View Single Post
Old October 23 2013, 06:34 PM   #65
OpenMaw's Avatar
Location: Everett, Washington

GoRe Star wrote: View Post
teacake wrote: View Post
Because why the heck wouldn't you save them? You'd save an injured dog or an animal species about to go extinct.
From Time and Again

JANEWAY: You have no idea what the consequences might be once you involve yourself.
PARIS: The consequences would have to be better than mass destruction.
JANEWAY: You're not to warn these people. That's an order.
Yeah, her response is exactly what you get when something has gone from a "reasoned argument" into "dogma." It's actually a horrible answer.

I have no idea what the repercussions would be if I saved stopped to save anyone from their burning house. None. The people I save could raise the next Hitler. They aren't guilty of that, but they still very well could be indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the future. It's based on two fallacies, that evolution has a pre-determined goal(that you evolve naturally into death), and that the universe has a "cosmic" plan(That someone is destined to die from a disaster.) Neither of which has any reasoned or scientific basis, and frankly goes against the better parts of Gene's humanist-centric future.

I cannot fathom someone basing their morality on this fundamentally flawed, dogmatic, perspective. Should decisions be made carefully? Should one stay out of the internal affairs of another planet/nation/tribe? Absolutely. That's in fact the much more sensible interpretation of the PD, but, to suggest that helping someone when they're dying or at the risk of massive disaster is somehow wrong has to be considered a totally unacceptable perspective when it is especially so haphazardly applied.

I've often wondered if from the writers perspective this was conceived because aliens haven't ever visited us and thus must have some kind of a non-interference policy, aside from buzzing groups of hippies and mutilating cows, that is.

Again, I find that much of Enterprise had good ideas, but often poorly executed them. They became too formulaic and rigid about what they could or couldn't do. The only reason Dear Doctor has that awful ending is because the original ending was cast aside. TPTB said the crew should always be on the same side of an issue... IE, much like what Gene said with early TNG, that they couldn't have any tensions or drama among the Enterprise crew. Which I think seems awful silly. People are going to disagree. Always. Even in the future.
"Paradise protests too much." SFDebris
OpenMaw is offline   Reply With Quote