly command decision, but I'd learn to live with it.
Is it just me, or does it seem that Archer is standing a little too far from his razor in the morning?
He seems to have 4 o'clock shadow 24 hours a day now. A little un-military I think.:eek:
Given the circumstances, Trip's life *is* worth more than that of a creature with a limited lifespan. Archer is convinced that if he can't stop the Xindi, in the next few months at the outside, then Earth is doomed. If the choice comes down to killing one "man" or allowing the entire human race to die, it seems clear to me. Hell, if the choice came down to me giving *my* life or allowing a huge number of people to die, I'd like to think I could make that sacrifice.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
But well in this episode he all blew it up - so now he is not only willing to torture people, but essentially became fascist all the way: "Hey your live is not as much worth as Trip's so kill yourself or I will kill you".
What vital information did he hold back? About the enzyme? Perhaps he considered that the enzyme treatment to have an extraordinarily low probability of success. Part of what a professional does is use his best judgement about a situation. Nevertheless, the enzyme sequence was poor and didn't need to be there.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
And Doctor Phlox whom I remember to be an ethical person, always speaking about ethics ( e.g. in the episode where he has to treat somebody of an "arch-enemy species" ) and now he not only holdsback vital information but is willing to kill a person just to get spareparts.
We don't know whether Phlox would have done the operation without Sim's consent or not -- it never reached the point where that question was asked. We do know that Phlox' medical ethics allow him to perform any treatment a patient requests, even one that kills them -- his ethics are such that if a patient requests it, it's okay. So there's no conflict with him operating on Sim, fatally, if Sim asked him to do so.
I agree. Anyone who would make such a statement has a poor character, clearly believing they're not responsible for they're actions.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
There were two very bad sentences in that episode:
Archer answering Sim referring to be a murderer: "Don't make me one!" How ridiculous. Nobody makes you a murderer. But of course it is easier to blame somebody else for your own guilt. Definitely nice, Captain!
I disagree. It's possible that Sim decided to sacrifice its own life. The segment where it decided that could have been written better.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
The next one was Sims words: "That is what I was meant to be!"
Great not only does Archer state rascist views, the victim even accepts it.
I was thinking that myself. :) I chalked it up to the fact that Archer probably hadn't slept much in the intervening days...but the captain is certainly looking more haggard as the mission progresses.Quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
Is it just me, or does it seem that Archer is standing a little too far from his razor in the morning?
He seems to have 4 o'clock shadow 24 hours a day now. A little un-military I think.:eek:
Neither was there evidence that the operations could actually save Trip. After all, Phlox was wrong when evaluating the outcome of the operations on Sim, so I would regard it highly insecure on Trip as well.Quote:
Originally posted by Phantom
Remember Phlox said their was no evidence the drug would have extended Sim's life.
Well, but I remember Kirk stating that this is Vulcan idiotism. BTW mathematicall incorrect. Life is generally regarded as invaluable. MAthematically speaking, "infinty" does not change when multiplicated with any factor, thousand times infinty, remains infinity.Quote:
Sea Tyger
"The needs of the many outweigh..."
"...the needs of the few?"
"Or the one."
Well Archer clearly stated because of Sim's shorter lifespan he regarded him less-valuable, which is definitely rascist. And besides that Sim had the same skills as Trip, so he could have taken his post easily. And do not tell me, Earth first Warp 5 ship gets underway without an elite-crew or another one who can become chief-engineer.Quote:
BouncyCaitian
Racist is probably an incorrect term in this case. Cold Blooded and Callous, on the other hand, describes Archer perfectly. However, I can sorta see his point. Sim is was enginnered for a 15 day life span and is walking spare parts.
I do not envy Archers position, but if forced to make the choice, I'd have to throw empathy out the window
And by making this decision you would ignore the basic human rights, which are part of most constitutions of Earth, and presumbly of United Earth Republic as well. And worth has a species which throws overboard those human rights, when it becomes uncomfortable to push them through. What is left of civilization when you drop that?
Erm, no. Human life has its value independent of the persons skills, abilities or whatever. That's why its called basic human rights, the right to life being part of it.Quote:
Fesarius
Given the circumstances, Trip's life *is* worth more than that of a creature with a limited lifespan.
...
We don't know whether Phlox would have done the operation without Sim's consent or not -- it never reached the point where that question was asked.
...
I disagree. It's possible that Sim decided to sacrifice its own life. The segment where it decided that could have been written better.
and it seemed so, that Phlox would have done the operation, or how else would Archer have done the procedure?
But ti does not feel like Sim decided to do it. He actually just saw that he would not like to end in a shuttlepod, alone and thus chose the "better" option. But I had not the impression he actually wanted to save Trip. It was more - "ok I have to die, because they won't help me, so I can die right now anyway."
The thing is just that Archers behaviour seems to be so inconsistent. In "Mine Field" he personally jumped out the airlock to save Reed, although the whole ship was endangered - and he would have had access to a security chief far more easy than in the expense. And in Rajiin he is willing to risk the away team retrieving vital information in the conflict with the Xindi jsut to save a sexy slave girl.
But when it comes to somebody, who happens to look and behave like his best friend, he has no problem about murdering him.
BTW the shuttles towing the ship are depicted correctly. You have to overcome the inertness to get the ship going, afterwards its gets much easier. Try it out with your car. Once you have it actually moving its far easier to pull/ push.
Evan van Eyk
Nice selective editing of my arguement to reinforce your point. Let's not do that again.
In any event, Archer was less than pleased that Phlox hadn't mentioned the treatment which 'might' have saved Sim, and he was outraged that Sim would die when the parts of the brain that were needed were removed.
But, and this is the cold hard reality of the situation, Sim was enginnered for spare parts to begin with. He was built with a 15 day lifespan. This is not racism. This is what he was built with.
Archer is faced with a desperate situation. He has less than a year to find a weapons enginnering center of a highly hostile species that wants to obliterate Earth and all it's colonies. His ship is badly damaged, and his chief enginner is in a coma, leaning towards a terminal situation. Phlox shows up with a potential cure, so he grasps it.
A unforseen side effect is that the clone/replicant seems to have access to trips memorys and it can speak, thus creating a potential moral (and morale) problem. Archer was correct in NOT trying to bond with it, as this would interfere with the potentially ugly duty he would be forced to do later.
To his credit, he asked Phlox if Sim would survive the transplanation procedure and when told yes, it made a potentially unpleasant duty easier. A nasty surprise came later when it turned out that Phlox's estimates were incorrect and the Sim would terminate in a few days, with Phlox mentioning that the needed termination date was coming soon if Trip was to survive.
When Sim brought up the potential treatment to extend his life span, Archer was outraged that it hadn't been mentioned, but Phlox told him he hadn't brought it up because the treatment was a slipshod prospect on the original DNA template he would normally work with. With Sims mixed DNA, the chances became near to non-existant. Archer (correctly) wasn't pleased that he hadn't been informed, but could understand the reasoning behind it.
Considering the desperation of the situation, and Sim's known terminal situation, he made the correct decision in valuing Trip's existance over Sim's. Simple practicality.
Racism is prejudice or discrimination based on the belief that race is the primary factor determining human traits and abilities. Racism includes the belief that genetic or inherited differences produce the inherent superiority or inferiority of one race over another. In the name of protecting their race from "contamination," some racists justify the domination and destruction of races they consider to be either superior or inferior. Institutional racism is racial prejudice supported by institutional power and authority used to the advantage of one race over others.
No racism here. The cards were stacked against Sim the moment he was created. Archer was at least decent enough to explain what was going on to Sim and gave him a choice at the end.
A lot of the conflict on the episode, in hindsight, was based on sloppy writing IMHO. When asked by Sim if Trips life was more valuable, Archers response should have been "No. But some eight billion Human beings lives are. We are faced with a situation of the total destruction of the Human species. We are badly crippled right now without my chief enginner to repair the ship.
"You were originally created to help trip by providing the tissues he deperately needs to live, so that we can continue on and save the Human Species. Your normal life span is fifteen days. We couldn't have reasonably anticipated you developing Trip's memories since this was a one-off event.
"I'm faced with a decision that no commander throughout history has ever wanted: Condemning someone innocent to death. Balancing your limited lifespan verses the entire population of Earth and the entire Human race, however......do the math.
"Now, we'll do what we can so see if there is anyway out of this. But I'm not going to hold out a false hope for you. If it comes down to the wire, it's Trip who will live and not you.
"Besides, look at it this way, you'll have helped save earth and the entire human species. Not a bad epitath to have."
taking this approach early on, would have kinda cut short the drama, but it makes more sense
Erm, you don't expect me to quote your whole post, do you? Therefore I just repeated the points were do not agree on, to make clear, why I do not agree on that.Quote:
Originally posted by BouncyCaitian
Evan van Eyk
Nice selective editing of my arguement to reinforce your point. Let's not do that again.
Quote:
He was built with a 15 day lifespan. This is not racism. This is what he was built with.
I never said that this was the racist issue ( see below ). And I can perfectly udnerstand Archers decision here. Why its still ethically highly questionable to create a human being ( although presumed not be really sentinent ) just to get its organs, I can see the need for it, if not Earth should be destroyed. Additionally it would have been alloweed to live out its normal lifespan at that point.
I did not say he should have bonded with it ( which he actually did, referring to the flying model scene in the shuttle hangar ). But I simply felt it poorly acted/ written that he has no problem with murdering his best friend. I would assume that you get emotional problems, when you are to kill somebody, who has the memories, the personality and the look of your best friend. That's all.Quote:
Archer was correct in NOT trying to bond with it, as this would interfere with the potentially ugly duty he would be forced to do later.
Additionally I think it was bad written that Archer tries to push his responsibility away. I think that does not match a Starfleet Captain, blaming others for his decisions ( "don't make me one!").
Oh great, since when do civilians decide on military matters?Imagine Archer would have learned of it, after the procedure. That would have been even more severe to him - having killed somebody, who might have lifed a normal life, just because some Doc decided not to tell the whole story to the Captain.Quote:
Archer (correctly) wasn't pleased that he hadn't been informed, but could understand the reasoning behind it.
Additionally I did not find that very consistent with Phlox other behaviour. It simply does not match his ethical path in earlier episodes.
Well, I do not know about US military, but in German military, the highest order is to protect Human Rights. Any order violating those is not to be carried out - and the person givving such an order has to face "court martial" ( we actually have no court martials, all military law issues are carried out by civilian courts ). And taking a look at the UFP charta and Starfleets General Orders, I see the same. As United Earth Republic is the only human planet in the UFP, I would assume that this ideas came from here and therefore are already present in the Republic.Quote:
Considering the desperation of the situation, and Sim's known terminal situation, he made the correct decision in valuing Trip's existance over Sim's. Simple practicality.
Although that may be practical its still violating Sim's human rights, thus its highly immoral. As I asked before ( and you did not answer that ). What worth has a nation which drops its principles when it becomes uncomofrtable.
Additionally, why do the Vulcan actually bother with humans, they have a lifespan which is mere a fourth of theirs.
Well Archer is the authority here. And he gives Trip the advantage because Sim has other biological statistics, thus its racism.Quote:
Institutional racism is racial prejudice supported by institutional power and authority used to the advantage of one race over others.
No racism here.
You are right. I would have preferred a more "pathetic" end if it would have meant not to accept this strange and unsatisfying outcome of the episode. When Archer confronts Sim about it, he should have asked him, what he thinks Trip would do, if he could save Earth, if that would not be worth his life. After all there is still his family on Earth, all these people, Sim misses in his earlier days.Quote:
A lot of the conflict on the episode, in hindsight, was based on sloppy writing IMHO. When asked by Sim if Trips life was more valuable, Archers response should have been ...
taking this approach early on, would have kinda cut short the drama, but it makes more sense
I think that conflict at the end did not match the episode, maybe it was simply too much. There would have been raised enough questions with Sim dying because of the operation and being only created as spare parts.
I agree that the operation wasn't certain to work. However, I think the difference is that the enzyme treatment for life prolongation was virtually certain not to work (extremely low probability) and the tissue replacement was likely to work (high probability). This is Phlox' professional judgement, which Archer has to trust -- Phlox is a trained physician. I think you need to keep the relative probabilities in mind.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Neither was there evidence that the operations could actually save Trip. After all, Phlox was wrong when evaluating the outcome of the operations on Sim, so I would regard it highly insecure on Trip as well.
So, it is your opinion that taking a single life is wrong, even if the other choice is the destruction of all human life? Those are Archer's options, based on the data presently available to him. I can't agree. I understand your concern with the slippery slope, and how immoral acts (but please see below) can destroy what you're fighting to save, sometimes before you even realize it. But to state, absolutely, that one must never sacrifice a life, even if the result is racial death, is a little too absolute for me.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Life is generally regarded as invaluable. MAthematically speaking, "infinty" does not change when multiplicated with any factor, thousand times infinty, remains infinity.
Are you, perhaps, sidestepping the fact that Sim isn't really a man? He's a highly specialized animal that looks and acts like a man. That doesn't mean he is a man.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Well Archer clearly stated because of Sim's shorter lifespan he regarded him less-valuable, which is definitely rascist.
For five days, until he died. The enzyme treatment probably wouldn't have worked, remember.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
And besides that Sim had the same skills as Trip, so he could have taken his post easily.
It might have been an interesting story if the enzyme treatment had worked, and they'd decided to replace Trip with Sim -- but I don't think it was the story they wanted to tell.
It's reasonable to assume that there are other talented engineers, but it's also reasonable for Archer to assume that his crew is indispensible. It's also reasonable to assume Trip got the top spot because he's the most knowledgeable. He can't get reinforced from Earth. So each death matters more -- and matters in proportion to the set of skills lost.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
And do not tell me, Earth first Warp 5 ship gets underway without an elite-crew or another one who can become chief-engineer.
That view is somewhat ivory tower, I feel. First, it ignores the fact that Sim is not a human. Second, Earth's survival depends on Enterprise, and Enterprise's survival depends on the skills and abilities of her crew. It's quite arguable that the members of that crew are more valuable, in this situation, than others humans -- and that the members of that crew are valuable in proportion to their contributions.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Erm, no. Human life has its value independent of the persons skills, abilities or whatever.
The ending was a bit hurried. I was left with the impression that he'd decided to sacrifice himself, but youi could be right.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
But ti does not feel like Sim decided to do it...
This is certainly true. It's possible that his friendship for Trip influenced his decision making, here.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
The thing is just that Archers behaviour seems to be so inconsistent.
Yes, he mishandled that situation. I would have left a special forces soldier in the brig with instructions to kill her before allowing the Xindi to retrieve her and the information she'd stolen.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
And in Rajiin he is willing to risk the away team retrieving vital information in the conflict with the Xindi jsut to save a sexy slave girl.
:) One of those, now two, 2s came from me, but that was an accident, I confused the episode titles after watching North Star which was extremely lame, at least IMHO.Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Lowrey
Woohoo! There it is - the obligatory "2" vote. I've been waiting all day....
Chris
Simlitude, on the other hand, was much better. I'd give it a 7, unfortunately you can't take back your votes. :( Anyway, good acting, great story, very trekish (seems like the two lords of evil B&B have listened to some fans after all), but once again a total violation of modern science.
First, they ignored the conservation of momentum which could have been easily explained with some warp bubble technobabble, but I understand why they left it out.
Second, they claim that human memories can be stored in the form of proteins = RNA =>DNA=genes, like they did before in the TNG season 5 episode "Violations". Although they somehow had to explain Sim's fast maturation there could have been other ways to do that. Selecting an explanation that was wrong 10 years ago makes neither correct, but they at least are consistent. :)
What??? :confused:Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Well, but I remember Kirk stating that this is Vulcan idiotism. BTW mathematicall incorrect. Life is generally regarded as invaluable. MAthematically speaking, "infinty" does not change when multiplicated with any factor, thousand times infinty, remains infinity.
First, Vulcan idiotism? I certainly never heard Kirk call Spock an idiot; in fact, Kirk admitted he couldn't argue with his friend's wisdom. Second, I was simply using an old Trek quote that was appropriate to the situation.
And why are you debating the mathematics of an axiom that has nothing to do with mathematics??? It's a statement about the willingness to sacrifice your needs for the needs of the greater good, which is part of the core of Gene's vision. Who cares if you can disprove it mathematically? Life isn't just mathematics (and this is coming from a guy who loves math)...you can't just apply a formula to everything and hope your theorum is correct.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fesarius
I agree that the operation wasn't certain to work.
This is Phlox' professional judgement, which Archer has to trust -- Phlox is a trained physician. I think you need to keep the relative probabilities in mind.
Probabilities which Phlox stated wrong before. Its not that he was slightly wrong, but he was dead wrong. Out of sure living became sure dying. That is a difference, which would have made me think. Additionally as the Captain needs to do the decision he has to retrieve all information on that matter and its not on Phlox to decide what that information might be. I simply found it illogical that he suddenly had that enzyme available - that storyarc seemed to be too constructed for me. It could have been dramatic enough without making Phlox and Archer look that bad. And as I pointed out, Archer took far greater risks in the past.
Yes, that's right. As said before, the value of human life is invaluable, thus one human being has the same worth as all others ( even if summed up ). Although I might add, I think that part of that worth should be the willingness to sacrifice yourself should the need arise. Which would be regarding Kant, the morally correct decision.Quote:
So, it is your opinion that taking a single life is wrong, even if the other choice is the destruction of all human life? ...
I understand your concern with the slippery slope, and how immoral acts (but please see below) can destroy what you're fighting to save, sometimes before you even realize it.
And I believe that a society which throws away its ethical rules, just to be save and sound has lost its worth. Because at the moment when they could have shown how true they are to these rules, they failed and therefore the rules become superfluous.
Although I agree in that case its somewhat extreme, because only because Archer decided to murder Sim, that does not mean all of humanity would have agreed to do so.
Additonally the difficulty is the following. Who decides who may live to save the species and who has to die? NAZI-Germany made all the genocide to save the "German race". It was exactly that argumentation which made the KZs possible. The German people had to be protected from the jewish and communist conspiracy in the mind of Hitler and his staff, and thus it was acceptable to kill all these millions of persons. The fact that they were regarded as inferior was augmenting that argumentation.
The question is, to quote Cpt. Picard: "When does it become injustice?" When it is right to kill an innocent person? Is it ok to kill one, to kill 10, to kill 100000?
Therefore I think Archer comes terribly close to a point where he looses objectiveness for what he is actually fighting for and by Kant's definition immorale.
There are three quotes from signatures here at the boards which perfectly summarize my point. One is I believe of Abe Lincoln. Something like: "Those who give up freedom to gain security will loose both." the other one is "I'd rather die standing than living on my knees." ( the content is the same even if its not the exact words ). The third one is in my own signature: "...the first freedom denied, changes us all irreverently. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we are all damaged". The point is that the Xindi already won when Archer would have killed Sim by force. That would have destroyed all the efforts of the Vulcans, that would have destroyed all the principles human society is built upon, the very basic human rights. Therefore human society would have lost its value and humans would have reduced themselves to animals.
Wrong IMHO. He has human DNA and is sentinet, which is enough to describe him as man. Even if he is not human, he is a sentinent being. If human rights do not apply to other sentinent beings than it would be no crime to kill a Vulcan, or a Denobulan at all, it would be the same as making a scratch on a car or something. However the human rights were derived from the fact that humans are sentinent. Therefore one should assume that they count for all sentinent beings, especially if they have human DNA.Quote:
Are you, perhaps, sidestepping the fact that Sim isn't really a man? He's a highly specialized animal that looks and acts like a man. That doesn't mean he is a man..
Like in Voyager, where Harry is replaced by a Harry of an alternate timeline and the original one is killed. The funny thing was that the topic even came up in other episodes. That Harry was actually not the real Harry.Quote:
It might have been an interesting story if the enzyme treatment had worked, and they'd decided to replace Trip with Sim -- but I don't think it was the story they wanted to tell.
After all its Earth only Warp 5 ship, on a sensitive mission. One should assume there is at least one engineer onboard who has the qualification to replace Trip. After all I actually had the impression that Trip became Archers Engineer because of their friendship. And Trip would have been the first dead on Enterprise. not one single crewmember died in the previous episodes. Additionally Trip knew what he was up to and especially a Captain should be used to the fact that people, especially on such a dangerous mission may die. I do not think that this is enough a reason to actually throw all reason overboard.Quote:
It's reasonable to assume that there are other talented engineers, but it's also reasonable for Archer to assume that his crew is indispensible. It's also reasonable to assume Trip got the top spot because he's the most knowledgeable. He can't get reinforced from Earth. So each death matters more .
I at least would have wished it would have been more convincing, that Sim actually decided to save Trip and by that maybe even mankind.Quote:
The ending was a bit hurried. I was left with the impression that he'd decided to sacrifice himself, but youi could be right..
Actually he did, figurely. I think its in ST 3, maybe even at end of ST 2. Kirk says that this logical conclusion is nonsense and untrue. He actually points out that the needs of one are equal to the needs of the many.Quote:
Originally posted by Sea Tyger
First, Vulcan idiotism? I certainly never heard Kirk call Spock an idiot; in fact, Kirk admitted he couldn't argue with his friend's wisdom...
And why are you debating the mathematics of an axiom that has nothing to do with mathematics??? It's a statement about the willingness to sacrifice your needs for the needs of the greater good, which is part of the core of Gene's vision
And I do not get your point in the second part. So I may not use logic to counter a logical statement of a Vulcan? I do not get that. I simply pointed out where the mistake of that logic is. It is actually self-contradicting. After all even Spock said that logic is the beginning of wisdom not the end of it. And remember that Vulcans regard life so high that they do not even eat meat.
And the major difference is that Spock did so by his own choice, while Archer planned to actually murder Sim, who was even civilian and thus never swore to protect Earth, assuming that such an Oath is part of being a Starfleet Officer.
And its certainly not part iof Gene's vision that difference species' life have different values. And additionally Kirk would have found another option, as he does not believe in "No-Win scenarios", which this certainly was.
There is an illness, I think its a genetic defect, which lets children age very fast. msot die within their first few years, already aged like they were ninety ( of course they are still children, but their skin, bones, organs, e.g. are "damaged" as if they were of old age ). So it is a similiar situation to Sim. Do you really think its would be ok, or only less cruel to kill such a person than any other?
Concluding I think its simply to different point of views again. Its Practicalism and Idealism. It may be practical to save Trip and kill Sim but its immorale. And I think Star Trek is about idealism. Its about peace, its about having a black woman on your bridge, in a time, when segregation was still present. Its about having a russian officer on your bridge while the Cold War was still running. Its not about murdering peolple and then putting the blame on that very people.
I simply did not like the outcome of the episode. Nobody critisized Archer for his threat against Sim. No comments by "Dr. Ethics" Phlox and none by "Superior ideology" T'Pol. The least they could have done would have been a critical comment by Trip at the end.
At the end of the episode you are left with the impression that it is ok to murder people if you need something from them. That is not Star Trek for me.
Please remind me not to call you when I need help in saving Earth, Evan.
The invaluability of human life is an assumption made by Kant or whoever that cannot be proven. So every argumentation based on that point is questionable. Maybe you could enlighten us how you came to this conlusion, which I belief is that basis for all your problems with the episode. Since humans cannot imagine infinity we can only attribute a finite value to life.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Yes, that's right. As said before, the value of human life is invaluable, thus one human being has the same worth as all others ( even if summed up ). Although I might add, I think that part of that worth should be the willingness to sacrifice yourself should the need arise. Which would be regarding Kant, the morally correct decision.
The situation faced by the crew cannot be compared to Nazi-Germany, since Sim's survival/no operation would have really meant the death of Trip, whereas the Jews didn't pose a real threat to humanity.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
And I believe that a society which throws away its ethical rules, just to be save and sound has lost its worth. Because at the moment when they could have shown how true they are to these rules, they failed and therefore the rules become superfluous.
Although I agree in that case its somewhat extreme, because only because Archer decided to murder Sim, that does not mean all of humanity would have agreed to do so.
Additonally the difficulty is the following. Who decides who may live to save the species and who has to die? NAZI-Germany made all the genocide to save the "German race". It was exactly that argumentation which made the KZs possible. The German people had to be protected from the jewish and communist conspiracy in the mind of Hitler and his staff, and thus it was acceptable to kill all these millions of persons. The fact that they were regarded as inferior was augmenting that argumentation.
The question is, to quote Cpt. Picard: "When does it become injustice?" When it is right to kill an innocent person? Is it ok to kill one, to kill 10, to kill 100000?
Archer has always fought for the survival of mankind. It just became clearer in season three that this doesn't mean the preservation of moral ethics. Unless you belief in original sin humanity should be able to reestablish the moral ideal after any act, no matter how immoral. Since, as far as we know, there is no moral in the abscence of human life, the preservation of humanity is necessary to defend any ideal.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Therefore I think Archer comes terribly close to a point where he looses objectiveness for what he is actually fighting for and by Kant's definition immorale.
I have taken the liberty of deleting the quotes.
I agree with that.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Wrong IMHO. He has human DNA and is sentinet, which is enough to describe him as man. Even if he is not human, he is a sentinent being. If human rights do not apply to other sentinent beings than it would be no crime to kill a Vulcan, or a Denobulan at all, it would be the same as making a scratch on a car or something. However the human rights were derived from the fact that humans are sentinent. Therefore one should assume that they count for all sentinent beings, especially if they have human DNA.
Since Enterprise was drifting through that nebula until Sim came up with a solution it seems that he is the only one skilled enough to do the job of chief engineer.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
After all its Earth only Warp 5 ship, on a sensitive mission. One should assume there is at least one engineer onboard who has the qualification to replace Trip. After all I actually had the impression that Trip became Archers Engineer because of their friendship. And Trip would have been the first dead on Enterprise. not one single crewmember died in the previous episodes. Additionally Trip knew what he was up to and especially a Captain should be used to the fact that people, especially on such a dangerous mission may die. I do not think that this is enough a reason to actually throw all reason overboard.
I'm afraid my answer is yes. It certainly wouldn't be okay, but if the only one of two identical persons can be safed, and there aren't any additional factors to consider than in this hypothetical scenario, I will save the one with the longer life-expectancy.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
There is an illness, I think its a genetic defect, which lets children age very fast. msot die within their first few years, already aged like they were ninety ( of course they are still children, but their skin, bones, organs, e.g. are "damaged" as if they were of old age ). So it is a similiar situation to Sim. Do you really think its would be ok, or only less cruel to kill such a person than any other?
It isn't that for me either. The show was an obvious attempt by the writers to make the audience think about stem cell research. Nothing more and nothing less. The show dealed with a current problem of humanity, just like TOS series did in the 60s. The major difference seems to be that, today, we have to choose from various shades of grey.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Concluding I think its simply to different point of views again. Its Practicalism and Idealism. It may be practical to save Trip and kill Sim but its immorale. And I think Star Trek is about idealism. Its about peace, its about having a black woman on your bridge, in a time, when segregation was still present. Its about having a russian officer on your bridge while the Cold War was still running. Its not about murdering peolple and then putting the blame on that very people.
I simply did not like the outcome of the episode. Nobody critisized Archer for his threat against Sim. No comments by "Dr. Ethics" Phlox and none by "Superior ideology" T'Pol. The least they could have done would have been a critical comment by Trip at the end.
At the end of the episode you are left with the impression that it is ok to murder people if you need something from them. That is not Star Trek for me.
Well, what's left to save if ethics are thrown overboard? However as long as you need somebody to stand between injustice and the innocent, you can count me in. As soon as you plan to leave ethics behind and begin to kill innocent people, don't bother me you would find me between you and those people anyway.Quote:
Originally posted by Ergi
Please remind me not to call you when I need help in saving Earth, Evan.
Quote:
The invaluability of human life is an assumption made by Kant or whoever that cannot be proven.
What???? First Kant said nothing about an invaluable life and I did not state that. My first reference of Kant referred to somebody not willing no sacrifice yourself for rest of mankind. But as I quoted Kant, times over times, I assumed his "categoric imperative" is already well known.
There are three formulations of Kant's imperativ ( as far as I know named Golden Rule in English translations ).
The first one, which applies here, is: "Act in a way that you can want to become a universal natural law." In the present case, i.e. when one person sacrifices itself to save mankind. You cannot want it to become a natural law that the unwillingnes of sacrifice of one person kills the rest of the species. Therefore if the person is not willing to commit that sacrifice, it would act immoral.
Archer acted immorale because of exactly that first version of the imperative and because of the second one. "Act always in a way that another person is not only means but also purpose."
He reduced Sim to being simply means and took his right to live away. He even realized that would be murder. And last time I checked, murder is a crime - at least punished with love-long imprisonment.
And what would show that to the crew or even the Xindi, whom he has to make contact with to negotiate peace? "Ok, he is a murderer, but hey his dog is cute!" ??? How do you want to convince a people that you are no threat to them if you murder your own people? What has the crew to think, especially the pacifist Vulcan if the Captain is a murderer?
You can only enlighten yourself, but first I think you have to drop sarcasm.Quote:
Maybe you could enlighten us how you came to this conlusion, Since humans cannot imagine infinity we can only attribute a finite value to life.
If human life has a finite value, please tell it to me. Is it 10 dollars, 200, 1000.000? If so, why are you imprisoned when killing sombody and not simply paying off the "value" of life. Something like. "OK, you killed a homeless man tonight, so it makes 200 dollars." Additionally all democracies, including Germany and the US and especially the UN, have declared the right to live as unalienable, unable to be sold, because its invaluable.
Only because humans cannot imagine infinity it does not mean we cannot attribute an infinite value to something. Especially in mathematics, infinity is needed and btw proven. And e.g. the universe is infinite ( actually by definition, because its the universe. Its everything, the reality and therefore cannot have borders, because what is behind these borders, if everything that exists is within these borders? ). So although humanity cannot imagine infinity, it first of all does not mean it does not exist, and second of all does not say that we cannot adress this value to certain things.
I did not say so, I just asked who decides who may live and tried to point out the arbitrary behind that. And I referred not to Trip but to mankind. Archer more or less pointed out that Sim's life means the death of all humanity, thus he has to kill him - because he needs Trip. Archer comes close to an area where his argumentation becomes arbitrary.Quote:
The situation faced by the crew cannot be compared to Nazi-Germany, since Sim's survival/no operation would have really meant the death of Trip, whereas the Jews didn't pose a real threat to humanity.
Here we agree. I do not have a problem with that actually. If B&B decide to depict a darker Archer, I am fine with that. After all it was a catastrophy what happened to Earth. However I do not like - again - the arbitrary in it. If its a sexy slave girl he is willing to be the noble man and risk his crew, if its just a 15 day-lifespan person, he is not.Quote:
Archer has always fought for the survival of mankind. It just became clearer in season three that this doesn't mean the preservation of moral ethics.
In Marauders Archer decided to fight the Klingons because they killed people for Deuterium - but now he is willing to kill Sim to get his spareparts.
That is not how a Captain should react and especially not how Star Trek should be.
Yes, but to what end? Why reestablish ethics, if you drop it once it becomes difficult? Where is the justification for such morale rules if you do not follow them in times of crisis? If everything is at peace you do not need those rules, they become neccessary in times of conflict ( compare Thomas Hobbes ).Quote:
Unless you belief in original sin humanity should be able to reestablish the moral ideal after any act, no matter how immoral.
An ideal is an ideal because you keep it up at any time. You cannot defend an ideal by dropping it.Quote:
Since, as far as we know, there is no moral in the abscence of human life, the preservation of humanity is necessary to defend any ideal.
Yes and I honour the attempt but not the actual course of action the episode took. I do not like "blank cheques" for murder.Quote:
It isn't that for me either. The show was an obvious attempt by the writers to make the audience think about stem cell research. Nothing more and nothing less.
BINGO!Quote:
Originally posted by Ergi
It isn't that for me either. The show was an obvious attempt by the writers to make the audience think about stem cell research.
This is exactly the case. And, just as in the debate over stem cell research, you have an argument (and the accompanying thought processes) that runs along the same lines on this very message board.
Not bad when a show can ellicit such thought and debate.
Chris
Excellent, intelligent episode. Gets a 9 from me.
Life, and, like I have said before, the possibility to restore lost or violated ethics. I consider the simple fact that life can exist without ethics but ethics not without sentient life as evidence for my conviction that survival is more important than moral.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Well, what's left to save if ethics are thrown overboard?
Of course, if you argue on the basis of moral, which I don't, my point is probably wrong.
No and I didn't claim that you had said so. I was referring to this sentence:Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
What???? First Kant said nothing about an invaluable life and I did not state that.
What I wanted to know was how you justify that assumption without any objective means. And please forgive the sarcasm in my previous post.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Yes, that's right. As said before, the value of human life is invaluable, thus one human being has the same worth as all others ( even if summed up).
Probably true, if you are arguing from a moral point of view.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
My first reference of Kant referred to somebody not willing no sacrifice yourself for rest of mankind. But as I quoted Kant, times over times, I assumed his "categoric imperative" is already well known.
There are three formulations of Kant's imperativ ( as far as I know named Golden Rule in English translations ).
The first one, which applies here, is: "Act in a way that you can want to become a universal natural law." In the present case, i.e. when one person sacrifices itself to save mankind. You cannot want it to become a natural law that the unwillingnes of sacrifice of one person kills the rest of the species. Therefore if the person is not willing to commit that sacrifice, it would act immoral.
Archer acted immorale because of exactly that first version of the imperative ...
Purpose can have many forms. Sim said near the end of the episode that he agreed to the operation because he didn't want anyone else to lose someone close to them. Therefore the operation was in Sim's own interest and therefore didn't violate the second rule.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
... and because of the second one. "Act always in a way that another person is not only means but also purpose."
Yes, that's right, it would have been murder to perform the operation without Sim's consent. But that didn't happen. Therefore Archer is no killer and his "Don't make me one." clearly shows that he was thinking about the moral implications.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
He reduced Sim to being simply means and took his right to live away. He even realized that would be murder. And last time I checked, murder is a crime - at least punished with love-long imprisonment.
And what would show that to the crew or even the Xindi, whom he has to make contact with to negotiate peace? "Ok, he is a murderer, but hey his dog is cute!" ??? How do you want to convince a people that you are no threat to them if you murder your own people? What has the crew to think, especially the pacifist Vulcan if the Captain is a murderer?
Somehow I knew you would argue that way. :) At least for me finite doesn't mean tangible. How else could you explain that some people give or risk their life for others. If the value of each human life was infinite as you said then there would be no justification for these actions, besides one based on evolutionary genetics. I belive that this assupmtion is also in conflict with Kant's golden rules.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
If human life has a finite value, please tell it to me. Is it 10 dollars, 200, 1000.000? If so, why are you imprisoned when killing sombody and not simply paying off the "value" of life. Something like. "OK, you killed a homeless man tonight, so it makes 200 dollars." Additionally all democracies, including Germany and the US and especially the UN, have declared the right to live as unalienable, unable to be sold, because its invaluable.
Due to our finite mind we cannot completely grasp any infinite concept like God or the universe. All we can do is applying labels, and for our purposes this will always be enough.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Only because humans cannot imagine infinity it does not mean we cannot attribute an infinite value to something. Especially in mathematics, infinity is needed and btw proven. And e.g. the universe is infinite ( actually by definition, because its the universe. Its everything, the reality and therefore cannot have borders, because what is behind these borders, if everything that exists is within these borders? ). So although humanity cannot imagine infinity, it first of all does not mean it does not exist, and second of all does not say that we cannot adress this value to certain things.
Yes, he begins acting arbitrary to some point, but humans aren't always logical. However his behavior might be explained by different benefit to risk ratios in those situations. You didn't comment on my reply to your "sick child" point. Therefore I take it you can understand my opinion on that. Sim was in a comparable situation. Let him life for another 7 days or save mankind? A not so though choice.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
I did not say so, I just asked who decides who may live and tried to point out the arbitrary behind that. And I referred not to Trip but to mankind. Archer more or less pointed out that Sim's life means the death of all humanity, thus he has to kill him - because he needs Trip. Archer comes close to an area where his argumentation becomes arbitrary.
Here we agree. I do not have a problem with that actually. If B&B decide to depict a darker Archer, I am fine with that. After all it was a catastrophy what happened to Earth. However I do not like - again - the arbitrary in it. If its a sexy slave girl he is willing to be the noble man and risk his crew, if its just a 15 day-lifespan person, he is not.
In Marauders Archer decided to fight the Klingons because they killed people for Deuterium - but now he is willing to kill Sim to get his spareparts.
That is not how a Captain should react and especially not how Star Trek should be.
True, since moral defines itself.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Yes, but to what end? Why reestablish ethics, if you drop it once it becomes difficult? Where is the justification for such morale rules if you do not follow them in times of crisis? If everything is at peace you do not need those rules, they become neccessary in times of conflict ( compare Thomas Hobbes ).
Unless you can prove that I am not convinced. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
An ideal is an ideal because you keep it up at any time. You cannot defend an ideal by dropping it.
I was going to give it a 9. After all, the episode really got me to think, and the acting was definitely good. So, not 10 for a few reasons I'll explain later, but a solid 9.
Then I started reading the comments you all posted. You know, it does feel good to actually have a real debate about a ST episode. Can't remember the last time it happened ;) . The only problem I see there, is that it is on the verge of becoming a political debate (for the sake of curiosity, just have a look at the protagonists of the debate ... rings a bell? ;) ), and I would really hate to see this thread locked.
Anyhow ... about the episode. Overall I think I kind of agree with Evan there. I may not consider it as strongly as Evan, but still. As some said, the part where Archer had to say "Don't make me a murderer" or something was quite poorly written, for three main reasons IMO:
- I for one wouldn't mind a captain with a reliable and stable decision process. Kirk had that. He decided with his groi... err guts each and every time. Picard was reliable. Prime directive. It took an awful lot of reasons to make him disregard the prime directive. Hell, even Sisko was reliable, although he evolved more than the other captains over the course of the serie. But you knew where you were with him. Then came Janeway, who would act and decide something completely different in exactly the same situations only 2 weeks apart. We thought it would be over with Archer ... damn, I wish they could be consistent in the writing. Either make him a diehard idealist/optimist (like in Rajiin), or make him more shadesofgrayish a la Sisko, slowly losing his ethics as he fights to preserve Earth, I can go with both. But can't you stay at least a wee bit consistent?
- As someone wrote it quite nicely, Archer could have handled the little speach that cultimated in "don't make me a murderer" much better. The dialogue proposed in this thread is quite nice, and while the poster says he'd have put it at the beginning, I think it'd have worked equally well as a replacement of the "don't make me a murderer" speech.
- The episode would have been just as good, if not better, if Archer hadn't coerced Sim, and if Sim had managed to come to this decision all alone (and not because of some lame "there's no toilets in this shuttle"). Hell, why not use the strange behaviour T'Pol displayed to convince him. I'm not sure how, I'm not the writer, but he might have thought that if T'Pol showed some kind of reciprocity to his feelings, he had no right to steal this from Trip ... of course, this is not much in comparison to the fate of humanity, but human minds' calibration tend to fly out of the window when it comes to weighting two things and one of them has a love interest in it. Anyhow, I think Sim should have reached the decision all by himself, rather than having Archer try to coerce him. Or he could have refused, and Archer could have knocked him out with a sedative. No words, just acts. Dark acts, things that he'd never be able to forget, nor forgive to himself. Then it wouldn't have been a Federation (or whathever it's called at that point) matter, it'd have been his, and his alone.
Now if we don't focus on the episode. I can understand the motivations of the crew (that is, mainly Archer, Phlox, and T'Pol a bit). I do understand why Archer decided to produce the clone. I do understand why he feels Trip's life has more value than Sim's. But I'd have prefered if he hadn't compromised his ethics. I mean, of course we do know that there are shades of grey. We see that every day on TV, when our leaders decide the fate of countries and people far (and not sor far) away. Wouldn't hurt to show on TV what idealism really is, that "the end justifies the means" motto is not always the one to go by. I don't know, let's try to put this back in the 60s. People knew from TV that the Russians had a bad, treacherous governement, that some Russians were in fact evil spies, whatever. Was Chekov an evil spy? Star Trek then showed what could be, not what was. Was that good? Well, I think so. This does not per se make the episode bad, I enjoy dark and gritty episodes too. But like Evan said, it is a pity for Trek.
Anyhow, back to more frivolous things. Things that got the mark from 10 to 9:
- The science. All right, I can deal with the threshold shuttle thing. After all, a magnet stuck on a boards needs a tug to be pulled away, then it becomes much easier. Board = particle field, magnet = magnetic dust covered Enterprise. So, this was OK for me. What wasn't was the genetic memory. The larvae could have had some kind of empathic powers that'd have enabled them to get an imprint of the cloned people's mind, that'd have worked better, while not flying in the face of most accepted genetic theories (granted, there may be some dispute, but still).
- T'Pol. What's wrong with her? The kiss scene was well acted, but what the hell was the point?!? :confused: I'm not a Vulcan integrist, but how logical can it be to kiss and obviously allow oneself to have feelings for someone who is going to die a mere 6 days from now? Unless you have urgent needs for sex or romance, I mean.
So from 9, to 8 for the way the Archer part was written. Still, fascinating dilemma.
By the way, on a pure mathematical standpoint, there are ways to compare infinites. This is going to be hard to explain in English ... If you consider a life as a function rather than a value, two functions can often be compared, even if both tend toward infinity. Let's try to make it clearer with a very basic example:
f(x) = x
f(x) -> infinity when x -> infinity
g(x) = x^2
g(x) -> infinity when x -> infinity
So, basically, f(infinity) and g(infinity) both are infinity. Can you compare them? Well, yes, and that's written:
f = o(g) towards infinity.
In effect, f smaller than g in infinity. Bear in mind that this would be much clearer if I had studied maths in English rather han French ... and that it's been approximately 10 years since I did this ;) .
Anyhow ... sorry for the rambling.
After reading this, my mind wanders over to ST III. Vulcans believe that the katra (spirit/essence) of a being lives on after death. Now there are rituals involved to preserve that essence and place it in a place of honor, but nothing has been said that the katra dissolves without said rituals (only that it is "lost," which could simply mean that it is no longer retrievable).Quote:
Originally posted by Calcoran
- T'Pol. What's wrong with her? The kiss scene was well acted, but what the hell was the point?!? :confused: I'm not a Vulcan integrist, but how logical can it be to kiss and obviously allow oneself to have feelings for someone who is going to die a mere 6 days from now? Unless you have urgent needs for sex or romance, I mean.
Also, there is nothing to say that they believe that the katra only applies to Vulcans....IDIC most likely dictates that Vulcans don't impress their rituals on members of other cultures (especially when said cultures have their own rituals for the passage of a soul).
That said, it's feasible that T'Pol gave the kiss to express her feelings for Sim/Trip, so that when he dies, his katra will retain that knoweldge/memory.
Just a thought.
But ...
T'pol !
Vulcan.
Feelings !
:confused: :eek: :confused: