“Homeward”
Written by Spike Steingasser and Naren Shankar
Directed by Alexander Singer
Season 7, Episode 13
Production episode 40276-265
Original air date: January 17, 1994
Stardate: 47423.9
Captain’s Log: Worf’s foster brother, Dr. Nikolai Rozhenko, is a cultural observer on Boraal II, which is suffering from atmospheric dissipation. According to Data, the atmosphere will be gone in 38 hours, which is a problem for the culture that Rozhenko is observing, as this will kill them.
Rozhenko isn’t responding to hails, and while there’s no life-sign readings in the observation post, Worf does detect a deflector grid in a cavern. Picard sends Worf down alone to minimize possible Prime Directive violations, which requires him to be surgically altered to look Boraalan. Since the planet only has 38 hours, this seems to waste time they don’t have, but what the hey.
After Crusher alters his cranium and nose, Worf beams to the cavern. He is surprised to find Boraalans in the cavern—as well as Nikolai, who introduces Worf as his brother, saying that he’s come to help them. Nikolai describes Worf as a seer who can predict the atmospheric storms, and then says that he needs to help his brother get provisions and such for them. That’s his cover for beaming back to the ship to report to Picard. (Though, again with less than two days before the atmosphere’s gone, they take the time to go to sickbay to have their Boraalan prosthetics surgically removed.) He wants to set up an atmospheric deflector that will save at least this one village, so some segment of Boraalan culture will remain intact.
Picard refuses, despite compelling arguments from both Rozhenko and Crusher about not letting people just die like that when they have the power to save them. Picard won’t even give Rozhenko permission to beam back down. The atmosphere destroys itself, and the Enterprise watches as an entire population dies, then heads out of orbit. As they leave, a huge power drain registers, which Worf traces to Holodeck 5, where Rozhenko has re-created the cavern on Boraal—and also covertly beamed the villagers to the holodeck, using the sensor hiccups from the atmospheric disturbances as cover.
His plan is to tell the Boraalans that they’re going on a journey, they’ll use the holodeck to change the scenery gradually until it matches that of another Class-M planet that they can then be relocated to. Picard reluctantly agrees, but only because he doesn’t have a choice. They have a ticking clock, though, as Boraal’s atmospheric disturbances have done damage to the holodeck systems that can’t be fixed without taking the holodecks all offline. The simulation will break down eventually.
Rozhenkio and Worf get new Boraalan facelifts, and go into the holodeck to prepare for the “journey,” and also provide food. When bits of the holodeck grid show through a pool of water, Worf thinks on his feet and claims that it’s a sign that their journey will be a safe one.
Crusher and Data find two possibilities—the better one is too close to Cardassian space, so they go with Door #2, Vacca VI in the Cabral Sector.
On the holodeck, Worf talks with Vorin, who keeps the chronicle of the village. They compare methods of chronicling history—Worf defaults to Klingon methods of telling stories and making up songs—and one of the elders of the village tries to set Worf up with his daughter.
Vorin has dropped one of the scrolls, and goes back to get it. He finds it where the holodeck is futzing out and he reveals a door. Because Worf isn’t bright enough to post guards at the door and because apparently the Enterprise ’s internal sensors no longer function, Vorin walks out onto the decks of the Enterprise and makes it all the way to Ten-Forward. Riker and Troi are there and they take him to sickbay. Crusher can’t wipe his memory, so Picard tells him the truth. Vorin is devastated and can’t handle the notion of leaving his homeworld.
Rozhenko is appalled that Picard told Vorin the truth, and that they will allow him to return to the holodeck if he chooses—Worf pointedly uses this as an example of his brother’s inability to think things through. Later, a woman named Dobara tells Worf about how Rozhenko saved their village—and also that she’s pregnant with Rozhenko’s child.
They’ve given Vorin quarters, and Picard goes to talk to him. He wants to go home, but he can’t keep this a secret, nor can he tell the other Boraalans. Picard also offers to let him stay with the Federation. But Vorin can’t resolve the dilemma, and he commits suicide.
Worf and Rozhenko arguing about Dobara is interrupted by the holodeck malfunctioning even more. Worf tells La Forge to double down on it and create some storms, and then has them beamed down to the surface of Vacca VI. Rozhenko intends to stay and raise his child and keep the new chronicle.
Can’t We Just Reverse the Polarity?: Atmospheric dissipation is one of those things that just, y’know, happens. When it does, it’s quick and without warning.
There is no Honor in Being Pummeled: Worf and Rozhenko fall into old arguments pretty quickly. Worf was the dutiful son (of course), while his older brother was the wild one who kept their parents up night worrying about what stupid-ass thing he’s done now.
If I Only Had a Brain…: Data and Crusher have a conversation that raises the difficulties in what they’re doing, and the possible consequences that we’ll never see because it’ll all happen after this episode is over.
What Happens on the Holodeck Stays on the Holodeck: Because the holodeck’s usual absolute perfection wouldn’t be convenient for this particular plot, they suffer malfunctions that only can be fixed with a hard reboot.
In the Driver’s Seat: Ensign Gates is back, but she once again has no dialogue that isn’t spoken off-screen.
I Believe I Said That: “I refuse to be bound by an abstraction.”
Rozhenko getting at the heart of the matter.
Welcome Aboard: For the second week in a row, we get a well-regarded character actor, this time Paul Sorvino as Rozhenko. Canadian actor Brian Markinson makes his first of three Trek appearances as Vorin; he’ll be back as the bizarre Elias Giger in Deep Space Nine ’s “In the Cards” and in the dual role of Sulan and Peter Durst in “Cathexis” and “Faces” on Voyager.
And this episode’s Robert Knepper moment is actually within the Trek family, as it were: I’d totally forgotten that Penny Johnson-Jerald (here still credited as Penny Johnson) played Dobara. She’ll have the recurring role of Kasidy Yates on DS9 (and can currently be seen on Castle, where Michael Dorn has a recurring role as a shrink).
Trivial Matters: This episode finally gives a name and face to Worf’s foster brother, and biological son of Sergey and Helena Rozhenko, that was mentioned way back in “Heart of Glory.”
In Worf’s First Adventure, a novel written before this episode aired and taking place during Worf’s first year at the Academy, Peter David gave Worf’s brother the name of Simon. Editions that were printed after “Homeward” aired changed the character’s name to Nikolai.
The notion of moving people to a different planet while making them think they were on the same one via a holodeck simulation would be used again in the movie Star Trek Insurrection.
Make it So: “I find no honor in this whatsoever, Captain.” I despise this episode with the fiery passion of a thousand white-hot suns because it turns our theoretical heroes into murderers.
I’m not really sure how we got from the philosophical discussion of the Prime Directive in “Pen Pals,” where it was explicitly stated as being incredibly complicated and difficult to parse (Worf’s assertion that it was an absolute was refuted in pretty short order), to “Who Watches the Watchers?” where Picard twisted himself into a pretzel against all reason and logic to avoid a contamination that had already happened, thus making the Prime Directive idiotic, to this absolute total nonsense.
I lost considerable respect for Jean-Luc Picard as a character in this episode, as he spews tons of self-righteous twaddle in defense of making sure people die the way they were “supposed” to. The Picard of this episode is compassionless, heartless, and despicable. The point of the Prime Directive is to avoid imperialism, basically—to keep from contaminating two cultures (the ones being interfered with and the ones interfering). But the equivalency between that level of protection (and self-protection) and letting an entire culture die for no good reason that this episode postulates is appalling.
There is something seriously wrong with your Star Trek episode when your theoretical heroes are trying to kill people (well, okay, let them die, but it amounts to the same thing) and your antagonist whom the script desperately wants to paint as the bad guy is the person who’s actually saving lives.
The episode has some really good acting talent behind it, from the always-great Paul Sorvino, to the underrated Brian Markinson (a particular favorite of mine, currently being seen on Continuum and who was delightfully skeevy as Chief Jacobs on DaVinci’s Inquest and DaVinci’s City Hall), to a quietly passionate turn by Penny Johnson Jerald, to a strong performance by Michael Dorn, who once again manages to show subtle emotions through the latex (though he gets to wear totally different latex this time, woo hoo). And it’s nice to finally meet Worf’s foster brother after all this time.
But ultimately, this morally bankrupt piece of crap is an embarrassment to Star Trek as a franchise.
Warp factor rating: 1
Keith R.A. DeCandido will be atFarpoint 2013 this weekend, along with actors John Billingsley, Lee Arenberg, Felicia Day, Giancarlo Esposito, Bonita Friedericy, and Rob Paulsen, as well as fellow Trek scribes David Mack, Robert Greenberger, Michael Jan Friedman, Aaron Rosenberg, Glenn Hauman, Allyn Gibson, and Howard Weinstein. His schedule is here.
I hated this one too, although part of me is glad that SOMEONE finally put down how unfortunate the Prime Directive actually is.
It’s a horrible directive.
And is the band they ended up saving genetically diverse enough to maintain a population that survives? We only ever see a few dozen at most. Perhaps there were more they saved that were always “just off camera.”
But yes, this is one of the most troubling Trek episodes ever, and I’m including most of the morally-grey 4th through 7th seasons of DS9.
Finally caught up to all my re-reads and this POS is the episode up next?Blegh! I’ve really tried to give this a go several times mainly because Paul Sorvino is in it but even he and Dorn can’t save this. This season had so many about faces with the moral codes that it almost destroys the canon that came before it. Even with that it could still have been watchable but for the awful holodeck failing subplot – seriously with this many failures how would the makers stay in business I would have sent back the holodecks years ago and demanded a full refund.
Indeed. The Prime Directive made sense when it was about “don’t turn the natives into gangsters or Nazis” and even made a fair amount of sense when it was about “don’t accidentally let the natives think you are a god” (although, given the wide variety of beliefs in gods and ancient aliens on 21st century earth, it seems unlikely that accidentally letting one village think you are a god will change the course of an entire planet).
But when the PD is about “let the primatives die rather than undetectably relocating them” it’s pretty stupid.
maybe the only trek episode where I really didnt like Picard. I couldnt help thinking that Worf’s brother’s plan with the holodeck/planet switch was pretty good and could’ve been the plan in the first place rather than let them all die.
Agreed.
Hard to add anything else. About the only thing not already raised is I was shocked that they didn’t put the kid under some kind of surveillance. You don’t just let some kid from a pre-industrial society wander by himself even in his own modern quarters. Think how much damage someone from the midevil days could do just wandering around your house.
Unbelievably stupid episode in so very many ways.
Here’s what I don’t get about this episode: The Prime Directive is Starfleet General Order #1 — but Nicholai isn’t in Starfleet, so why do Worf and Picard act so outraged that he’d violate a rule he’s not bound to?
All I can hear in my head now is Kirk yelling, “Let them die!“
Oh krad, thank you thank you thank you. We watched this episode sometime back in December I think, and the next day I was STILL fuming about it on the bus ride to work – I thought about writing my big mental rant down so I could save it for the rewatch but I never did. I told my husband I almost have to pretend this episode doesn’t exist because it just made me hate Picard and want to slap him as he spouted his self righteous drivel.
I’m sure you and others will be able to express themselves much more eloquently but – while I understand the reasons for the Prime Directive in the sense that it prevents interference with other cultures that could be taken advantage or forcing one set of ideals onto all cultures (although, frankly, some cultures – fictional and real-world – suck and could stand some ‘contamination’, tolerance be damned) – I want NO part of a morality that just has you sit around and do nothing while other people die because you either don’t want to ‘contaminate’ their culture (which is dumb because it’s going to dissapear entirely), or, worse, you are being totally condescending and think they can’t handle it or are enforcing some kind of survival of the fittest on them. I thought Worf’s brother rocked. (And yes, I know Vorin couldn’t handle it but that doesn’t mean everybody would react the same way, and it’s totally arrogant to assume that and not give them the chance to handle it anyway. I’m sure there are legitamate reasons to avoid contact that really would cause significant upheaval but considering that in this situation they were all going to die…who the hell are you to say they should die?)
And to be honest I never bought the whole ‘we can’t contaminate other cultures’ entirely anyway. That’s how the world works. I do understand that you don’t want a culture to just be wiped away or homogenized, but it’s hard for me to argue that you should keep knowledge from people – cultures should be allowed to evolve and learn from other cultures (to an extent, I get why you wouldn’t want to show up under most circumstances with your spaceships to a culture that hasn’t even grasped the idea of outer space yet).
Just….arrrgh. This episode infuriated me and I’m glad I’m not the only one :)
But the prime directive is only supposed to keep a culture from being contaminated, so that they can go on developing in the path they were meant to take. Letting the whole culture die is never part of the thing, this episode really is stupid, and I bet Roddenberry would be appalled.
If somehow given the chance, would Picard save the people of Kataan (Inner Light), or watch them die?
1. bothersome question are Starfleet and the fedration the same thing? If i’m flying around in my space ship and make a first contact is that unlawful? Becuase if everybody lived by the rules people do on the enterpriese I don’t think i’d last too long.
2 If you’re really serious about “don’t effect allien cultures” A well armed multi-ton space craft may not be the best way to travel.
@1,
The characters on DS9 did a number of morally questionable things, but in general, they awknowledged that what they did was morally questionable. When Sisko and Garek set up their little conspiracy and murdered the Romulan Senator, there was no implication that we were supposed to see them as being noble and upholding the finest values of the Federation. They usually suggested that what are heroes were doing was the lesser of two evils but didn’t forget that even the lesser one is still an evil.
That’s what really grates about this episode: not just the fact that our “heroes” would do something so awful, but that we’re apparently supposed to agree that Picard was obviously in the right and Nikolai obviously in the wrong.
Here’s another problem with this particular application of the Prime Directive: it’s kinda discriminatory. By which I mean, if a planet/culture is advanced enough to know about ‘aliens’ and be able to contact them, then they can ask the Federation for help. There are many instances of the Enterprise going to assist a planet that was not a member of the Federation.
But a culture that is not at that ‘advanced’ level cannot be helped – even if they were to ask for it, which they can’t. (Although, cf Data and little wassername ‘is anybody out there’ and they helped that planet in the end…)
So… advanced cultures get help, primitive cultures don’t.
Easily translates into: advanced cultures DESERVE help, deserve every last possible shred of effort to help them survive. Primitive cultures… they don’t deserve help. They’re not worthy of it yet. If this calamity had just happened to hit them say, a thousand years or so from now, then they’d be worthy. But not today.
That’s just yucky.
What bothered me the most about this episode, though, was not this application of the PD. It’s a legitimate debate to be held. But I do not for one instant believe that PICARD, of all people, would be the one arguing in its favour. Especially not after the episode with… Sarjenka? Is that right?
I enjoy seeing Worf’s human brother but the story itself drives me crazy. Nicolai may have gone about it an underhanded fashion but he found a way to help some dying people even though they didn’t ask for it. Is the magic trick to ask for help? Picards reaction makes no sense when compared to Pen Pals. Also now that you’ve got these people to there new planet is Worf just to supposed to sail off into the sunset and Never talk to his brother again? The Roshenko’s are going to ignore their oldest son and grandchild now that he is “stranded” among primitive people.
As others have said, this episode’s (and TNG’s general) interpretation of the Prime Directive is a complete misunderstanding of what it’s supposed to be about. When Nikolai says, “And isn’t that what the Prime Directive was truly intended to do, to allow cultures to survive and grow naturally?” and Deanna says, “Not entirely; the Prime Directive was designed to ensure non-interference,” the episode gets it backward — Nikolai is absolutely right, and Deanna’s response is legalistic, irresponsible twaddle. It’s fetishizing the rigid letter of the law and overlooking its underlying purpose. Noninterference is not an end in itself, it’s a means to an end, the end of allowing other cultures to retain their right to self-determination. We choose not to interfere because we’re humble enough to know we’re not smarter and wiser than they are, and don’t trust ourselves not to interfere harmfully or take advantage of our greater power.
Yet the 24th-century version, particularly here, inverts that entirely. Here, the idea isn’t that we can’t be trusted to wield a gentle enough hand or resist the temptation to meddle in a culture that’s perfectly capable of making its own choices; instead, it’s that they are too primitive and fragile to survive exposure to our superior knowledge, so it’s up to us to pass judgment and determine their fate. Which is the very kind of arrogance and condescension that the Prime Directive is supposed to guard against. The portrayal of Vorin as being so mentally rigid and frangible that knowledge beyond the familiar drove him to suicide is preposterous, a straw man concocted to justify the episode’s preconceptions. In real life, individuals and cultures are more adaptable than that. If you look at the history of cross-cultural contacts and interactions among humans, you find that when cultures, even less technologically advanced or worldly cultures, are exposed to new knowledge or ideas, it doesn’t cause their existing worldviews to collapse like a house of cards; rather, they smoothly incorporate whatever new ideas fit with what they already believe, reinterpret others to make them compatible with what they already believe, and pretty much ignore whatever ideas are irreconcilable with what they already believe. Worldviews are far more robust and flexible than what was shown here.
The other thing that’s totally ridiculous here is the way Worf’s prosthetics are handled. It wasn’t just a matter of sticking some appliances on Worf’s face; his brow ridges are substantially smaller in his Boraalan disguise, so that means a considerable amount of his own bone structure had to be cut out! That’s major surgery! And yet it’s casual enough that Worf can get it completely undone in a matter of minutes when he comes aboard for the briefing, and then get it put back again a few hours later? It’s insane! At least they should’ve kept him in his Boraalan guise once he came back to the ship. Or given the Boraalans a design that was more compatible with Klingon bone structure.
It’s a shame there’s so much about this episode that’s horribly wrong and ill-conceived, because there are things about it that are cool. Paul Sorvino is always good, and he makes an excellent Nikolai. And the way he arranges the Boraalans’ relocation is pretty clever. I wonder if the Preservers used the same approach with Miramanee’s ancestors.
Come to think of it, I usually describe Insurrection as a bad version of “Who Watches the Watchers,” but maybe I should see the glass half-full and call it a less bad version of “Homeward.”
So we get two warp 10s with Parallels and The Pegasus, followed by this garbage and then….wait for it….Sub Rosa.
Ladies and gentlemen, your wildly inconsistent TNG Season 7!
Isn’t it also a little squicky for the anthropologist to marry one of his research subjects? So much for scientific objectivity…
@19: I’m not sure objectivity (in the sense of detachment) is even possible in immersion anthropology. The whole point, after all, is to learn to identify with the culture you’re studying, to set aside your worldview and assumptions and learn to experience theirs firsthand. You’re supposed to become part of their social structure and participate in it. Although I guess taking it as far as Nikolai did would be considered “going native” and losing sight of the research goals.
I remember seeing this episode back in the day and I liked it.
I thought you were much too critical of the staff on the Enterprise. I thought the realised the situation was hopeless and there was no way the entire planet of people could be saved (billions and billions of people transported onto a ship? c’mon!)
I think Picard really did empathise with them but knew that you have to know when to hold ’em, and know when to fold ’em…
At no point in “Homeward” does anyone, including Nikolai, discuss saving the entire planetary population. The question is whether they will save at least one village, and the arguments against doing so are not logistical; it’s that the Prime Directive says it’s wrong to save anybody, full stop.
And while I have a lot of time for the basic concept of the Prime Directive, there is no possible moral justification for “The principle of non-interference demands that we let a natural disaster kill everybody.” This episode is appalling.
The stupidest decision they ever made was the day someone decided “Hey! I know! The Prime Directive is actually just a way the Federation keeps track of who’s broken the galactic speed limit! Otherwise, the species in question is screwed!”
Mmm-hmm.
It’s especially fascinating to compare and contrast this episode to Up the Long Ladder, where the entire Enterprise crew smirks and eyerolls as they force two alien cultures to interbreed. despite one of them being adamant that they’re definitely of asexual in their orientation now, so this -really- won’t work and…
Man, I’ll just chuck this back on the pile of episodes I ignore.
At least the stories like “Doctor Crusher falls in love with an alien incubus” are entertaining! This was bad -and- insulting.
StrongDreams@3:
Ah, but an even more fundamental principle than the Prime Directive states: “When someone asks you if you’re a god, you say: YES”.
@24: Err, the cultures in “Up the Long Ladder” weren’t alien, they were Earth colonies. And the Mariposans weren’t asexual, they were a clone society who were dying out because relying on cloning was damaging their genetic viability.
“Er, they weren’t alien”
I know. But they no longer subscribed to the same culture or values that the Federation did. Or even (supposedly) the same mental and emotional enlightenment the Enterprise crew just wouldn’t shut up about in the earlier years of the revived franchise.
“And the Mariposans weren’t asexual”
Um, yes, they were. I’m talking about orientation here. They made it quite clear they did -not- feel sexual attraction of the sort the Space Irish folk or the Enterprise Crew did, and the “Well, they just need to try it out” smacked WAY too much of the whole “Gay people/Bisexual People/Asexual People/Trans” etc “Just need to try it heterosexuality out” and they’ll magically convert. NOT. THAT. SIMPLE.
Gah. Posted while my brother’s name was on the browser. Sorry. That was me.
One of the unfortunate aspects of this episode is that there are parts of it that are actually likeable, which makes the whole absolute misinterpretation of the Prime Directive that much worse.
Whenever I watch the episode, I always write an extra ending in my mind, in which it turns out that the entire Enterprise crew was being controlled by someone like the Organians, and the whole thing was a test to see what Nikolai would do. When the episode ends, the crew is appalled at what they’ve done, and it takes weeks for Troi to fix everyone.
— Michael A. Burstein
@27: The point is that the Prime Directive is not assumed to apply to human populations. The crew wasn’t subject to the same legal restrictions in dealing with the Bringloidi and Mariposans that they would’ve been in dealing with an alien culture. I’m not saying that’s morally right, but it’s the way the law is defined in-universe. The events of “Up the Long Ladder” were not perceived by the characters as a case where the Prime Directive applied, so there’s no factual inconsistency in how the episodes were written, even if one believes there’s a moral inconsistency in the characters’ choices.
Earl Rogers:
I wouldn’t say that Mariposan asexuality is something innate, but rather, something culturally determined.
“PULASKI How did you suppress the natural sexual drive? Drugs? Punitive laws?
GRANGER In the beginning we used a little of both. Now three hundred years later the entire concept of sexual reproduction is a little repugnant to us.”
It sounds much more like a matter of Mariposan sexual orientation being something actively suppressed by an authoritarian culture than Mariposans being asexual.
Yeah, I agree that the Mariposans were not naturally asexual, largely because I find it very very very difficult to believe that you can remove sexual desire from an entire human community purely through social conditioning. (And at one point their representive says that they’ve denied their carnal feelings for hundreds of years, which is not at all the same as not having those feelings.) It seems pretty clear, though, that the Mariposans have been told all their lives that sex is icky and forbidden and they shouldn’t do it, and suddenly reversing course to say that sex is awesome and they should all go right out and have sex with strangers…um, yeah, that’s going to go well.
One episode I looked back on in comparison to this one was Deja’Q. There we have a moon ready to drop on a helpless planet, and the Enterprise is working tirelessly to save it. Now, they were depending on Starfleet to save them: it wasn’t by their own means at all. You could easily (but despicably) argue that if they couldn’t save themselves, the “natural course of evolution” was their annihilation. The only difference I see is that they were (presumably) a post-warp society, which seems a pretty cold way to decide who is or isn’t worth saving.
I think all of you, including Keith, are reading this episode wrongly.
I think the writers’ intent was to show that being extremely rigid and doing everything “by the book” all of the time is not a good way to live your life, and tried to use the example of a dying planet to show it.
Have you ever known or worked with someone who was like that? People like that drive me nuts.
As my dad says, “Sometimes you have to throw the book out the window.”
@34: I’m afraid that doesn’t wash, because the position the episode took is that the Enterprise crew was right to be that rigid — that the Boraalans were so primitive and fragile that knowledge of space and aliens would drive them to suicide, so the strict, no-exceptions version of the Prime Directive was supposedly vindicated. Nikolai’s attempt to save some of them was portrayed as a dangerous and reckless idea that had negative consequences.
Well technically only a group of villagers is not viable enough to produce a stable population (incest and all that …) at least on earth, hence deciding that it’s a game over would be logical albeit a brutal conclusion since moving and entire race is not really going to work in a 38h window and who would then choose who is coming a board and who isn’t ?
In other words this episode took a complitely wrong approach to handle a dilemma that situation in this episode would cause.
It’s a strange episode, because from the word go you find yourself agreeing entirely with Nikolai and disagreeing entirely with Picard. It’s not the first time the crew of the Enterprise have dogmatically followed a line that was clearly quite dumb, but it is the most radical.
Moreover, you have to think that a society as enlightened as The Federation would have considered what would happen in a situation where non-intervention would result in the extinction of an entire race, and that the answer they came up with couldn’t possibly have been “let them die.”
Having said that, on the plus side, as evidenced here, it is certainly an episode which generates debate over what the Prime Directive is, and what it should be. And the acting does come very close to selling it. But in the end, there are just too many dumb elements.
One other thing kept nagging at me while watching though. Paul Sorvino, when this episode was filmed, must have been in his fifties. And he very much looks it. Which brings up the question, how old is Worf?
@John R. Ellis,
I yield to no one in my hatred of “Up the Long Ladder,” but Christopher Bennet is right that the Prime Directive didn’t apply there because both societies were (a) well aware of the existence of extra-planetary cultures, and (b) had specifically asked Picard for help. I may be able to get into quite the rant about the means in which he provided that help, but it wasn’t a Prime Directive violation.
The main similarity I see between that episode and this one is that I have to pretend it doesn’t exist if I’m to maintain any respect for the alleged protagonists.
@37: According to official chronologies, Worf turned 30 in “Parallels.” Michael Dorn was 41 when this episode aired. Must be that crazy Klingon aging (see Alexander.)
@33 RaySea – exactly!
@36 nadros – it is a dillema to be sure, but I don’t like the argument that becuase you can’t save everybody, you should save nobody. It’s kind of lazy, really – yes, it would be very grueling emotionally to determine who can be saved and to know that there are some who will not be saved, but that doesn’t mean they should just wash their hands of it and let them all die.
Another point not brought up so far is what happens when the baby is born? Nikolai may have had his appearance surgically altered, but his genetics remain the same. There’s a decent chance that the baby is going to be born human.
@SaltManZ: I had a spoken word album as a kid of Roddenberry discussing Star Trek. One of the segments was an interview with Shatner where they discussed the Prime Directive. Roddenberry asked Shatner what he thought Kirk would say about helping benighted 20th century humanity. Shatner responded, “Let them suffer! I MEAN it!”
Okay- here’s a non prime directive question… How is it that the civilian anthropologist with no known computer skills is able to take over the transporter system and simultaneously beam a couple hundred people and all their possessions into the holodeck which he simultaneously programmed to be identical to the cave they were all in? And nobody seems to care??? Once again the writers have allowed our vaunted security chief to let the Emterprise get hijacked… How many times has at least some portion of ships control been wrested out of the hands of the crew and into someone else’s? Data hijacking the ship I understand, but Moriarty, Worfs brother, the bynars, the alien life form going to new vertion city… All of them took over at least some aspect of ships controls…. It’s just a bad writing crutch….
@42: But that’s so we have the chance to learn from our mistakes and solve our own problems, which is the only way we could ever really mature as a civilization. That’s completely different from letting a species die out entirely.
#37 and @39, I don’t see why Worf’s brother couldn’t be much older than him. Worf was adopted by accident, and his parents are clearly rather elderly.
That being said, there’s probably a book or something that has them growing up together.
@45: In and of itself, your proposal makes perfect sense, but there’s a line in “Heart of Glory” that implies they were of similar age: “When my foster brother and I were of age, we entered the Starfleet Academy. He hated it and returned to Gault. I stayed.” Of course, that could be interpreted to mean that they entered the Academy at different times, but that’s not what it sounds like. (And the Peter David YA Academy book mentioned in Keith’s review has Worf and his brother entering the Academy at the same time.)
This episode and the other TNGs covering the Prime Directive are a perfect example of a brain bug. TNG had a large enough budget that they didn’t have to borrow sets and costumes from the Universal backlot or wherever to “recreate” ancient Rome, 1930s Chicago or Nazi Germany. So the purpose of the Prime Directive: “Avoid contamination of the native culture,” as shown in set-piece episodes of TOS (plus gems like “A Private Little War”), gets lost when the job of the Enterprise-D seems to be to run around and save planets from natural disasters. So the crew goes from fretting over whether to save Sarjenka’s Planet to trying to minimize the contamination of an accidental violation in “Who Watches the Watchers,” to this disaster—in so many ways—of an episode where the Captain of the Federation flagship sits idly by while an entire planet dies.
It gets worse on Enterprise. In the morally ambiguous “Dear Doctor” they debate the merits of letting one humanoid species go extinct—despite a specific plea for help—whom the Enterptise crew suspects of oppressing another humanoid species. Unsurprisingly, they decide to let the oppressors die.
The pseudo-science of TNG seemed to be getting worse as the series went on as well. From the dissipation of the planetary atmosphere, to Nikolai’s effortless, clandestine transfer of the villagers to the holodeck, to the plot-convenient holodeck malfunctions, the “science and technology” aspects of the show take a serious beating.
@47: You’re misremembering “Dear Doctor.” It had nothing whatsoever to do with oppression; rather, it was about evolution. Phlox concluded that what was happening to the Valakians was not a disease, but an evolutionary process — that the species was nearing the end of its natural lifespan, and that a new species, the Menk, was evolving to take its place, more or less. The idea that a species would have a built-in evolutionary expiration date is certainly questionable, but no more so than most biological science in the Trek universe, right down to the very existence of humanoid aliens and interspecies hybrids. Phlox’s position was analogous to that of doctors and hospice workers who believe that the natural impending death of an individual is something to be accepted and eased rather than fought against artificially. He just applied it on a species level instead.
And his argument wasn’t about whether the Menk as individuals were being oppressed, but whether, over the millennia ahead, their species would have the opportunity to achieve its full evolutionary potential. He asked Archer whether humans would ever have been able to flourish if some alien race had given the Neanderthals an artificial boost. A lot of people interpret that to mean that he favored the Menk over the Valakians, but all he really said was that they had no right to take either species’ side and should just step back and allow nature to make the choice.
I have much less aggro about this episode after finally picking up Scalzi’s Redshirts this weekend ;). Episode was still quite awful though. It’s like the writers decided all of a sudden that the canon regarding StarTrek morals and ethics needed to actually conform to some kind of reality without fixing any of the questionable physics or holes in plotlines.
While first watching this, and every time I’ve even thought of this ep, I am enraged by Picard’s arrogance, and that of his entire crew.
WWJTKD? Kirk would have moved planets to save people. And if he were indisposed, such as having lost his memory inside an obelisk in a storm, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty would have pushed the old girl for more than she had left, busted warp engines and officers at each others throats, to save a primitive people so that their planet and their culture could survive.
That said planet appeared to be settled by humans from Earth, transplanted by the Preservers, in no way made Miramanee’s people any less covered by General Order 1. Their culture was progressing and surviving according to its natural path, saved by the Preservers before Europeans destroyed most of it, and generations later, Kirk and crew continued that preservation.
I had enough of a problem with Picard being an academic indecisive wimp who’d occasionally abandon his ship to beam himself into dispersal inside some indeterminate space intelligence. But this episode made me nearly hate him and how the 24th Century Federation had perverted its core values.
In some ways this may have been foreshadowing and subtext for Generations, where the only way Picard could figure out how to defeat a madman who would wipe out a pre-warp civilization was to go find the Captain who would never hesitate to do whatever was called for to save life, including new life and new civilizations. It also presages the corruption we saw in DS9 and Insurrection.
@48 From the Memory-Alpha plot summary of “Dear Doctor”: “Sato is upset and thinks that the Valakians are oppressing the Menk and treating them like “pets,” but Phlox says that she is making assumptions based on human history: from Phlox’s perspective, the Valakians and Menk have found a way to live in harmony, when on most planets with more than one sentient race, they fight each other until only one survives.” Archer is also inclined to help the Valakians, at least at first. I remember thinking even at the time, the approach to the as-yet-unarticulated PD was trite. We, the Audience, are supposed to think Archer and Phloz are right partly because of the second class status of the Menk.
But think about if the situation had been reversed, and it was the second class Menk that were endangered. I’d bet the writers would have had the opposite outcome, because the Menk deserved the chance to evolve. Or what if the Valakians were in immediate “personal” danger like the Boraalans of this TNG episode, but the Menk might still evolve? No matter whether or not they stepped in and gave the Valakians the cure Phlox had already developed, Archer still played God with that planet. Doing nothing was also a decision.
Since apparently some Homo sapiens intermingled with Homo neanderthalensis (who may have only been a subspecies anyway), Phlox’ argument about hypothetical aliens giving them a boost is facile. Besides, at the time both humans and Neanderthals comingled (if you don’t count the modern descendents) they were in the stone age. The Neanderthals weren’t capable of calling an alien starship for help. And we haven’t even started discussing how it would be if aliens had protected the dinosaurs, preventing the rise of the mammals.
Noninterference looks like an excellent rule on paper, and under limited circumstances it is. I’m not sure at what point it came to apply not just to cultural contamination, but evolutionary processes as well; perhaps because they needed a plot point in TWoK. We see over and over again how clinging to it forces the characters into morally repugnant situations. And don’t give me any line about the limited human perspective; frankly, it’s all we have. And Humans are nothing if not meddlesome.
@51: I’m not saying the decision can’t be debated. I’m just saying that any such debate should be based on the actual facts of the episode, not a muddy misremembering of it.
@45 (& 46) – Also, there are are a number of references to Nikolai and Worf being taken camping in the Urals by their father, and Nikolai being scared of the call of the wolves. This suggests that they were both still children/youths at the time. If I recall correctly, Worf was taken to Earth when he was 7 years old. These camping trips presumably took place some time after this. So I would suggest that even if Nikolai is older than Worf, it could be by no more than about 7 or 8 years at most.
@35:
But wasn’t Nikolai pretty much vindicated at the end of the show? Despite breaking the rules and having the people transported onto the ship against Jean-Luc’s wishes, he was able to get some of them onto another planet and they didn’t all commit suicide, so maybe there is still some hope for them.
What I remembered from this episode was that the idea of gradually changing the terrain on the holodeck was pretty neat. But pretty much nothing else.
Another problem with this isolationist interpretation of the prime directive is that it ignores that interaction among cultures can be part of a society’s “natural evolution.” Look at the ancient cultures on Earther being influenced by sea-faring empires, which brought trade and knowledge. I get that you don’t want to dump your technology on a society that’s not ready for it, or even reveal your existence if it will totally blow their minds, fine. But to let the society die because intermigling is absolutely forbidden? In “Pen Pals” someone (Troi?) put forth the suggestion that THEY are part of the planets evolution and history, because hey, there they are. The others shot it down, but I agree with that idea. I sometimes see people talk about a concept of humans vs. nature, as though humans were no longer part of nature. What we do and how our actions affect things are most definitely part of the world around us. We should therefore be careful with our actions, but it doesn’t mean we should live in an isolationist bubble. Guess what? Maybe part of the culture’s evolution is, “And then we interacted with this other culture, and it affected us thusly.”
@55: Exactly. The greatest cultural progress and dynamism on Earth has been in regions where different cultures interacted and exchanged ideas. Exposure to outside ideas is not “contamination,” but healthy interaction. As long as no one forces their beliefs and customs on anyone else, it’s not damaging but enriching.
And that’s what the Prime Directive is supposed to be about. It’s not about believing the primitives are too fragile and stupid to survive exposure to new knowledge and have to be shielded from it even if it kills them. It’s about recognizing that we (i.e. humans/the Federation) are fallible, that we could be tempted to assume that we know better than they do and entitled to use our superior power to impose our will upon them. It’s not an absolute ban on any interaction at all, it’s a warning to keep a close eye on ourselves, our choices, and our motives, so that if we do choose to interact, we take care to do so cautiously and with as much respect for the other culture’s autonomy as possible.
I don’t have the huge problems with this episode that everyone else seems to.
Sure, Picard’s position here is too rigid, but it’s not like the ship is either equipped or large enough to move an entire population. That the holodeck has problems handling one village of people is proof enough of this – and when Voyager rations holodeck time or shuts it down to save energy, holodeck problems in this instance are certainly plausible.
It’s hard to fault Starfleet too; often the Enterprise just happens to be the only ship in the sector (a plot device seemingly used in every series and film, sans Voyager where it’s a given), so bringing in a large troop transport isn’t an option. Nor is a giant holoship to prevent cultural contamination; that doesn’t occur until Insurrection. Further, it’s not like Rozhenko, who wasn’t even responding to hails anymore, was providing enough information for Starfleet to definitively assess the situation.
So yes, Picard and Worf come across as heartless here, and their positions are written to be too over the top, but I say it makes sense. Nor do I think atmospheric dissipation is totally out of whack either. Trek is filled with strange phenomenon, and technobabble-device-number-2348273489 always miraculously saves the day. We live in a world with anthropogenic climate change; if relatively small amounts of certain gases can change our climate then why wouldn’t some other chemical or energy reaction cause a dissipation on the Baraalans’ world?
I also thought the Boraalan who wanders off and ends up killing himself made sense. You’re just living your life, recording the history of your people, and suddenly you discover that your beliefs are basically wrong, your entire world is destroyed, and you’re unwittingly being transported through space in a holodeck projecting a fictional reality. He’s allowed to go back to his people, but what would be the point? What future would he have there, now knowing about all of this and deciding whether to tell the others (and be seen as a lunatic) or keep it a secret (seriously demoralizing)? I think it ties in nicely with Picard’s point of view and blunts the impression of heartlessness earlier in the episode.
If there’s one major issue I take with this one, it’s that Troi isn’t involved. As an empath she would have to feel something as the atmosphere dissipates, and her point of view would make a compelling argument that could have swayed Picard or others on his “side.” If nothing else, the effects of what she senses could have made a dramatic B-story.
Clearly I’m in the minority thinking this one’s decent, but come on, the Sign of LaForge? I thought forcing Worf to use his limited imagination in that instance was quite amusing.
@57: Maybe the way Vorin reacts is the way some people might react, but it’s dishonest to hold up one man’s inability to adapt as proof that the entire society would be destroyed. People react in all sorts of different ways. We have plenty of historical examples of societies being exposed to new knowledge and not being destroyed by it. Often they thrive as a result of embracing the new knowledge. Europe certainly did when it was exposed to the more advanced knowledge of Asia and the Mideast, such as printing, the compass, and gunpowder, and used it to become the most prosperous and powerful civilization on Earth.
The thing is, the pretense that outside knowledge is intrinsically destructive is a way to let the West off the hook. Yes, it’s true that European/American colonialism wiped out a lot of less technologically advanced cultures, but the fact is, that’s because the colonizers actively tried to wipe them out, whether by literal mass murder or by trying to convert them to Western beliefs and values and eradicate their own cultural heritage and traditions. But if we pretend that those cultures were just intrinsically fragile, that it was the contact itself that automatically wiped them out, it spares us the guilt of being responsible for wiping them out on purpose. “Sorry, it was an accident!”
And that’s missing the whole point of the Prime Directive as it was meant to be applied in TOS. It was meant to be a safeguard against colonialist thinking, against the belief that our greater advancement makes us wiser and righter and entitled to convert others to our beliefs and ways. That’s what really endangers cultures — not contact in and of itself, but paternalistic imposition, the Civilising Mission, the White Man’s Burden. So the Prime Directive is about making us recognize that other cultures are entitled to make their own decisions and we’re not entitled to play god and take those decisions away from them.
But the “Homeward” version of the PD is as paternalistic as it gets. It’s totally White Man’s Burden, but in the other direction — instead of “they’re too primitive to make the right choices so we’ll teach them what to think and how to act,” it’s “they’re too primitive to understand our superior knowledge so we’ll just let them die rather than forcing them to suffer that ordeal.” It’s still about assuming we’re superior and entitled to choose for them. So it’s a complete inversion of what the PD is supposed to teach us.
ChristopherLBennett@58
Hear hear!
I really don’t see it that way.
The Enterprise has 3 choices:
1) Do nothing.
2) Beam as many to the holodeck as possible, trying to prevent contact while saving lives.
3) Beam as many on board as possible, putting them in cargo bays and guest quarters or wherever.
Option 1 destroys the culture and the lives. Not a great proposition, but one I believe is somewhat defensible given the circumstances and resources the Enterprise has on hand.
Option 2’s what they, or rather Rozhenko, did. Alternatively, they could’ve beamed people into cargo bays dressed up to look like a cave, then staged an “earthquake” at which point they’re beamed into a real cave on a new planet. The holodeck barely made it, and potential holding areas on the ship weren’t ready. Still, I personally think this is the best option.
Option 3 is Welcome-to-the-Federation-Day and oh, by the way, your planet’s gone and most of your people are dead, but enjoy the replicators. This saves the lives but not the culture. It could become a security risk if people don’t react well to it. It forces a fundamental rethinking of life on the part of the Baraalans. Further, actively engaging them in this way sets a precedent that can be used on other worlds in the name of “saving lives” – oh, you’re too close to a war zone so let’s move you, the Federation needs this planet for the mineral resources we use in a life-saving medicine so now you need to move, etc.
I think it’s totally plausible that during the near-century between the events of TOS and TNG, the Prime Directive and/or consequences of its violation were modified as a result of events we don’t see on screen. I didn’t say that Vorin’s suicide is proof their society would be destroyed, but it does show the pitfalls of Option 3.
Not at all do I see the episode as an issue of a superior vs. a weaker culture. The fact of the matter is you simply don’t know how they’ll react. You don’t know how they’ll handle the stress or their emotions. Just because something worked for Europeans doesn’t mean it would for the Baraalans, and the Europeans didn’t get transplanted somewhere else because Europe was completely destroyed. It’s still there. Nor did encountering that type of technology force a rethinking of how they live their lives.
Introducing Baraalans to the Federation would itself be a statement that the Federation is superior: “Your planet was dying so we saved you. Now you can live like us instead.”
I don’t think that option 3 would necessarily destroy the culture, and they certainly wouldn’t be obligated to live like the Federation. Indeed, the Prime Directive would probably forbid that sharing of technology (if they weren’t ready to join). They would be greatly unsettled, sure, but they would probably adapt to it. They could live on a planet somewhere and maintain their level of technology and culture, or have a higher level of technology and still retain their culture.
@60: “Option 3 is Welcome-to-the-Federation-Day and oh, by the way, your planet’s gone and most of your people are dead, but enjoy the replicators. This saves the lives but not the culture. It could become a security risk if people don’t react well to it. It forces a fundamental rethinking of life on the part of the Baraalans.”
But see, there you’re just uncritically accepting the same assumption that TNG made, that exposure to new knowledge would destroy a culture. I studied world history and cross-cultural interactions in college, and that’s why I know that assumption is wrong. It’s a myth Westerners tell themselves to paper over our culpability for either deliberately trying to destroy native cultures around the world or inadvertently killing them off with smallpox and the like. History shows that when that doesn’t happen, cultures can be quite robust when exposed to new knowledge and changed circumstances, assimilating new knowledge or adapting to new environments without abandoning their basic beliefs and customs. Hell, even when it does happen, traditional cultures survive better than we tend to assume. The populations that Europeans and later the United States tried to forcibly convert and assimilate ended up holding onto their traditions and identity all the more fiercely in response, even if they had to do so in secret.
So no, it wouldn’t destroy their culture. That is completely and utterly wrong, and that’s exactly why the episode is wrong. Saving them would be the only thing that would preserve their culture. Yes, that culture would have to adapt to new circumstances, but that is what cultures do. They are not fixed and unchanging things that remain constant for millennia; that’s one of the most pervasive fallacies of anthropology. Cultures change with each new generation. They improve and refine their ways of doing things. They adapt to changing circumstances like droughts and plagues and wars and new inventions and new neighbors or even just simple population growth. Their young rebel against their elders and seek new solutions. The form a culture takes at the time you first contact it isn’t the way it’s always been since time immemorial, it’s just the way it happens to be at that particular period. It could’ve been extremely different a generation before. But it still has elements of tradition and belief that give it continuity and identity even as it grows and adapts. Cultures help people cope with change, by giving them a framework to filter it through and a foundation to hold onto. Change is a part of life, everywhere, always. Culture would be useless if it couldn’t cope with change. That’s part of what it’s for.
Did the Jews lose their culture when they were driven from their homeland? Certainly not. Did the Cherokee, Choctaw, and others forget their heritage after the Trail of Tears? Hell, no. Displaced peoples don’t lose their cultures; they hold onto them all the more forcefully. Sure, the displacement can be traumatic, can leave scars, but the cultures survive and help the displaced people cope and move forward. And it’s a damn sight better than being extinct.
I still don’t buy the argument and still find Option 2 the best. The human experience is not necessarily the same as it was or will be with alien species, which is something the Federation (and the human species in particular) often gets criticized for in the show.
One of the things I’m thinking of is religion. Often religion is a (or sometimes the) major part of a given culture; if this is called into question then can’t the culture be said to have been destroyed? In the modern Western world we see gradually declining adherence to religion, particularly among younger generations. The “culture wars” in the United States partially stem from this. The idealized suburban family with a picket fence is neither reality nor desirable among many people today; I would say that American culture is undergoing a fundamental change.
Further, I would say introducing certain technology can have a negative influence. Our best and newest technology tends to either come from or be picked up quickly by the military. We had an arms race with the USSR. We try to prevent nuclear proliferation and certainly wouldn’t want al-Qaeda to get a nuclear bomb. Our own geopolitics are unstable enough with the technology we already have; to see North Korea with a starship would be quite troubling, albeit unlikely. South Korea has special schools for people who’ve escaped the North, as many of them have extreme difficulty adjusting even though they’re already aware of things like TV and radio.
As places like China and South Korea have rapidly become major world economies, their own cultures have changed. Suicide rates among elderly South Koreans have skyrocketed as the social contract where the young care for the old has broken down. Once family structures, diets, languages, and belief systems (among other things) have changed, is that the same culture? I’d say no.
So yes, Judaism has proven especially resilient. Christianity, though it’s undergone its share of change, continues to provide a cultural foundation. The Bajorans serve as this type of example in Trek, complete with more ‘liberal’ elements like Kira and more ‘orthodox’ elements like Kai Winn’s order. But with the rapid changes in places like Asia, or the high rates of poverty and alcoholism combined with little to no adherence to traditional beliefs on some Native American reservations, I see places where the culture has changed or essentially died, and I still say to introduce the Baraalans to the Federation could – not would, but could – drastically affect them as well.
This debate reminds me of a quote from DS9’s Michael Eddington: You know, in some ways, you’re even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You’re more insidious, you assimilate people – and they don’t even know it.
I think option 2 is probably best at this stage of the Boraalans’ technical development as well, assuming it’s survivable. (There are legitimate concerns about the size of their gene pool, for example.) What I don’t think is that option 3 is in any way, shape, or form worse than LETTING THEM ALL DIE. If Picard had gone for option 2 at the outset, this episode would not be earning anything like so much outrage–but he didn’t, and it is. In fact, what Nikolai initially proposes is a version of option 2 that wouldn’t even require the Enterprise to take the Boraalans anywhere, and Picard flatly refuses, not because of any technical or logistical concerns, but because the Prime Directive says that would be bad.
I also don’t get why you’re assuming they would have to live like the Federation. The Federation leaves them to go on living as they have been in this very episode; why would they have done differently in a situation where the Boraalans were actually able to say what they wanted? (Assuming that is what they wanted, but if the Boraalans are making a choice then it’s not about the Federation forcing their values on them, is it?)
@63: “One of the things I’m thinking of is religion. Often religion is a (or sometimes the) major part of a given culture; if this is called into question then can’t the culture be said to have been destroyed?”
Good grief, no! People assume that, but what I learned in my history studies in college is that religious beliefs are far more robust than that. When missionaries come in and “convert” the natives, usually what the natives do is just incorporate elements of the new religion into their existing patterns of belief, drawing analogies between the old and new — as with Caribbean religions like vodoun and Santeria which are essentially traditional African faiths with Christian saints folded in as incarnations of their previous deities. Religious change is a syncretic process, an evolution, not the simple erasure/overwriting of belief that people assume it is.
As I said, change is not destruction. Change is the natural state of any active, healthy culture. Religions change and evolve in response to new circumstances just like every other aspect of culture. Go back in time 500 or 1000 years and you’ll find a Christianity that’s very, very different from the modern version.
“Further, I would say introducing certain technology can have a negative influence.”
It can, but it can also have a positive influence. Western Europe was not destroyed when it was introduced to the more advanced technology of the East like the stirrup, the moldboard plow, the printing press, the magnetic compass, the lateen sail, and gunpowder; on the contrary, it thrived and expanded, going from one of the most backward civilizations on the planet to the most powerful civilization in history in less than half a millennium. One could certainly say that Europe’s technological advancement had a negative impact on other cultures, but not so much on Europe itself.
“Once family structures, diets, languages, and belief systems (among other things) have changed, is that the same culture? I’d say no.”
And I’d disagree emphatically. I’ve already said how completely wrong and counterfactual it is to define any culture as fixed and unchanging. I mean, look at a person. Is everything about you — your physical appearance and health, where you live, where you work, who your friends are, what you own, what music you like, what attitudes you have — exactly the same as it was 10 or 15 years ago? Probably not. But does that mean you’re not the same person? Of course not. You’re a person who’s grown and adapted, but that’s what people do. That’s their nature. And exactly the same is true of cultures. They aren’t rigid constructs, but living, growing entities, processes that evolve over time and adjust to the change that’s a natural part of existence. Our culture today is very different than it was a hundred or two hundred years ago, but it still builds on what came before, so it’s still the same continuous culture.
I think I get what you’re saying in the sense it’s the “same” culture at a different point in time. I don’t think of it that way, but I can see where you’re coming from.
I still insist, however, that introducing the Federation to the Boraalans is a bad idea. I belive doing so opens the door to interference in any culture because that culture would never be “destroyed.” The medieval-esque people of planet such-and-such are in the midst of a deadly plague, so let’s cure it to save lives and introduce ourselves. A war on planet other-and-wherever is being fought with nuclear weapons, so let’s beam them up before they can use them and introduce ourselves…to save lives. The Romulans want to annex x-number-of-sectors in Klingon space, so we should covertly kill the people advocating for war to prevent the war and save lives.
Any number of situations can be justified in the name of saving lives, and this is part of why the Prime Directive exists. Just because something worked out fine in one instance does not automatically mean it works everywhere. And sure, Europe advanced quickly, but you admit that may have had a negative impact elsewhere – colonial imperalism and the effects we still live with today come to my mind. One could also argue Europe didn’t fare all that well, with technology allowing for the rise of people like Hitler and Stalin and for allowing their reigns to last longer than they otherwise would have.
Maybe in this case the Boraalans would be positively affected. Maybe they’d be negatively affected. Maybe they’d choose to settle somewhere and continue as they did before with ultimately no effect at all. We don’t know, and regardless of how they react or what they choose, we’d be acting on what we think is best for them by forcing them to make that choice, and I just think that’s wrong.
@66: Of course I’m not saying you should feel free to interfere at a whim or force a decision on people. The whole reason the Prime Directive exists is as a counter to that Civilising-Mission mentality. As I’ve said, history shows that the most damage is done to a culture when you actively try to make them change their ways to what you think they should be. But if you make contact less aggressively and respect their right to make the choice about how far the contact should go and how they react to it, then it’s much less damaging.
Really, it’s the same as any relationship. Trying to control your partner in a relationship, to make them do what you want and change them into what you want them to be, is abusive and unhealthy. But that doesn’t mean the only alternative is never to let them know you exist. You can have a healthy relationship with someone if you respect their autonomy, their right to be who they want to be and make decisions for themselves. You can offer them your help and your ideas and your knowledge, but you have to respect their right to say no if that’s their choice.
The mistake made by TNG toward the Prime Directive is that it insisted on defining the native populations as inferiors rather than equals, and thus assumed that the only options were zero contact or imposition. You’re making the same assumption, and that’s blinding you just as it blinded the writers of TNG. The whole point of the PD is to remind us that whatever their technological level, they’re not inferior or weak or helpless. They’re just as capable of making responsible decisions about themselves as we are about ourselves. The reason we keep our hands off is not because they have inferior knowledge, but because we have inferior knowledge about their culture and thus are not qualified to make their decisions for them. The point is to respect their right and ability to make decisions about their own culture. The PD advises us to avoid contact because we can’t trust ourselves not to mistake our superior technology for superior wisdom and authority. But that’s just a safeguard. There are going to be cases where contact happens anyway, where there’s no choice. Which doesn’t mean that all bets are off and we can go all White Man’s Burden on them; it means that we proceed with the contact carefully, at all times striving to remember that they understand their own culture better than we do and are thus more qualified to make decisions about how the contact should proceed.
In other words, the spirit of the Prime Directive is more important than its letter. Deanna was totally wrong in this episode; the Prime Directive is not about avoiding contact altogether. The true meaning of the Prime Directive is about respecting other cultures’ right to choose. Avoiding contact is simply a means toward that end. But in circumstances where that means ceases to apply, the end remains in effect. You just need to pursue it by other means. You can still respect their right to choose, their superior understanding of their own society, in a context where interaction does occur. You just have to be more careful. As with any relationship, you just have to listen to them and respect their viewpoints rather than assuming yours are always right.
This episode infuriated me. I have never been angry at Picard until this one. He had the audacity to refer to the moving of the people as “our plan” later in the episode, after being a snot about it earlier on. And the solution was obvious, and clearly a good one. We even have precedent of advanced species moving other cultures in danger of extinction, in the TOS episode with the Native Americans.
Picard being all butt-hurt about the storyteller dying. Well, gee, he would have died anyway, as Crusher points out. Then Picard’s lame “he wouldn’t have died alone” gibberish. Dead is DEAD, Picard. And you were gung-ho over sending all of them to their deaths.
It’s like some shapeshifter took over his body or something.
Even the minor decisions were awful. The tribe only has a few precious historical scrolls left, so Worf takes one as a souvenir?! Or for some light bedtime reading? WTF, seriously!
How about an amendment to the Prime Directive, in such cases. They have the tech to move these tribes if their homeworld is threatened before they achieve star travel. So put in a few sentences about helping move them if that’s the case. And a bit of knock-out gas or induced comas or suspended animation (we know they have that tech) would have solved a lot of issues with how to move them unawares.
@68: Except that’s more of the same condescending mentality that the Prime Directive was originally meant to caution against — the arrogant, imperialist notion that just because we’re technologically superior or more scientifically knowledgeable than another culture, that gives us the right to treat them like children and force our will upon them. If it’s their future at stake, it should be their decision what to do about it. If there’s a way to avert the threat without them knowing about it, then okay, maybe that’s cool, as long as you don’t get too protective and leave them weak and complacent. But a decision like relocating them is one that they have a right to be consulted about and to participate in.
@ChristopherLBennett
MASSIVE APPLAUSE
You’ve articulated my thoughts on so many poor ‘Trek episodes way better than I could.
The weird thing is that many of these episodes would only need a few minor tweaks (usually just lowering the stakes for the uncontacted people down to anything less than *complete* annihilation) to make them actually compelling and complex. What if the dilemma here was whether Nikolai’s *unilateral* decision to play out a religious epic in order to “protect” the Boraalans from cultural contamination was okay or not? Just ditch the part where our heroes are upset that a few innocent people *didn’t* die, and you’re left with something that could be an interesting companion piece to “Who Watches the Watchers”.
@50 – interesting points, except that your reverence for Kirk as someone who would save a life regardless of the consequences does not jibe with his actions in what is generally regarded as the greatest episode of the original series. It sounds like you’ve had some great debates about Kirk vs. Picard – the great thing about the Star Trek universe is that none of our heroes is infallible, and they all make mistakes – sometimes with horrifying consequences. I’m too lazy to go back and look at who wrote the episode and what others they may have written – but clearly they hit the wrong note as to Picard’s character in this one. The Captain we know would not have handled things this way. Two lines jumped out at me – first, Worf disowning his brother because he doesn’t follow orders – when so many episodes have turned on people doing the right thing, rather than the legal thing, to good ends. Second, when Vorin wanders into the Enterprise and encounters the gang, Troi soothes him “no one is going to hurt you.” Oh – by the way, we tried to let you die, but our plans were foiled.
I completely disagree that the script “desperately wants to paint” Worf’s brother as “the bad guy.” I also disagree that killing someone and not saving them just because you can is the same thing. Starfleet can’t save every primitive culture out there in the vast Milky Way galaxy from natural disasters, from each other, and from themselves. So who do they choose to save, and who do they choose to let die, and what gives them the right to make that choice, and how will they decide, and what effect will it have on the people they’re trying to help? The Prime Directive isn’t just about protecting primitive cultures from negative outside influences. It’s about non-interference. It’s kind of like when a nature photographer doesn’t step in to stop a baby elephant dying of thirst during a drought, but simply records it.
People have convered everything else, but here’s what I was thinking throughout the episode:
It would take hours to reboot the holodeck, which is a problem because apparently in the 24th century they don’t possess the technology to sedate a group of people in a confined space.
WWJTKD? Well I have a direct quote from “For The World Is Hollow And I have Touched The Sky” in which Kirk has to deal with a primitive civilization facing destruction, and when Spock brings up the Prime Directive says:
“The people of Yonada may be changed by the knowledge, but it’s better than exterminating them.”
Game, Set, and Kirk.
Excellent episode. Acting was nuanced and excellent and the story was extremely entertaining.
This episode accomplished exactly what it was supposed too–show us the harshness that the prime directive can lead too. I’m not sure what all the whining is about here.
One interesting thing is that Star Trek Into Darkness really shows the differences between Kirk and Picard. Picard values the Prime Directive enoughto let a whole civilization die while Kirk absolutely refuses to do so and loses his command as a result.
Always one of my favorite episodes.
@75: It’s not “whining,” it’s pointing out that the episode misunderstands the original intention of the Prime Directive. It’s not about assuming we (the Federation) have the right to unilaterally dictate the fate of another civilization. It’s supposed to be the exact opposite of that: a reminder that we do not have the wisdom to decide other civilizations’ fate for them, that they are the ones with the right to make their own choices. It’s supposed to be a counter to White Man’s Burden-style paternalism, meant to keep us humble and remind us that we’re fallible and that other civilizations are perfectly intelligent and capable enough to shape their own fate. “Homeward”‘s attitude is immensely paternalistic: We’re the superior race and they’re a bunch of fragile children too stupid to handle modern knowledge, so that gives us the right to decide unilaterally to let them die. It’s a deeply ugly corruption of the PD, totally missing the point, and if that’s how Starfleet sees the PD’s meaning in the 24th century, then Starfleet has lost its way.
This is actually one of my favorite episodes due to the interplay between Worf and his brother AND the moral debates. One of the most irritating things about TNG was that the main characters were, in most episodes, always right about morality and quite loudly sure of it. It was nice to have a break from that for one episode, where Worf and Picard have to think twice about whether their unswerving commitment to duty and honor and following rules is really a good thing.
Specific problems I have with Krad’s review:
1. Failing to save a life is absolutely not the same as killing. There’s a gigantic moral chasm between the two.
2. The plot was not at all trying to make us hate Worf’s brother for what he did. He’s given plenty of lines to justify himself and is portrayed in an extremely sympathetic light. Worf is critical of him of course but Worf is always used as the brutally honest voice of duty and strictly following rules. The Boraalans give voice to the viewpoint that he is a great leader, and in the end Worf acknowledges that what he did ultimately was a good thing. Even Picard acknowledges that “the plan worked well”.
There is nothing in the episode, other than Picard’s monologue and Worf’s accusations at the beginning, that tries to get the audience to believe that the Boraalans should have been allowed to die.
3. The Prime Directive has been all over the place in Trek history. During the first season of TNG they didn’t even give a moment’s thoughts to transporting down to a planet to hang out with a pre-warp civilization. In the case of “Justice” they probably even left some half-human “reminders” behind. Then suddenly it became verboten to allow pre-warp civilizations to be aware of the existence of other worlds and “aliens”, regardless of their level of scientific knowledge or cultural readiness to accept aliens. In the “Redemption” episodes, it’s implied that the PD even bars interfering with warp-capable species’ internal affairs, in this case the Klingon Civil War.
Of course, they didn’t really stick to these changes either when the plot required an exception to be made. So I’m not going to get bent out of shape about a contradiction of previous PD statements.
4. As Data mentioned in his powwow with Crusher, they were altering the potential development of an entire sector with their choice of worlds, not just the Boraalans. What if there was a sentient species on another planet in a nearby system to the Boraalans’ new planet, and 300 years later the Boraalans develop warp capabilities and conquered them? If the Prime Directive is an absolute bar on interference with species’ development that does present a problem.
@77: Our objections to the way “Pen Pals” and “Homeward” (particularly “Homeward” aren’t about anything as superficial as a continuity error. As I’ve explained in depth, they’re about the profound moral corruption of the TNG approach, taking a directive that was invented as a caution against paternalism and turning it into the most paternalistic policy imaginable. If the Federation starts out with a policy saying “Don’t assume you’re entitled to make decisions on behalf of less advanced species, because they’re more qualified to judge their own fate than you are” and then turns it into “Always make decisions on behalf of less advanced species, because they’re too primitive and stupid to judge their own fate,” then something has gone horribly, dangerously wrong.
I think what causes this episode to be so outrageously infuriating, is how undecided it seems to be about its stance towards this, um, “moral conflict”.
This Picard, and generally this crew, certainly aren’t the same people from most other episodes, especially those involving the PD – however, to write this off as a simple case of “depending on the writer”, is easier said that done, because other instances of character inconsistency such as between that episode where Wesley finally leaves the show and Insurrection, can easily be interpreted as character development.
What happened between “Pen Pals” and this? Have the writers just forgotten about the nuanced discussion there, that should be informing the attitdes and decisions made here… or have they, in Pen Pals, ultimately come to the conclusion that unless someone actually calls them for help, they’re not gonna intervene? In the latter cass, this would be them sort of desentisized and just stoically accepting their duty with a “we won’t go over this AGAIN” attitude… until maybe, partially at the end of this episode and partially in the aftermath, realizing they’d been wrong and, same as above, deciding to redeem themselves in Insurrection?
That episode where Picard, completely self-aware, was foaminga at Matt Frewer for refusing to help him save a planet, should that experience of having been on the other side have informed his attitude in Homeward, or was he supposed to be kind of a hypocrite, or did he decide that either cause Frewer was a fake or because this wasn’t travel, that that case was irrelevant in relation to this one? It feels more like a couple of hack writers having forgotten half of the show, but it’s just not quite that certain.
Picard, was he supposed to be right while Nikolai Worfovich was in the wrong? It might seem that way since the guy is on his defensive all the time, has to beg the crew to support him since he doesn’t have any power there, is chastised all the time, and at the end is sort of “forgiven” after everything turned out fine without appearing to hold a judgmental grudge on any of those pricks… but then again, he’s given upright and reasonable dialogue and even gets to call Picard’s opinion “empty dogma”. So then was this episode maybe supposed to be one where the heroes were in the wrong for a change, just like in First Contact they weren’t the protagonists? But if they were supposed to be in the wrong, was this wrongness supposed to be a consistent representation of the usual PD, or a display of hypocrisy/inconsistency?
Or was it maybe supposed to siply show an argument between two sides neither of which was completely right or wrong?
It’s this kind of indecisive hovering between which side the episode is supporting, if any, and how aware it is of its main characters lack of consistency, whether it’s just a “big lipped alligator moment” for the crew while their minds were kinda switched off after a stressful crisis, or if it was a routine for them, or a milestone in their evolving view on the PD (maybe their “lowest point”) that makes it such a fucking chore.
However, all those doubts and possibilities aside, I think the view that the writers simply dropped the ball, and clumsily wrote fake, derailed versions of the beloved characters while stupidly thinking they were doing it correctly, and is generally just so fucking stupid it doesn’t even know where it stands on the issue, is definitely the more likely one.
It’s just so… clumsy, so… obnoxious, so milquetoast, you just wanna punch *it* in the stupid face!
I think SFDebris line from Farpoint deescibes this spot-on: sometimes you wanna cheer for the characters, and sometimes slap them across the case. This is just typical TNG inconsistency – ignore this turd, nothing to see here, or get angry about. Stuff just happens sometimes, in a TV show like this!
:)
PS: Just my banal, widely shared view on the PD – I think it’s there to prevent three things: clumsily intruding into something like an intercultural conflict and fucking everything up due to limited understanding of the situation, creaing long-term damage by depriving the culture of the chance to solve the problem themselves, and avoiding changing the course of that culture’s history into a potentially negative direction – i.e. having the next Hitler emerge somewhere is not as bad as YOU being RESPONIBLE for that!
Any motivation beyond that is complete hogwash – a religious belief in fate or cosmic plans, or liberal horseshite about “no we’re the privileged West, we must not be imperialist and feel suprerior; those who disagree are scum!”, or all kinds of other delusions.
Even with those three, the idea that they make up this “totally primal prime directive” without any kind of qualifiers, exceptions or “amandments”, is already worryingly dogmatic.
What about cases where the political situation is much more clear cut (oppressors clearly distinguished from the victims, and you know enough about their culture to know that they aren’t sadomasochists and happy with stuff like that)? When does the importance of a culture having to “have it done itself” give way to a quick solution os serious problems in the present? And in what way do the chances of something bad happening actually INCREASE through inverention? When does the impulse of trying not to get your hands dirty in 40 years stup trumping the evil of neglected help?
The Pime Directive ought to be lengthy document with a whole bunch of annotations and clauses, not this boneheaded, set-in-stone principle. Our only mistake was in assuming that surely, all those clauses such as “if a whole planet dies, D does not apply” MUST be there, they’re just not brought up in these particular episodes – until the horrible realization followed, that no, there are no clauses, it literally is as primitive, simplistic, boneheaded and dogmatic as our worst fears were afraid of.
Oh well… the writers dropped the ball on this one! And that’s really all there is to it :)
I was with you up until that last sentence. You’re right about the rest, but the whole reason for not assuming superiority is so that we don’t think we’re entitled to do those things. As you say, it’s about having the humility to recognize that others are more entitled to make their own decisions than we are to make decisions for them.
It’s much easier to have a meaningful conversation if people just talk about the ideas qua ideas rather than trying to force them into some sort of imaginary political duality. It’s that conceit that everything has to be lumped into “left” or “right” that makes us not want to listen to each other or give each other’s ideas a fair shake. It just gets in the way of constructive dialogue. Labels obscure truth rather than defining it.
As for the hypothetical you pose subsequently, the most important thing is that you let the culture have a say in the decision. If they ask for help, if they want the kind of help you’re offering, and if you give them a say in how it’s administered so you don’t make mistakes of comprehension based on your own preconceptions, then sure, it can be very valuable. The problem is when you assume you’re entitled to make the decision without consulting them, regardless of whether that decision is to enforce intervention or to enforce isolation.
Rewatching this episode, I am struck by how much better it would be if the first couple of scenes (particularly the meeting of senior staff and Nikolai) were changed. It would change the entire tenor of the episode. The latter half has some really thought provoking stuff about the things that Christopher Bennett pointed out.
In particular, it would be about exactly what it means to uphold the Prime Directive in a compassionate way. Nikolai’s solution is paternalistic, but if successful, would avoid the very real costs that giving Boralaan’s a choice would entail. The latter costs are tragically illustrated in Vorin’s story (which, on the other hand, is exacerbated by Nikolai’s choice). This is not to say that Nikolai’s plan is justified by those costs, but it would really bring out the ethical issues at play here. It seems that all options are beset with high costs – strict literalism dooms the Boraalans to die; Nikolai’s plan is paternalistic and infringes on their right to autonomy; providing the Boraalans with a choice would have a profound influence (and a potentially very negative one) on their people and culture. To wrestle with these questions pushes us to really think about what the PD is really all about.
The initial scene, however, frames this in a poor way. It gives us a highly simplified, highly literal reading of the PD and seems to assert that the real question here is: live up to the PD, or subvert it for the good of individuals? This is a fairly standard ethical issue in TNG, but it avoids the key question. The really interesting question in this episode is: what does it actually mean to apply the PD in the first place? I think that the story raises questions that the explicit theorizing contained within the story does not have a handle on.
Sure, the episode has other problems – but I think there is a lot here that could have made a really fine episode.
This episode seriously misunderstands how the law works. Either that, or as we’re ending wars, curing poverty, and developing amazing technologies, we somehow forgot everything we’ve learned up to this point about making good laws.
This episode shouldn’t be about rigid adherence to the letter of the law, because laws are not one-sentence “directives.” Any governing body in TNG’s time would understand that the purpose of TPD is to allow cultures to evolve naturally, and that extinction halts that process. There would be no law requiring non-interference here.
The “Prime Directive” would be a hundred (or more) page document which allows for different actions in different circumstances. It would likely also give captains discretion in situations the law does not anticipate; in that case replacing rules with standards to guide good decision-making (As we do now with government agencies and judges).
Having a Prime Directive without exception would be like having copyright laws without Fair Use. Assault laws without self defense exceptions. The law just doesn’t work well with absolutes, and democratic governments have known that for a long time.
This could have been a wonderful episode about finding a way to save them while impacting their society as little as possible. The stress of only being able to save some of them – the ethics of saving this village because Worf’s brother happens to be attached to it. The ethics of Nicolai’s relationship.
I thought this episode, at least as far as the PD was handled was actually good. It showed that rules, no matter, how well intentioned or placed, there are negative consequences. I have no moral issue with it. The was I understand it, the PD applies to pre-warp cultures. You can study them, but cannot interact. That’s it. So letting them die, was the right decision.
And people forget that Nickolai only wanted to save them because he already blew it. He fell in love with an alien and got her pregnant. He also wanted to join the culture..that’s his motivation, not altruism.
My issues with the episode are: “how exactly does the holodecks work?” How do they constantly walk around without bumping into holodecks wall? I call bull.
And what the heck is Nickolai’s kid going to look like? Nickolai is human, the baby’s nose is going to be pretty deformed by their standards. And what the flip language were they speaking? Don’t give me this crap about a universal translator.
The holodecks use force fields and artificial gravity, along with the image projections, to make you think you’re walking around a much larger place. Much easier in this case since they were pretending to walk around in caves.
As for the Universal Translator, that’s something I’ve never been able to rationalize. Unless they have it implanted in their brains and speech organs, there’s no way you can pass off as a native speaker when using one, as you’ll speak in your language, and then the translator will repeat it in the target language.
Giving this episode a 1 because it has the protagonists taking action you find immoral or out of character seems pretty harsh. The screenplay was well written, if not well conceived. The performances, especially Sorvino’s were nicely done. And despite the serious moral issue raised by allowing innocents to die solely because they lack a level of technological sophistication, the episode did make an effort, albeit a clumsy one, to dramatize the debate about the prime directive concept that was thought provoking. And if we’re really going to make moral judgments about characters in a one hour dramatic television show, I’ll give Picard a bit of a pass. One overly-zealous moment of misapplying a directive that is not so easily adjudicated… does not define this character for me.
Didn’t the Boraalans think it strange that Nikolai’s brother was black?
@86/David Sim: Why would they? First off, it’s not impossible in real life for biological siblings of mixed parentage to have different skin colors. Second, they’re aliens. It doesn’t make sense to assume their genetics would break down into the same “racial” categories as humans anyway. Third, Nikolai never specified that Worf was his biological brother; as long as the Boraalans have the concept of adoption, there’s no reason they should be confused.
Regarding long-term consequences I was reminded of the video game Homeworld in which a culture is convinced of their own special creation because they lack all but basic similarity to the other life on their planet until they discover a millennia-old wreck of a spaceship and they learn their species had been moved there from far across the galaxy. That’s just backstory, though; the game doesn’t really go into it.
I don’t really have too anything to add to everyone else’s comments about this episode’s gross misunderstanding of the Prime Directive’s original intention other than my agreement. Said misunderstanding would raise its ugly head again less than a year later in Voyager‘s early timey-wimey episode “Time and Again” in a conversation between Janeway and Tom, though that concerned an apparent man-made disaster as opposed to a natural one:
On the bright side, Paul Sorvino and Brian Markinson are excellent. Vorin’s story is interesting and it is certainly the best part of the episode but it’s not exactly up against much competition in that respect.
I actually kinda liked this episode. But then, I watch the show for entertainment and apparently don’t think too much about the messages. I loved Worf’s line: “It is… the sign of LaForge.”
Wow. The episode certainly has flaws, but I’m surprised at how many people here hate it so badly.
“The point of the Prime Directive is to avoid imperialism, basically…”
But is it? Although that may be one element, I’ve never seen it as that exclusively. In a sense, I see it more like human interference in nature. If you alllow leeway to interfere in certain situations but not others, who gets to be the arbiter? Who gets to decide who lives and who dies? Should that be a power that any advanced civilization has over a less-adanced civilization?
My biggest complaints with the episode were logical flaws in the plot. But at this point in the Trek canon, don’t we have to take the Prime Directive as an established conceit?
@91/Firefox: Of course the Prime Directive is well-established, but that’s exactly the problem. When something has been around long enough, people often take it for granted and don’t really think about the reasons for it. So we get something like this where blind, legalistic adherence to the letter of the law is extolled as the ideal, to the point that the spirit behind it is totally corrupted. As I said, the goal of the PD is to remind Starfleet crews that they’re not entitled to make other cultures’ decisions for them. Deciding to let an entire species go extinct just because you don’t think they’re “ready” for contact is doing exactly that — determining their fate for them unilaterally, without giving them a say in the decision. It’s playing god, which is exactly what the PD is supposed to stop people from doing. So it’s a complete inversion of what the PD is supposed to be.
If Picard and Riker had been in Sickbay with bad headcolds and Data had to take command, even he would have decided to save lives, relying on nothing more than his ethical programming. He might even say it was a “no-brainer”.
It’s like the writers thought “What would be the most problematic thing to happen in this situation?” – and then made it so.
@91: But as others have pointed out here, Starfleet clearly wouldn’t have the resources to save all of the species/cultures facing extinction around the galaxy. In this instance, a culture was specifically saved only because a human inserted himself into their culture (without their knowledge or consent) and impregnated one of them. Not to mention a human who leveraged his personal connection to a Starfleet officer. What about countless dying cultures/species that aren’t so lucky? If this species had consisted of ugly glob-like creatures instead of near-humans, there’s no chance things would have played out this way. Is it right that species deemed to be more human-like would have a better chance of being saved than those who are not? How would this play out over centuries/millennia of interference? Would there gradually be an artificial bias towards humanoid life across the galaxy?
Once you’ve set a precedent that it‘s permissible to interfere in some situations, who gets to be the arbiter of when it’s appropriate and when it’s not? I disagree with the contention that allowing a species to die is “playing god” is that was the natural trajectory that the species was on. The one exception I could think of would be if the species is dying as a result of interference by Starfleet (or some other external warp-capable species). But there is no indication in this episode that the planet’s downfall is due to anything other than natural phenomena. Similar phenomena likely let to untold extinctions of other races around the galaxy. Why didn’t Starfleet choose to save those instead of this one?
Others have used the comparison to non-interference by nature documentarians, and I think it’s apt. Nature can be cruel and harsh. But that doesn’t mean interference is justified.
A Baraalan has Rozhenko’s child?
This is one of the issues that consistently annoys me about Star Trek: either the Baraalans are human colonists, in which case a) how did they collapse to the state their culture is in or b) they’re not, in which case, they’re probably less closely related to humans than corn plants.
I know that the Star Trek universe has expended a lot of handwavium on this sort of thing, and bad biology (and bad sociology and bad economics and bad ….) is pandemic in “hard” s/f and space opera.
@94,
The Prime Directive was pretty consistently ignored in TOS, Voyager (which I rarely watched, but it did seem to be the Prime Directive was ignored weekly), and DS9.
@94/Firefox: Nature documentarians may not interfere with nature, but people interfere with nature all the time, from saving species from extinction to nursing little birds or hedgehogs back to health.
People also save each other from illness, war or starvation. Is that wrong too? If you don’t think so, where do you draw the line? We can’t save everybody, and neither can Starfleet. But it’s still better to save some people than none.
I see the sentence Kirk quotes in “The City on the Edge of Forever” – “Let me help” – as the defining statement of Star Trek, and I’m disappointed when Star Trek doesn’t live up to it.
@95/swampyankee: Everybody can interbreed in Star Trek. Don’t you know that Spock is half human?
And the Prime Directive was not consistently ignored. “Bread and Circuses” and “The Omega Glory” were all about obeying the Prime Directive.
@96,
JanaJansen, I know that Spock was a human/Vulcan hybrid. This sort of bad biology was, and is, pandemic in space opera, and was quite prevalent in the 1960s, when Star Trek was first conceived and before. (it struck me as somewhat bizarre that a Vulcan-human hybrid would be more readily accepted than a biracial character)
@94/Firefox: I find it offensive to draw an analogy between sentient aliens and wild animals. Too many atrocities in history have been committed because people dismissed other races as mere animals unworthy of their compassion. That is exactly the kind of “You are less than we are” condescension that the Prime Directive is supposed to counteract, not encourage. The PD is supposed to be about humility, recognizing that we aren’t superior to other species and that they have all the same rights we do.
And saying “I refuse to save you because I can’t save everyone” is equally offensive. By that logic, firefighters, doctors, paramedics, and rescue workers shouldn’t even bother to do their jobs because they can only save some people instead of everyone. You save the people you can. You don’t just stand by and let someone die when you’re in a position to help them. That’s the “arbiter” of when to intervene — because you’re there.
And talking about dying from a natural disaster as a “natural trajectory” as if it were some kind of cosmic destiny is preposterous. If your neighbor’s house catches on fire from a lightning strike while their kids are inside, you don’t just watch them burn to death because the fire was started “naturally.”
@98: But in the context of Starfleet, where would the line be drawn between “animals” and “sentient beings”? It isn’t a black-and-white distinction, even in our real world existence – it’s a gradient. I’m sure that to some highly-advanced species, the distinction between humans and apes would be much smaller than how we perceive ourselves.
So it would go back to my original question: Who gets to be the arbiter of what to save and what not to save? And to what extent? If Starfleet knows that a species is doomed but not for decades/centuries, should they intervene? Is there a different moral calculus depending on the immediacy of the crisis? And who is to say that Starfleet is always right? Perhaps some species that they deem to be doomed is actually able to save and sustain itself through some combination of luck and resilience that Starfleet never anticipated. What about multiple species on the same planet but only one is at risk? Would Starfleet only intervene if there was a single species? And what if those species were antagonistic towards each other? There would be no such thing as a benevolent intervention.
As soon as you start drawing up the rules of that moral calculus, Starfleet would fall into the trap of what they want to avoid at all costs: interfering in the natural development of species. Just as humans and vulcans and every other space-fairing race had to beat the odds to get to where they were.
To be clear – I‘m not arguing that I would necessarily be in favour of sugh a rigid approach if humanity found itself in a similar situation in the future. But I do think that it makes some sense in the context of the ST universe.
@99/Firefox: The Prime Directive is about the healthy development of cultures, not biological species. As consistently defined in TOS, it’s about protecting their right to develop according to their own needs and choices rather than being prevented from doing so by outside factors. A natural disaster that wipes out the entire species certainly does qualify as an outside factor that prevents their healthy cultural development. Kirk made this explicit in “For the World is Hollow…”: “The people of Yonada may be changed by the knowledge, but it’s better than exterminating them.”
What’s so sick about “Homeward” is that it takes the exact opposite view: that it’s better to exterminate them than let them be changed by new knowledge, based on the condescending assumption that they’re too stupid to understand new knowledge. The point of the PD is supposed to be that we’re not smart enough about another culture’s needs to make their decisions for them — not that they aren’t smart enough so that we therefore have to decide their fate for them. You keep casting the argument in terms of how the Federation should decide to act, but that’s still buying into the false assumption that makes “Homeward” so morally reprehensible — the idea that someone else’s fate is somehow your unilateral decision instead of theirs. It’s making it about you when it should be about them.
Here’s the thing: Letting people know “Hi, hey, your world’s about to be destroyed and we can help you with that if you want” is not making the decision for them. It’s giving them the power to make the decision for themselves, whether they want to accept their “natural” fate or seek help to change it. It’s their lives, so it should absolutely be their decision. Assuming they’re too stupid to be asked and should therefore be left to die is making the decision for them, taking away their agency over their own lives.
I’d say the worst thing about this episode is what it does to the Picard character. What, suddenly he’s a stickler about the Prime Directive, which he’s bent or broken on several occasions? Is it because he didn’t hear the voice of a little girl this time? It just doesn’t make sense from what we know about the man at this point. Picard should be the one pushing his engineers and scientists to come up with a way to save this culture via the holodeck, not the guest of the week.
@100: Full disclosure, my familiarity with TOS (and the associated canon) is spotty at best. So I certainly understand criticism if there are glaring inconsistencies from what was already well established in the original series. Inconsistencies across the Trek universe seems to be a common issue, but to be fair that’s a problem with most long-lived fictional universes.
One comment in relation to the argument in the last paragraph: You are correct that giving them the information to make their own choice is not technically making the decision for them, although in most cases it de facto would be making the decision for them. I.e. “Hey everyone, you are all going to die because you won’t be able to save yourselves unless you permit us (seemingly) omnipotent saviors to deliver you. But totally your choice and all…” And regardless of what they do choose, it would irrevocably change their cultural development and the cultural trajectory they had been one would be gone forever. This also assumes that the species is advanced enough to even understand the information (and the choice) being given to them. What happens in that case? Should the crew forcibly save them for their own good even if they aren’t able to provide “consent”?
Now, one could argue that interventions could be done in a way so that the impacted species is oblivious (like in this episode). But what happens in situations where that isn’t practical? Or when there is a risk that they discover the truth anyway? From a purely practical point of view, I could see Starfleet deciding that these kinds of “playing god” decisions are minefields of unforeseen consequences that are far too difficult to be left in the hands of ship Captains. Especially when it’s well established in this (and other Trek series) that the idealism and professionalism of Picard and his crew is far from a universal trait across the rest of Starfleet/ the Federation. In such a context, I could see them deciding that a black-and-white “no intervention ever” rule would be the best of several bad alternatives.
@102/Firefox: “And regardless of what they do choose, it would irrevocably change their cultural development and the cultural trajectory they had been one would be gone forever.”
This is a ridiculous notion, that a culture’s “trajectory” is somehow predestined and fixed. Cultures change and grow all the time, and they routinely do so through contact and interaction with outside cultures. TNG-era Trek’s notion that exposure to ideas from outside one’s culture is harmful “contamination” is anthropologically idiotic and anathema to Star Trek‘s philosophy of diversity in combination. If anything, the cultures that have the most interaction with outsiders, the most exposure to new ideas, tend to be the most dynamic and robust. Hell, it was Europe’s exposure to and adoption of the more advanced knowledge and technology of the Mideast and the Far East — things like gunpowder, the printing press, the concept of zero, etc. — that enabled it to thrive and become a world power.
“This also assumes that the species is advanced enough to even understand the information (and the choice) being given to them.”
I’ve been saying throughout this comment thread how arrogant and condescending that idea is, that it’s a matter of the other culture’s intrinsic inferiority/stupidity. That’s absolutely the opposite of the original intention of the Prime Directive. As I already said more than once, the point is supposed to be that we aren’t smart enough to make another culture’s decisions for them, that they understand their culture and its needs better than we do. It’s supposed to be about humility and respect for other cultures’ equal rights, not contempt for their intelligence.
And the idea advanced in “Homeward” that “backward” cultures would be too mentally inflexible to adapt to new ideas is utter BS. There are indigenous cultures on Earth where one generation was hunter-gatherers and the next had laptops and iPhones — while still hunting and gathering with the aid of GPS and such. People are adaptable. Cultures aren’t destroyed by new ideas, unless those ideas are imposed by force. They adapt the ideas they can use and just ignore the parts they don’t want. I’ve surely discussed this already in this thread.
The Prime Directive obviously makes sense as a basic attitude or sensibility. But I suspect that it would be impossible to specify how it is to be implemented in practice.
Species A and Species B are involved in a deadly conflict. Species A is bent on exterminating Species B and is making excellent progress toward that end. What to do? Nothing?
The possible quandaries are probably endless.
Before Der Fuhrer foolishly declared war on the US, it was still possible that America would have chosen not to get involved, and to focus on Japan instead. Americans weren’t exactly taking a “Prime Directive” attitude toward getting involved in Europe, but if they had, wouldn’t the result have been the same? In that case would they have let Europe find its own destiny? Was it arrogant imperialism for America to get involved?
@104/Keleborn: Naturally it’s a complicated question, but that’s another reason that “Homeward”‘s slavishly legalistic take on the PD is so reprehensible and morally cowardly. As Picard himself said in “Justice,” “There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute.” The PD’s purpose should be to encourage Starfleet crews to take responsibility, to think carefully about when to intervene and when not to. It isn’t supposed to be an excuse to dodge responsibility by blindly following a rulebook.
@105/CLB,
Certainly agree with that! I wonder if Patrick Stewart objected, or whether he considered it “not my department”. Since some people are hoping the presence of Patrick Stewart in a future Star Trek series will help keep it on an even keel so to speak (I figure a ship metaphor is apropos here), the question would seem to have some relevance …
“To try or not to try. To take a risk or play it safe. Your arguments have reminded me how precious the right to choose is. And because I’ve never been one to play it safe, I choose to try.”
Yep, that’s the Picard we want to see—in every episode. Not the heartless bureaucrat in this. I don’t know who this man is.
Keleborn: The only times Stewart was directly involved in the story for a Trek production, it resulted in Insurrection and Nemesis. Just sayin’. :)
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
@108/Krad,
That reminds me of what Luke said when he found out who his daddy was. :)
@99/Firefox: “It isn’t a black-and-white distinction […] – it’s a gradient.”
In situations like this, our own societies usually don’t chose either extreme position, they define a boundary somewhere in the middle. Two examples: animal welfare and legal drinking age. Many countries have animal welfare laws, but they don’t apply to ants or midges. Usually they only apply to vertebrates. In the UK, cephalopods have been added to the list.
Most countries forbid children, but not adults to drink alcohol. Since children don’t turn into adults overnight, the actual legal drinking age varies. The laws in my native Germany are quite detailed, with different rules for children under 14, teenagers between 14 and 16, teenagers between 16 and 18, and adults.
The Federation and Starfleet could easily have noninterference rules of even greater detail, taking into account the intelligence of the species, the nature of the threat, and the stage of development of the culture. And those rules could constantly be questioned and revised as new situations arise. In TOS that seemed to be the case – e.g. there’s a short discussion between the main characters in “The Return of the Archons” that sounds as if the situation on the planet was something of a borderline case. In TNG, not so much – the discussion the characters have in “Pen Pals” sounds a lot like your comments here.
@101/DingoD: “Is it because he didn’t hear the voice of a little girl this time?” – I’m afraid so. I don’t think there’s such a big difference between that episode and this one. They had a calm, civilised discussion which ended with Picard deciding to let everybody on Sarjenka’s planet die. It was only Sarjenka crying “Data, Data, where are you?” that made him change his mind.
By the way, I like both episodes. I like the idea of using the holodeck to simulate a long march to a place where “even the stars may be different”. I just don’t like the Prime Directive and Picard’s attitude in either one.
(110)
Right, he does change his mind in the earlier episode, so it probably should’ve had some bearing on this episode as well. I mean it would’ve been nice to see them discuss it more and see Picard again bend the rules in creative ways. But for whatever reason Nikolai got to be the creative, empathetic one this time.
I think it would’ve been more interesting if Nikolai were a more cynical, lost, perhaps even suicidal character who had been preparing the village for The End by altering their culture into a kind of apocalyptic death cult, and Picard and Worf had to snap him out of it and remind him there are other ways. It didn’t have to be The End for everyone.
Well, that’s my two cents anyway.
@111/DingoD,
More interesting if they already had been an apocalyptic death cult. Then I could see letting nature take its course, but when Nikolai rescues them (wanting to give them time to complete their last rites) Picard would be in the awkward position of deciding whether to supply them with needed accessories, mood music, etc.
Interesting, but not very Star Trekky perhaps.
In this episode, Nikolai is the empathetic one because he knows these people and lives with them. In “Pen Pals”, Data is the empathetic one because he knows Sarjenka, and Picard has to hear her voice for himself before he is willing to help. In both episodes, people only help the people they know and personally care about. That isn’t a good message.
@113/Janajansen,
“In both episodes, people only help the people they know and care about. That isn’t a good message.”
I have personally witnessed a similar problem facing social workers who seek to help the homeless mentally ill find state-provided housing. There isn’t housing for everyone, so choices have to be made. Some of the homeless mentally ill, whether because of their illness or not, are extremely unpleasant people. Some social workers are, I think, understandably more motivated to help the nicer and more reasonable ones. Some of the more unpleasant ones seem to compensate then by becoming even more unpleasant (since they are pretty much incapable of being nicer instead), since that is the other way to get housing: show that you are going to be a great big problem for everybody otherwise.
Not sure how relevant this is, but since I’ve had a window into this part of the world that others may not, I thought I’d share it.
In my alternate story, I’m thinking Nikolai could’ve been a true antagonist, the one who has twisted the Prime Directive into this cult where these people are fated to die. And Picard, ever the speechifying humanist, reminds everyone of the true spirit of the PD. It’s a lesson he learned way back in “Pen Pals” and should have expressed here.
@115/DingoD,
I’m having some difficulty following this; could you flesh it out a bit more?
For example, what would be Nikolai’s motivation? Could it be that, seeing their fate, he embraces despair, welcomes death, celebrates it? How would he come into conflict with Picard exactly?
The original story was so bad, I am definitely ready to hear your alternate version!
@114/Keleborn: That is interesting, and I’d say it’s also relevant to the discussion of whom to help when resources are limited.
@115/DingoD: Or Nikolai could have asked them to beam everybody aboard, without any regard to keeping their existence secret. Then the whole team could have developed the holodeck plan together. Perhaps they could have tried to save the planet’s atmosphere first, and failed, and then come up with the holodeck plan as a last resort.
@116/Keleborn: Nikolai’s motivation could’ve been the same as that of the out-of-character Picard and Troi in the aired episode: Slavish, legalistic adherence to the rigid letter of the law, without making the effort to understand its spirit. He could’ve been an unimaginative bureaucrat who thought the rules needed to be applied inflexibly and thoughtlessly, while the Enterprise crew would have the real-world experience to insist that there needs to be room to interpret the laws in extreme situations. So literally just invert the way the episode was actually written. That would be a cliche that Trek went to quite a bit, of course, but better that than having Picard and Troi be the rigid, unimaginative rule-quoters willing to let millions die rather than be flexible in interpreting a regulation.
@118/CLB,
And in keeping with Star Trek clichés, make Nikolai outrank Picard somehow. Sigh.
Your suggestion is at least a logical way for them to tell the story they were trying to tell, without trashing our main characters.
I was on vacation and missed most of this but man, this is reminding me how much I hated this episode!
Every time I see this episode, I laugh at the scene where Worf and Nokolai are about to come to blows. Personally, my money is on Worf to win that fight easily.
I have no idea why you’d think that. :)
This episode just reinforces something that’s become increasingly apparent to me as the Star Trek franchise has gone on: the Prime Directive doesn’t work, not as a principle of exploration and not as a narrative device. Not only does it force the heroes to the dubious position of arguing that letting an entire species die is somehow the moral decision, but it completely undermines the core conceit of the franchise to begin with. Let’s face it, if Starfleet is so utterly convinced that merely saying hello to an alien species is more damaging to said species than literal annihilation, then what in Andraste’s name are they even doing seeking out new life and new civilizations in the first place? It’s cowardice of the highest order, wrapped in a self-righteous veneer of so-called enlightenment, and certainly nothing I’d consider even vaguely heroic. It also goes against the idealism and optimism we’re constantly told is at the core of the Federation’s values: there’s nothing idealistic about immediately jumping to the worst-case scenario and presuming that every culture you encounter is destined to collapse at the merest exposure to your cooties.
It’s telling that the best argument for the Prime Directive or something like it comes not from Star Trek, but from Mass Effect. Mordin’s discussions about the ethics of uplifting the krogan to ensure the Citadel Council’s victory in the Rachni Wars paint a better picture of the necessity of a non-intervention clause than anything Trek has offered in the past twenty years. (Not that Commander Shepard would put much stock in the Directive in the first place: Paragon!Shep isn’t about to let something like that stop her from acting with compassion and helping others, and Renegade!Shep doesn’t care about the consequences whatsoever).
So what’s the alternative? Act like civic-minded people do in real life: do what they can, where they can, as much as they can. No one is expecting the Federation to be gods or to solve every problem in the galaxy with a single wave of their hands, but they can at least try to give a shit, or recognize that their unwillingness to aid those in trouble is not something they should be patting themselves on the back for.
#123
The thing is though TNG already settled the question of whether or not they should violate the Prime Directive to help primitive people survive way back in “Pen Pals.” And of course Picard chose to help them, because he’s our thinking, humanist, Star Trekkian hero.
So this episode not only gets the Prime Directive wrong, it gets Star Trek wrong too.
Timeline:
In 1968, the crew of the Enterprise saves an alien civilisation from extinction without hesitation (“For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky”).
In 1989, some of them would still do so, but it takes a crying child to convince the rest (“Pen Pals”).
In 1994, nothing can convince them, but when they are tricked into saving the aliens, they are eventually glad (“Homeward”).
In 2002, they allow an alien species to die, and this is treated as a happy ending (“Dear Doctor”).
@125/Jana: They do not allow an alien species to die in “Dear Doctor.” They choose not to intervene in a natural evolutionary process that’s expected to take centuries more, deciding they’re not qualified to assume they know whether intervention would be right or not. And it’s stated quite explicitly that there’s still time for the Valakians to develop a cure on their own.
And it isn’t treated as a happy ending, but an ambiguous, uncertain one. I really wish people would stop basing their criticisms of the episode on gross misrepresentations of its actual content. There are legitimate scientific grounds for criticizing the episode’s premise, but people keep caricaturing and distorting it and attacking their straw men instead.
@126/Christopher: The ending may have been a bit more ambiguous than I made it sound, but the bottom line is still that it’s okay not to help a people in need. And that’s a far cry from the Star Trek I grew up with, where the characters always tried to help.
@127/Jana: No. That’s not the episode’s message at all; you’re twisting it. “Dear Doctor” was trying to do an analogy with end-of-life issues, the idea that there comes a time when a patient’s death is inevitable and a doctor’s responsibility shifts from fighting against death to managing and easing the patient’s final days. It simply based its story on the scientifically implausible notion that a species has a similarly unavoidable, natural end point in its life cycle like an individual person does. That’s not a realistic notion, but few things in Trek biology are, and as long as you stipulate that it’s true in-universe, then Phlox’s position is understandable. He wasn’t saying “Don’t help,” he was saying that the way to help someone nearing the end of their natural lifespan is different from the way to help a patient with a curable illness. And the debate between him and Archer over the ethics of taking heroic measures to prolong a naturally ending life was what made the episode morally ambiguous. It was flawed, to be sure, but it does it a disservice to misrepresent its plot and its message.
And Archer’s decision is simply that his crew, his people, do not currently understand the situation enough to judge whether or not to intervene at that point — that they don’t have the right to choose either species over the other, which is the essence of Prime Directive thinking. Since the species is still at least 200 years from extinction, it’s pure hyperbole to pretend that Archer walking away equals certain doom for the Valakians. If Phlox’s assessment of the situation turns out to be wrong, if there’s a way for both the Valakians and the Menk to survive, there’s still plenty of time to fix it. Archer simply recognized that he didn’t have the qualifications or the right to pick a winning side right then and there.
And no, the characters in TOS didn’t always try to help, because there were times when the Prime Directive meant leaving a people to help themselves if they could. For instance, they didn’t overthrow the dictatorship on the Roman planet — they just escaped and left the system in place, with a final note of hope that the oppressed pseudo-Christians would eventually prevail. They didn’t find a way to help the Scalosians, just to escape them, and Kirk essentially condemned them to extinction by quarantining the sector so they couldn’t lure more people into their trap. And Kirk did nothing to prevent the Gideons from proceeding with their plan to kill a huge percentage of their population with Vegan choriomeningitis. He saved Odona’s life, but she was still a carrier and the plan was going to continue, and Kirk let that happen because it was the Gideonites’ choice, not his.
Generally Kirk only intervened to correct outside interference from the Federation or others, or when he was forced to intervene by an imminent threat to the Enterprise (a frequent excuse writers used to get around the Prime Directive — “The Return of the Archons,” “A Taste of Armageddon,” “The Apple,” “The Gamesters of Triskelion”). In situations where a society had gotten themselves into their mess, he left it up to them to resolve it for themselves, if they could. Because that’s how the PD is supposed to work.
@128: Maker’s breath, that’s a ludicrous take. Let’s ignore for a moment that Phlox’s decision is based on an interpretation of evolution so wildly unscientific and off-base he does everything but declare the Valakians to be untermensch. or that the episode as an end-of-life parable has never once come up as a guiding force by the writers. We’re still left with the scenario where the Enterprise crew has unilaterally decided the fate of a sentient species, you know, exactly the sort of thing the goddamned Prime Directive is supposed to stop. You want to take about choice? The Valakians don’t want to die. Their entire species is fighting their supposed extinction tooth and nail, seeking out every possible solution to save millions of lives. Shouldn’t Starfleet respect that decision? Who the fuck is Darth Duchess to tell them they need to lie down and die? Honestly, I could just write a transcript of SFDebris’ review of the episode, as he articulates these things a lot better than I could, but suffice it to say, heroes don’t let words on a page stop them from doing the right thing.
“And Archer’s decision is simply that his crew, his people, do not currently understand the situation enough to judge whether or not to intervene at that point”. People are dying of a condition for which the Enterprise crew has a cure. What exactly is there to understand? One would think that acting with compassion, kindness and regard for the sanctity of sentient life would be precisely the sort of thing an enlightened culture would be doing without hesitation, but no doubt I’m mansplaining.
“Since the species is still at least 200 years from extinction, it’s pure hyperbole to pretend that Archer walking away equals certain doom for the Valakians.” And how many innocent people are going to suffer unnecessarily in that time frame? How many great minds who could have changed their world, if not the galaxy, for the better will be snuffed out? What measures will the Valakians turn to in their desperation, regardless of the ethical consequences, all for something Phlox has the cure for right then and there? And that’s not even counting the fact that they won’t forget how humanity left them holding the bag in their hour of need. Should the Valakians survive, you honestly believe they’re simply going to let bygones be bygones the next time they encounter Starfleet?
This is what so utterly infuriates me about the Prime Directive, in “Dear Doctor” and “Homeward” and everywhere else it rears its ugly head. It’s an enshrinement of cynicism and cowardice, a “moral” philosophy that insists it’s better never to try at all then to risk failure, that the easy way out is always the best one, that human judgements made by people on the ground must always give way to the decrees of bureaucratic dogma, that it’s somehow heroic and noble to stand by and do nothing when people are suffering. Better entire civilizations burn and their infinite potential be snuffed out than we dare risk getting labelled “imperialists.” Well, guess what? If actually giving a damn about other people and being willing to step up and help them in their time of need despite our differences somehow constitutes imperialism in this day and age, then the Emperor protects. (And Cadia stands, but that goes without saying).
@129/Devin Smith: I already acknowledged explicitly that the science in “Dear Doctor” is ludicrous. But so is the science in countless other Trek episodes. Evolution and biology in Trek don’t work remotely the way they do in real life — the mere existence of humanoid aliens and interspecies hybrids proves that, not to mention other biological absurdities like rapid aging and de-aging, the mutations of “Genesis,” the backward life cycle of the species in “Innocence,” the evolution of humanoids into incorporeal energy beings, etc. The fictional premise that a species could have a natural senescence like an individual doesn’t even crack the top five of Star Trek‘s biological inanities. If we can stipulate to the other absurdities for the sake of the story, then I don’t see why it’s so impossible to stipulate to this one. They’re an alien species, after all; who’s to say that evolution doesn’t work differently on their world? If, conjecturally, a species did have a natural, pre-programmed end to its lifespan to clear the way for other species, then that would raise a challenging moral dilemma that’s worth telling a science fiction story about. “Dear Doctor” did not do that perfectly, no, but I hate the way people completely misrepresent what it was trying to do.
“We’re still left with the scenario where the Enterprise crew has unilaterally decided the fate of a sentient species, you know, exactly the sort of thing the goddamned Prime Directive is supposed to stop.”
That is exactly backward. Phlox’s argument is that nature has already decided their fate, that evolution should be allowed to take its course, and that Enterprise‘s crew should merely avoid trying to intervene. Archer isn’t completely convinced that their fate is inevitable, but he agrees that it’s too big a question for him to decide right there and then. And it’s clearly stated that they still have centuries to find another answer, so walking away at that point does not decide their fate.
“The Valakians don’t want to die.”
Nobody ever does. But with individuals, there comes a point when it’s inescapable, when the only thing you can do is to help someone accept it rather than fight it. I agree it was a clumsy and problematical idea to try to apply that thinking on a species level, that it muddied the intended themes of the episode, but that was what they were going for.
And it wasn’t meant to be an easy or clean-cut answer. It was meant to be a challenging and ambiguous situation that would put Archer’s and Phlox’s very different worldviews at odds with each other, and that would make people want to debate it after seeing the episode. It’s just unfortunate that people keep misreading the basic facts of the episode so that they can’t debate it accurately but just caricature and distort it.
The thing about Enterprise is that the Prime Directive didn’t exist yet. The idea was to show the characters feeling their way toward it, running into situations that they didn’t know how to deal with and struggling to make the right choice. And that meant that sometimes they made mistakes and made things worse, like in “The Communicator” and “Cogenitor.” That’s why Jana was completely misreading “Dear Doctor” by saying it presented its outcome as a happy ending. It was meant to be an ambiguous ending, one where it wasn’t at all clear whether they’d made the right choice. It was meant to show that they were still new at this and didn’t have the answers sorted out yet.
In many ways, that was one of the strongest things about ENT season 1, the thing that set it apart from other Trek shows — the fact that they really did not know what they were doing. It felt more like a frontier/exploration narrative than any other Trek series, because every alien contact was new and unprecedented to them and they were struggling to figure things out as they went. Their position was one of uncertainty and immaturity. They didn’t have all the answers, and often they had to recognize that they just didn’t have the clout or authority to make decisions for other species, because they weren’t this huge military force like the Starfleet of later centuries, but just one lone explorer ship with no backup. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to expect them to be activists like Kirk’s crew, always barging in and saving the day. Kirk commanded a huge gunship representing a massive interstellar government. Archer was the equivalent of Jacques Cousteau on the Calypso. The fate of civilizations was beyond his purview. We saw this in other episodes. In “Fight or Flight” and “Silent Enemy,” they didn’t even learn the identity of their attackers but were only able to escape them. In “Rogue Planet,” they didn’t have the clout or the firepower to make the Eska give up hunting sentients, so the best they could do was give the prey a way to hide themselves and “level the playing field.” The fact that they didn’t always have the ability to make a difference and sometimes had to settle for ambiguous or unsatisfying outcomes was what made the show distinctive. Too many people overlook that when they judge “Dear Doctor.”
@128/Christoper: ““Dear Doctor” was trying to do an analogy with end-of-life issues, the idea that there comes a time when a patient’s death is inevitable and a doctor’s responsibility shifts from fighting against death to managing and easing the patient’s final days. It simply based its story on the scientifically implausible notion that a species has a similarly unavoidable, natural end point in its life cycle like an individual person does. That’s not a realistic notion, but few things in Trek biology are, and as long as you stipulate that it’s true in-universe, then Phlox’s position is understandable.”
Ooh, now I understand what the writers were thinking, which is something I’ve asked myself ever since I watched the episode. And also why you don’t find it as appalling as I (and, apparently, others) do. So thank you for that.
“No. That’s not the episode’s message at all; you’re twisting it.”
I didn’t intend to twist it. That’s the episode’s message as it appeared to me when I first watched it, a couple of years ago. I was not only appalled, I was incredulous. A species that has to die out to serve a greater good? So that the simple moral imperative to help people who ask you to help them becomes the wrong thing to do? Isn’t that twisted, and deeply disturbing, too? A doctor who says: “Your compassion for these people is affecting your judgment”? Isn’t that scary?
Even worse, a species that has to die because it is holding back another one? Perhaps it’s because I’m German, but that raises all my red flags. Replace “species” with “race”, and you have 1930s Germany.
Yes, Star Trek has always had bad biology. But none of the other stories had this kind of political implication. I can see now that the writers weren’t actually proto-Nazis, they were just naive and didn’t realise what they were saying. But it still baffles me. I thought it was a basic moral principle that all ethical decisions have to be about individual, living people. You can’t replace people with species (or races) without going astray.
I don’t expect you to change your mind about the episode, but perhaps I could help you, in turn, to understand why other people hate it so much.
Christopher: For what it’s worth, I’m on Jana’s side of this argument. While you’re right in what they intended when they did “Dear Doctor,” the execution is totally botched and really does come across as our nominal heroes congratulating themselves for letting a species die.
While the first season gave lip service to the notion that they didn’t know what they were doing, they never really went far enough with it, because the crew never suffered any consequences for their mistakes, nor did any noticeable consequences from their fuckups ever get any serious play.
The whole point of Star Trek from the beginning has always been one of compassion, of a universe where everybody can get along. That was the implicit message from jump in having a multiethnic crew from a united Earth in the first season of the original series — that humanity had come together and put stupid prejudices aside. Later, the idea of the United Federation of Planets was one where many entire planets all lived under one harmonious egalitarian government.
Star Trek is a show about the notion that everyone can live together. An episode that posits that one species has to die so another can live is antithetical to the entirety of what Trek is supposed to be about. Trek is supposed to be about finding a way for everyone to live. It’s why both “Dear Doctor” and “Homeward” (to drag this back to the actual episode under discussion) are both bad Trek episodes, and morally repugnant besides.
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
@131/Jana: “I was not only appalled, I was incredulous. A species that has to die out to serve a greater good? So that the simple moral imperative to help people who ask you to help them becomes the wrong thing to do?”
Phlox wasn’t saying it had to, just that there was no way to know for certain which decision would be better in the long run. What if aliens had come to Earth many millennia ago and helped the Neanderthals to thrive at our ancestors’ expense? But surely the Neanderthals had a right to live too, so how do you pick a side? The whole point of the story was to present a situation without a clear-cut answer, something that would make us think and debate its ending. Some viewers might agree with Phlox, others with Archer, others with both or neither.
“A doctor who says: “Your compassion for these people is affecting your judgment”? Isn’t that scary?“
Not when it comes to end-of-life issues. I’ve faced this more than once with my cats — I was reluctant to accept the idea of just letting their lives come to a peaceful end rather than raging against the dying of the light. (I actually quoted that line to my father when we were debating whether it was time to let our cat Spooky be put to sleep.) I eventually had to face that my love for my cats was affecting my judgment, and it was the medical professionals — people who have more experience with death and pain — who understood that fighting to keep them alive would do more harm than good. I had similar difficulty accepting that my father had a Do Not Resuscitate order on file and that his instructions called for hospice care rather than heroic measures when he neared his end, although in that case I couldn’t do anything either way since he’d made his preference explicit well in advance.
There are times when doctors have to set compassion aside to do their jobs — like in a triage situation where they have to choose to let one patient die to save another. Voyager dealt with this marvelously in “Latent Image.” The situation in “Dear Doctor” was basically a triage situation on a species level, because saving one species could doom the other.
“I thought it was a basic moral principle that all ethical decisions have to be about individual, living people. You can’t replace people with species (or races) without going astray.”
That’s the human perspective (in Trek, at least), but part of the intent was to explore how Phlox’s alien worldview differed from a human’s.
Besides, the Menk were individual people too, a people whose potential to grow was being repressed. Either outcome would’ve hurt one species or the other. (At least at the time. Maybe later on, the Federation was able to relocate one of the two species to another planet so they could both thrive. But that wasn’t an option at the time of “Dear Doctor.”)
“I don’t expect you to change your mind about the episode, but perhaps I could help you, in turn, to understand why other people hate it so much.”
As I’ve already said, I understand why its premise was flawed and easily misunderstood. It’s an imperfect episode that tries to explore a moral dilemma through a clumsy SF premise that doesn’t quite work the way it was intended to. But that’s why it’s important to clarify what it actually was trying to do.
@132/krad: At least in “Homeward”, the good guys win…
@133/Christopher: “What if aliens had come to Earth many millennia ago and helped the Neanderthals to thrive at our ancestors’ expense?”
Then we’d have a cool Neanderthal civilisation. Less chins, more brow ridges.
“Not when it comes to end-of-life issues. I’ve faced this more than once with my cats […]”
The difference is that you let your cat die because it was the best thing for your cat, so you were still motivated by compassion for it. Phlox let actual Valakians die because it was (allegedly, see below) the best thing for future Menk. This is dangerous thinking.
“The situation in “Dear Doctor” was basically a triage situation on a species level, because saving one species could doom the other.”
As I said in my previous comment, translating morality to a species level is a bad idea.
Besides, why is it “dooming” the Menk if they don’t become as intelligent as they could? They could still lead good lives, individually and as a species.
“That’s the human perspective (in Trek, at least), but part of the intent was to explore how Phlox’s alien worldview differed from a human’s.”
Personally, I think that’s taking moral relativism too far. Especially since Phlox convinced Archer in the end.
“Besides, the Menk were individual people too, a people whose potential to grow was being repressed. Either outcome would’ve hurt one species or the other.”
On one side of the scale, people suffer and die. On the other one, a species can’t “grow” according to their “potential”, whatever that is. The two aren’t equivalent.
Jana: the problem is, the “good guy” is written as the antagonist…..
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
@134/Jana: Again, the episode was not taking a clear side and saying “This is unambiguously the right outcome.” It’s supposed to be open to debate. And again, Archer didn’t definitively settle the matter for all time, he just walked away and recognized that it wasn’t his decision to make. There were still two centuries for the Valakians or somebody else to find a solution, if there was one to be found.
@136: Ah, yes, passing the buck, that most heroic of virtues. Just the sort of thing we love to see in our main characters, and the perfect character trait for a leader to possess.
@137/Devin Smith: Seriously? You’re not willing to tolerate the existence of the occasional ambiguous or even tragic ending to a work of fiction? You demand that every episode end with a simplistic, obvious victory? Again, the ending of “Dear Doctor” was absolutely not meant to be a happy, desirable, or uncomplicated one. And it fit right into a season that was all about the NX-01 crew’s inexperience and uncertainty as they probed into the unknown and faced new situations. It would be very bad, unintelligent storytelling if they never stumbled along the way, or were never simply out of their depth.
@136/Christopher: Yes, somebody might find a solution, or rediscover the solution Phlox found. Meanwhile, many more people will suffer and die preventable deaths.
@138/Christopher: That isn’t what Devin said at all. He said that Archer’s inaction was morally wrong, and I agree.
Characters who are out of their depth are fine. Characters who don’t have a grip on basic ethics, not so much.
@139/Jana: At the end of the episode, Archer did leave the Valakians with medication that would ease their symptoms and their suffering. He did what he could.
I don’t agree that a character who makes a difficult and imperfect decision in an ethically complex situation with no easy answer is a character with no “grip on basic ethics.” After all, an individual can’t force the universe to work in a desired way. No matter how ethical you are, there are situations in life where your options are severely limited and the best you can do is pick the least worst option. Was “Dear Doctor” a perfect exploration of that idea? No. But that’s what it was trying for.
I’m definitely with Chris on this one.
I don’t remember seeing Dear Doctor, so I’m only going by the plot synopsis here…
If I was Archer, I would’ve given the cure to the Valakians, then told them it was given to him anonymously from someone on their planet. And that someone was Menk — they have unseen potential, yadda yadda, hope for the future speech, evolution, equality, Star Trek, etc.
It’s playing God, of course, but I think it would’ve been more interesting than the decision the episode gave us.
@142/Cheerio: I remember while I was watching the episode, I expected Archer to come up with a solution that helped both the Valakians and the Menk. Give the Valakians the cure in exchange for the promise to set up development programs for the Menk, or give them their own continent to live on, or something like that. I would have liked your solution, too.
#143
Thank you, Jana. I like your ideas too.
Now, I should really actually go watch the episode! Even with the downer ending, it sounds fascinating.
I still say it was good that ENT let Archer’s crew be out of their depth and not always find a good answer. They weren’t supposed to be seasoned veterans at this like Kirk or Picard; that was the whole point, the whole thing that made the show distinctive. If anything, I’ve always felt they didn’t screw up nearly often enough.
#145
That’s why I think they should have given them the cure and lied about its origin. That too could have dire consequences, but it’s more interesting for me to see characters who are out of their depth take action rather than not. And I think it would be better drama ending with Archer and Phlox in disagreement.
@146/Cheerio: There is wisdom in the notion that sometimes the best course of action you can take is to do nothing. This episode was not the best way of conveying that idea, but it’s a worthwhile idea. We could all use some humility at times.
And keeping Archer and Phlox at odds would’ve left the story without resolution. We’ve been debating the fate of the planet’s species, but in series fiction, what happens with the guest aliens we’ll never see again isn’t as important as what happens with the main characters. The story of “Dear Doctor” was fundamentally about Archer’s human values clashing with Phlox’s Denobulan values and Archer learning to respect the value in Phlox’s alien point of view. All the stuff with the aliens was just the excuse for that character story, which may be why it didn’t hold together as well as it could have. If they hadn’t come to terms, would Phlox have even stayed aboard? Would Archer have even wanted him to?
@138 Let me be clear, not only am I a fan of franchises like the Witcher, Dragon Age, Code Geass and Warhammer 40,000, where moral ambiguity is not just commonplace but frequently a strength of the writing, but I recently submitted a pitch for a 40K novel to the Black Library during their recent open submissions period. I have zero issues with moral ambiguity when it’s done well, and you’ll have to forgive me if I’m less than keen on being lectured on the evils of moral absolutism by the guy who pulls a Mary Whitehouse the instant someone in Trek dares to grab a phaser.
And here’s the thing: the gross negligence of both Archer and Picard and their willingness to sacrifice entire civilizations over a half-baked principle is all the more glaring because of the supposed optimism of the Star Trek franchise. I mean, aren’t these characters supposed to reflect a humanity which is so much more enlightened than our own? Aren’t they supposed to be better people? The constant drumbeat about the Federation’s idealism and nobility ends up feeling completely hollow when you see these so-called enlightened human beings letting entire species die out either because they can’t be arsed to help, or they’re too busy treating the Prime Directive as a vengeful god that must be appeased. It bears repeating: you don’t get to pat yourself on the back about your compassion while willfully disregarding the suffering of others, and that disconnect between what we’re told about these characters and what we’re shown isn’t morally ambiguous, it’s Orwellian
(On a related note, SFDebris did a very good analysis of the Prime Directive a few years back, and discusses this in a lot more detail, it’s worth checking out: https://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/e113.php)
@139 “Characters who are out of their depth are fine. Characters who don’t have a grip on basic ethics, not so much.”
This x 1000. And thank you.
Is this the most comments on any TNG episode, at least so far? (I haven’t read past this point and I have never seen the rest of the series before…)
I think we are supposed to see the strict PD as wrong in this case, and we are supposed to prefer Nikolai’s position. But it’s a terrible choice to have our heroes be so wrong, especially since it’s despicably inconsistent. Of course we want to save everyone; that’s a basic fact about Star Trek! Ugh.
Here are my things that I think nobody said:
1. I enjoyed the malfunctioning holodeck in practice, but … Ent-D has lots of holodecks. They are all on the blink? You can’t put people in one while rebooting another? Agreed with the idea that you could at least use some harmless knockout gas or ray or something.
2. Doesn’t anyone in the 25 person village want to know what happened to Vorin? He’s only one of the most beloved and important fellas around. This episode is so cartoonish, more like a puppet show than even the typical episode, but in a more compelling version, our heroes would have had the distasteful job of faking his death.
3. What about the rest of the freaking planet? Not even a moment of hesitation or concern? No sombre Data line like “They are all dead, sir.” No horrifyingly gorgeous effects footage of the atmosphere leaving the planet? Nobody had a friend who had gone off to another land, and now they wonder what happened to them? Basically, the people were mostly not even puppets, more like popsicle sticks with faces drawn on. I don’t mean to nitpick, I am just imagining how much more compelling and more gravity it would have been/had.
3a. Related, I would love to feel that these people were cool and interesting. Mystic ceremonies, delicious if hasty meals, colorful clothes; paint me a smellovision. I remember being surprised to discover growing up that Vietnamese and Korean and Ethiopian foods were each so amazing and each so distinct, after my limited USA education had just talked about wars and the poverty and such, from a subtly to overtly condescending perspective. IRL every culture has something intricate and enchanting going on, from the poorest to the wealthiest corners.
4. WTF Worf don’t keep the scrolls! WHAT? … what?? This point has been mentioned, but srsly
5. What if we didn’t know about the beaming plan? The early parts of the episode could have been way cooler if we cut back and forth between scenes “on the planet” and the crew trying to figure out what to do – and then it is revealed that the villagers are all already aboard the ship.
How did he do it? Perhaps LaForge reveals that he and Troi and Crusher all banded together with Nikolai to rescue them, or if that’s too busy/mutinous, it could be something as easy as Nikolai deceiving a transporter tech into helping him.
Regardless, I love the idea of all the debate and a race against time on the bridge and in the conference room, while meanwhile the job has already been done elsewhere on the ship.
Combining these ideas, what if we think we can’t rescue them, and we argue, and people won’t speak to each other, and we try technology, and we play the odds, and we lose, and then watch the atmosphere die… and it’s a really heavy moment that has everyone questioning themselves… and then we cut back to the caves! But how? “I think they bought it!” Nikolai sneaks out of the holodeck… jubilant but worried.
This may seem like a cop-out, like it erases all the stakes. I guess it would be more fair to reveal it before the atmosphere goes. Then when it goes, there’s still the entire rest of the planet to mourn. A small victory in the face of tremendous loss.
Then we have to race them to a new location, which Nikolai and his conspirators have already worked out. But the holodecks are beginning to fail – because they had to hack this together so quickly and so unofficially, of course.
As they are working:
Data: You bypassed the 3A beam split modifier matrix?
LaForge: I needed the signal from the matter refiners in 27D to make it all the way to the firewall, so…
Data: But Geordi, the 3A matrix is crucial to the —
LaForge: Can we just fix it?
Data: *shakes head disapprovingly*
Also, what about the safeties? I kept wondering whether someone would notice that they could touch the fire and not get burned.
(If we could afford to lean into actual comedy, the cobbled together holodeck world could have some borrowed elements and malfunctions that we would find amusing and the villagers would have no idea about. Terrains from previous Trek episodes, the wrong number of moons, dramatically incorrect temperatures. The Grand Canyon. Two burned out fires at El-Adrel. A floating bubble head. This could be unnecessarily expensive and distracting but I like imagining what wacky holodeck hacks would be like, like when Strong Bad’s computer gets a virus and the whole cartoon world breaks down.)
These are rough ideas and there are flaws for sure, but I think this kind of thing makes a more memorable, layered, enjoyable, and exciting TNG episode.
Because I must inevitably bring everything back to classic Bioware games, it’s worth comparing the criminal negligence of the Enterprise crew here to the evacuation of the Drell from their homeworld in the Mass Effect franchise. Long story short, the Drell homeworld, Rakhana, suffers a catastrophic environmental collapse due to rampant industrialization and overpopulation, a scenario that comes up more than once in Prime Directive-related discussions. Only in this case, rather than celebrate the preventable annihilation of a sentient species as a triumph of principles, a species called the Hanar steps in and evacuates roughly 375,000 Drell before it’s too late. It’s telling that even in a setting as frequently violent and morally ambiguous as the Mass Effect universe that no one suggests the Hanar were wrong to interfere in another species’ internal affairs, or that rescuing 375,000 Drell from a population of over 11 billion is inadequate and thus they never should have tried, or that extinction was the natural course of Drell evolution. Hell, not even Cerberus criticized that action in hindsight, and when the human-supremacist terrorists seeking to conquer the galaxy via Reaper tech comes across as more considerate of alien life than the noble, high-minded Federation… well, you get a sense of why I really, really hate this episode, and the Prime Directive in general.
@149: I haven’t checked the exact comment numbers, but this is probably one of the most discussed TNG episodes: controversial outings tend to generate more back-and-forth between commentators. And yes, remembering the existence of the other holodecks on the ship or actually having the crew reacting to the tragedy occurring below with more than self-righteous indifference would have made for a far better episode.
@150/Devin Smith: “well, you get a sense of why I really, really hate this episode, and the Prime Directive in general.”
It’s not the Prime Directive that’s the problem, it’s the way this episode twists it into the exact opposite of what it’s supposed to be about. The PD is meant to be about recognizing our own limitations — we’re not as smart about another culture’s own needs as its own people are, so we should let them make decisions for themselves instead of assuming we’re entitled to play god and dictate their fate for them. But “Homeward”‘s point of view is “this culture is too stupid to handle knowledge of us, so that entitles us to decide their fate without giving them a say.” It’s embracing the very arrogance and contempt for other societies that the PD is meant to counteract — it’s defining the PD as being about our superiority and the other culture’s limitations, rather than about recognizing our own limitations and the other culture’s equal ability and right to take care of itself.
@151: The more I think about it, the more I notice how Trek’s support of such an non-interference clause makes it something of an outlier on the subject. To be fair, I’m sure it’s not the only SF franchise or story to take this position, but it does seem like whenever a decree against “interference” comes up, more often than not, it’s an obstacle for the heroes to overcome rather than a guiding moral philosophy to adhere to. To give some examples off the top of my head:
– The Second Doctor calling out the Time Lords for refusing to use their power to help others in “The War Games”
– The Law of Seerow’s Kindness from Animorphs is eventually revealed to be less about the Andalites trying to make up for their mistake in accidentally unleashing the Yeerks on the galaxy, and more about trying to maintain their technological superiority.
– The Ancients’ law against interfering with non-Ascended beings in the Stargate franchise is the source of at least 40% of the problems the heroes have to deal with. It gets bad enough, in fact, that Daniel Jackson prefers being de-Ascended and returning to a mortal life than being unable to use his incredible power to help others, all because the same idiots who decided Anubis was worthy of Ascension say it’s against the rules
– The Culture. Just the Culture.
In fact, that would be a great idea for a story: have the crew of the Enterprise/Voyager/Discovery/whatever meet an analogue to the Culture. That could offer some really interesting conflict and moral dilemmas, as the Starfleet crew is appalled by how casually the Culture analogue is willing to muck about in the internal affairs of whatever non-warp-capable species they come across, while the Trek!Culture is disgusted by how the Federation refuses to use its considerable power and practically limitless resources to actively better the galaxy around it.
Hmm. I like this episode.
Yes, the morality of our heroes is completely indefensible, the interpretation of the Prime Directive is completely backwards, and if anyone tried to make this argument to me I would be completely disgusted. And yes, the whole thing with the guy who gets out of the holodeck and then kills himself seems to be a clumsy attempt to justify letting the Boraalans die out.
Nevertheless, for whatever reason it’s easy for me to partition that off from the actual meat of the episode. This wouldn’t be the first time the main characters of a Trek show made a morally repugnant judgement, and it won’t be the last, but it is a tv show being written by several different people and will never be properly consistent. I just have to mentally discard the parts that don’t work for me.
And the rest of the episode works for me. I always like Paul Sorvino and he and Worf’s interactions are good. I really loved the idea of using the holodeck as a surreptitious relocation device. I liked Worf getting to sort of play outside his comfort zone, being a wise mystical leader instead of the warrior who solves problems by punching them.
Overall it’s a 1 in intention, but a 5 or 6 in enjoyment.
This episode just makes no sense in the context of the show and the franchise. So much of Trek is about twisting the Prime Directive when necessary to save populations from disasters both natural and man-made. Here, it’s used by the regulars as an excuse to let an entire population die. It’s like anti-Trek.
@154/David Pirtle: Not quite; at least they’re eventually glad that they didn’t have to let them die. (“If you had been more like me, these people would not be here now. You gave them a chance at a new life.”)
I think the intended reading here is that the regulars were wrong.
Sadly, the same can’t be said about “Dear Doctor”.
I’m not as convinced as many are that Picard and crew remained so morally irredeemable throughout this episode. Worf’s final statements to his brother would seem to indicate that he’s had second thoughts about his original ideological rigidity, and unless I misunderstood him, Picard’s suggestion to Vorin that maybe if he told his people the truth, he might infuse them with the kind of curiosity and sense of wonder that could inspire them to truly grow and evolve culturally on their own would seem to suggest that he, too, has begun to see the Prime Directive in a new light, not unlike that suggested by most folks here (i.e., not all “contact” or “change” is necessarily “contamination” — it happens between cultures all the time, and that’s how cultures grow).
That being said, though, I’m always amused at the Prime Directive’s obsession with “contamination” at the same time as Trek (and, I think, SF in general) winks at — or, more accurately, ignores — the fact that if beings from different planets (or Earthlings from different centuries / millennia) were actually to interact, it would be almost inevitable that bacteria, viruses, or some as-yet-unknown microbial pathogens would immediately “contaminate”, infest, and begin feasting upon, the members of the species (or the humans of the past or future) who do not have any antibodies or other resistance capabilities.
Also, as one who has worked for years as a freelance journalist, and who has tried to adhere religiously to the admonition that a journalist “does not get involved in the story [s]he’s covering,” I admit that @72 Anthony Pirtle’s comment — “The Prime Directive isn’t just about protecting primitive cultures from negative outside influences. It’s about non-interference. It’s kind of like when a nature photographer doesn’t step in to stop a baby elephant dying of thirst during a drought, but simply records it” — hit me uncomfortably close to where I live. I still believe in, and adhere to, that dictum, but I can’t say there haven’t been instances where my conscience has nailed me pretty hard for not doing something — making a phone call, writing a letter, maybe calling a friend or associate who had some potential clout or influence (hey — I’m from Chicago!) — to rectify an injustice that I was writing about, simply because my own “prime directive “mitigated against it.
So it ain’t just 24th Century Starship captains and crews who wrestle with this kind of stuff.
@156/jazzmanchgo: “I’m not as convinced as many are that Picard and crew remained so morally irredeemable throughout this episode.”
The problem is not the characters’ morality, the problem is the writers defining the Prime Directive in such a twisted and misguided way. Within the context of the story’s assumptions, the crew is acting morally, but the story’s assumptions are terrible.
This is far from a fact. Indeed, it is far more likely that viruses and other pathogens would be incapable of infecting anything from another world. Even if the two worlds lifeforms are both carbon-based, they would not be relatable to each other biologically. As is mentioned in various places, technically a human is far closer, genetically, to an oak tree then to a Klingon, or a Romulan. Star Trek does play fast and loose with the biology, of course. (Spock is exhibit number one) But, while we don’t have any “facts” to say how different biologies would react, the likelyhood is that diseases are not effective against entities who evolved on other planets.
@158/costumer: “Indeed, it is far more likely that viruses and other pathogens would be incapable of infecting anything from another world. Even if the two worlds lifeforms are both carbon-based, they would not be relatable to each other biologically.”
Realistically, yes. But this is a fictional universe where humans and aliens can not only eat each other’s food, but have babies with each other. So their biology must be compatible, and that means their diseases should be just as compatible.
@159 Christopher Bennett
Oh absolutely. I have no issue with Star Trek’s depiction. It set up its rules and we have tons of cross species pathogens and multi-species reproduction. I was only addressing Jazzmanchgo assertion that rather than being worried about cultural contamination it would be rational to worry about the “fact” that pathogens would be the primary concern.
In universe I have no argument since the ST universe has been set up that way. Now I’m reading his comment that the pathogen concern would be what would be concerning in reality, rather than the in universe concern regarding cultural contamination. . If he meant both culture and pathogen concerns in universe, then the thought is more rationally debateable.
@160/costumer: While jazzmanchgo could explain better, my take is that they’re saying it’s an inconsistency within the fictional premise to show such biological compatibility between species while ignoring the disease risk except when it’s plot-convenient. “It’s just set up that way” is not a defense, because it’s entirely valid to criticize a fictional construct for an internal inconsistency. It doesn’t have to work the way the real world does, but it should make sense within itself, and the logical ramifications of its postulates should be acknowledged and addressed rather than arbitrarily swept under the rug.
And it’s a good point. As I said in the “Muse” thread, it’s ridiculous to define exposure to outside ideas and culture as “contamination,” since that’s a source of dynamism and innovation in most cultures. Historically, exposure to foreign pathogens has done more damage than exposure to foreign ideas. European diseases spread through indigenous trade routes and wiped out 95% of the population of the Americas before European settlers ever even reached their territories.
Hmm… maybe transporter biofilters work in both directions, though. Maybe they make sure any infections an away team carries are not beamed down to the planet with them. But there’s no telling if a necessary part of the human microbiome might be a pathogen to an alien species. And it wouldn’t have helped in the 23rd century before biofilters were invented.
At the very least, the issue of pathogenic contamination should certainly be a factor in Terran t ime-travel episodes, many of which span centuries.
@156 – Jazzmanchgo: I’m a journalist too, and there is a big difference between not influencing a story you’re writing about, and seeing an injustice you could help rectify and do nothing. One is ethical, the other…
Yes, the way the Prime Directive is applied here (and on TNG in general) is appalling and makes out heroes look very bad, but I’ve never hated this episode. Unlike episodes I’d never want to watch again like “Shades of Grey” or “Code of Honor” or “Too Short a Season,” here at least we have a compelling story with the relocation of the Boraalans and whether it will be successful or not. The debate of whether to “interfere” with the Boraalans was a good one, notwithstanding the fact that are heroes were on the wrong side of that debate. I really felt bad for Vorin and could see how he was very troubled by his dilemma. Great guest actors and nice to finally see Nikolai after being referenced in the first season. I like the happy ending with the resolution between him and Worf. I hope they’d be able to see each other again some day but understand that may be impossible or just very difficult given the situation. Cool to see a more recognizable Michael Dorn.
Question: Is Worf’s full name actually Worf Rozhenko or he never took to that surname?
He probably never took it.
@164/165: I’m also inclined to think Worf never took to that surname. In DS9 “Sons and Daughters”, when a Klingon mockingly calls Alexander, Son of Worf, Alex takes great offense to being called that. As he is at odds with Worf it stands to reason that he’d try to distance himself from following in his father’s footsteps. Thus, because Worf elected to keep his traditional Klingon name, Alex chose the exact opposite. It all neatly ties itself together continuity-wise that Worf is not Worf Rozhenko.
If he’d taken the name, he’d be Mr. Rozhenko, Lt. Rozhenko, etc.
We can’t save any of them in a way that won’t risk contaminating their culture so we’ll save none of them! This interpretation of the Prime Directive is bonkers.
Guest actor Paul Sorvino – who’s been in all sorts of stuff, including this terrible episode – has died.
@58: That’s actually a pretty powerful argument in favor of the more extreme Prime Directive. You’re basically describing what will always eventually happen when the Pakleds get their hands on advanced technology: they’ll become destructive genocidal monsters. Maybe if Asian and Arabic societies had a prime directive, the world might have turned out a little less blood-soaked.
@170/Jono: To an extent, perhaps, but the point is that it disproves the often-rehashed line that “When two cultures meet, the less advanced one always suffers.” Which is just an excuse to let Europe off the hook for deliberately making other cultures suffer and trying to wipe them out.
Indeed, that’s the key takeaway — it’s facile to use words like “always,” to pretend there’s some universal, predictable formula. Every interaction is different. The outcomes are not inevitable or mechanical, but the result of the individual factors that come into play in each instance. The thing to do is not to reduce everything to a simplistic kneejerk rule, but to understand a broader set of principles that can be applied to figure out the best approach in each individual situation — one of the most important ones being to respect the consent and choice of every participant in an interaction. The way to achieve a healthy contact is mutual understanding, and it’s impossible to understand an individual culture by expecting it to react the same way as every other culture. That, really, is the original point of the Prime Directive — to respect each culture’s individuality rather than assuming your solutions will work for it.
Wow so many comments on what is a questionable episode for sooo many reasons, just so many writers liberties some mentioned above.
I came to mention two things
1. Worf’s taking of the scroll at the end approved by his brother, in my mind goes to prove the thinking of the Boraalans as inferior beings/culture. This item, which is so important that one of them dies for it, is just given away by Nikolai like it is nothing, and it’s not even his to give. Smacks of cultural imperialism, similar to the British Empire (who are still holding on to stolen treasures in the British museum as the backward people from where the treasure originated couldn’t possibly look after it themselves). I’d love to hear a line in S3 of Picard, ‘hey Worf, do you still have that Boraalan scroll’ ‘Left it on the Ent D after we crashed it, too much hassle to carry it’
2. the actress (Penny Johnson) who played Nikolai’s wife is the Doctor on The Orville and I have only now just realised she played two separate roles (one recurring) on Trek. Whilst different shows I see them as cousins so find it pretty cool she is in both even if I dislike her character. she looks pretty good for someone in her 60s too.