Since you all are split on the Tuvix problem I’ll give it to you but I think its a no-brainer. Moving on:
How about a better one? How about an ultimate Prime Directive ep instead of constantly making it black and white* or hazy**
*Janeway tries to organize the Kazon and the council is attacked. Janeway gets to say “SEE! SEE!”.
The Voyager ep with the other Fed ship cannibalizing life-forms for fuel was a little better but still too black and white.
In the book “Prime Directive” Kirk stops a nuclear war but somehow makes it worse…and then the whole stupid thing turns out to be lifeforms that create nuclear war on planets and Kirk is cleared. Groan.
You know something…in addition to warp drive, I think Nuclear war should be a condition of First Contact. Lower the bar. Maybe all the way to Atomic power. Just let them know they are now part of a larger universe. That’s what happens in The Day the Earth Stood Still right?
**Do the Feds stop natural disasters from wiping out planets or not??? Picard does in that one ep. Spock does in the Kirok episode. But then “Into Darkness” seems to say they are supposed to stand around and not interfere. BS. And of course touching on point one…the contamination is instant WE see UFOs all the GD time and don’t immediately start a new religion.
So anyway here’s moral dilemma: How convienent of Odo to share the FOunder Cure after the surrender. But say the war was in full swing. Does he share it? Does Sisko let him? Would you?
Obviously, a TV show isn’t going to want to address real issues such as abortion, because they’d piss off half their viewers. Star Trek tried to push generic “feel good” morality, as most TV shows have pretty much always done: inclusivity, tolerance, peacefully getting along, respect for individuals, preferring diplomacy over war, etc.
Star Trek was pretty good about making up contrived moral issues that sometimes resembled real issues. The Old Trek episode with the half-white/half-black guys was about racism. It was clunky and ham-fisted, but it was, for the era, the best they could do.
They were at their best, I think, when looking at the moral implications of their own technological advances. The Will and Tom Ryker business, or the Moriarty-in-the-Holodeck episode. Good stuff, without having to worry about offending anyone.
And, yes, the Prime Directive ought to be waived when a world launches nuclear missiles against itself, or when an outside force like a dangerous Ion Storm or a ancient planetbuster threaten a world.
(Poul Anderson has a very nice story about this, called “Day of Burning.” A supernova is about to cook up a planet, and the heroes have to interfere drastically with the world’s culture, in order to save as many lives as possible. They do save the world, but utterly shatter its social structure.)
In one episode of Star Trek: Voyager involving the Q, the captain(?) has to decide whether an immortal being should be allowed to kill themself. In the end she decided that he can become a mortal human but then he kills himself straightaway using poision that Q gave him. I’ve hardly seen any Star Trek episodes though.
TOS did present a strong argument against the Viet Nam war in late 1968. Of course, it just balanced the strong argument they presented in favor of the Viet Nam war in early 1968.
That reminds me…I did think about The Empath yesterday. Which is supposed to be a bad episode, but has some kooky (by our standards) moralizing by the aliens. “We need to see if this species is worth saving so we’re going to torture some people.”
One group was black on the right side and white on the left, the other black on left and white on right.
But, when one of them looked in the mirror, he would appear to be of the other group. I don’t see how you could hate someone who resembled your reflection.
Yeah, that whole thing had 9/11 written all over it. But it did give us the single best moral conflict I’ve ever seen in a Trek episode: In “Damage” Archer has to turn to piracy to repair Enterprise. He has to choose between letting the Earth be destroyed, and attacking people who haven’t done anything wrong (and thereby leaving them stranded in a very dangerous part of space.)
Most Trek episodes have moral problems that are abstract, and the “right” answer is obvious, and an agreement can be arrived at through patience and reason. Very rarely do we see a problem that is zero sum and requires the characters to actually do something evil for a good reason. This would have been unthinkable in TNG, for example, and instead we get dumbshit episodes like “The Pegasus.”
The other one I thought was fantastic was DS9’s “In the Pale Moonlight.”
Best Trek episode ever, IMHO. The final “Computer, delete entire entry” always gives me chills.
Off topic perhaps…does anyone think Avery Brooks was a bit of an overactor? I think he was passionate about his role and was great as Sisko, but I’ve read comments from a couple of producers/writers to think he may have been a bit “too” into it onset.
I liked how Trek in wanting to make both sides equal has the liberal guys evil be…whipping up dissension? Manipulating bleeding heart monochromes to help him escape?
I don’t think it’s bad at all. I don’t mind hamfistedness. Some of the best Twilight Zone eps are such.
That’s actually a quirk of human perception, not a physical principle. When you look at yourself in the mirror, your right hand is still on the right, and left hand on the left.
But instead of that simple perception, our brains see the human image and processes it as if it were an actual human instead of a reflection. Since for a real human facing us, their left hand is on our right, and their right on our left, that’s how we interpret the image.
There’s no a priori reason an alien would have the same perceptual quirks we do.
