Phlox and Archer explains what's wrong with Dear Doctor

[AnteyPL]

There was NO PRIME DIRECTIVE in ENT era. No Federation.

[StargateMunky]

@AnteyPL it's not a prime directive issue. they had already made first contact

[mushroomshrub]

May I recomend to all future viewers, go and check out SFDebris' review of this episode, and also his disscusion on the prime directive. :)

[mst3k4evur]

Evolution said the should die out, so you should let them be wiped out rather than give them the cure you already have?

Evolution didn't give you the ability to travel between worlds, so how dare you defy evolution and build a damn starship?

[jimbopumbapigsticks]

@mst3k4evur Evolution doesn't "say" anything or "give" anyone anything. It's a natural process, not some conscious entity.

[mst3k4evur]

@jimbopumbapigsticks

I know, my point is that that is what Phlox and Archer believe and that even if that were true they are violating it.

[jimbopumbapigsticks]

@mst3k4evur Not really. Why would evolution mean you couldn't travel through space? They're not defying a natural process since humanity's evolution has been propelled by the use of tools which have grown more and more sophisticated over time. Space travel is just the next step. And evolution isn't making a value-claim that they *should* die out - simply that they will. Archer believed that he didn't have the right to play God and decide which species would prosper.

[mst3k4evur]

@jimbopumbapigsticks

They said that evolution had decided they should die out. Watch the review. My point was that since they defy evolution why shouldn't these sick, dieing people be allowed to do the same?

And if they didn't have the right to heal the sick then why should Phlox heal a cancer patient? Sickness is a part of the evolutionary process, killing the weak so only the strong will breed. That's why their decision makes no sense.

[jimbopumbapigsticks]

@mst3k4evur Then you might as well say that earthquakes, floods, etc are part of evolution. Does that mean we shouldn't help victims of natural disasters as we would be "defying evolution"? That's like saying the first apes who invented stone tools to hunt were somehow cheating. The point here is that there's a difference between participating in your own species' evolution and intervening in another's. Anyway, since evolution is an ongoing process, how could you "defy" it? Turn into an ape?

[mst3k4evur]

@jimbopumbapigsticks

You're question makes no sense, killing the weak makes the species stronger. Random disasters don't select anything. If they really feel they have no right to interfere with evolution, then they must let the sick die.

And how is it better to help your own people than help another species? Especially when they are BEGGING you to do so?

[jimbopumbapigsticks]

@mst3k4evur Diseases are natural phenomena, the same as natural disasters. I guess this is tricky because it's such a borderline case between humanitarian intervention and social engineering - the former being acceptable, the latter not. The point is that engaging in another life system's natural processes would mean being responsible for the enormous social implications for both races, possibly slavery, war, etc. versus participating in a process with which you're already involved by birth.

[mst3k4evur]

@jimbopumbapigsticks

I can't see their involvement having that bad an effect. The more advanced species is not enslaving or oppressing them. They're just wealthier, something that could be explained by their being more advanced. By not helping save them from the plague they are saying that it's better to let hundreds of millions die than let them go on, living in peaceful coexistence.

There is not forseeable downside to helping them that could make letting so many die acceptable.

[mst3k4evur]

@jimbopumbapigsticks

Evolution also propelled them to use said tools to heal the sick.

[thewewguy8t88]

ARCHER AND PLOX ARE BOTH HYPORCITES!

[maltheopia]

phantomdasilva, this episode is the worst thing that has ever come out of the franchise. I would rather watch ten episodes of Kirk holding Spock's brain in a jar who is shooting homophobic slurs at Quark after being forced to get a sex change after being impregnated by a box of rocks before Janeway forces Michael to drop a bridge on them to end the holographic simulation early so they can rewire the engines to go to infinity so Kes can have a kid.

Brannon Braga, Richard Berman: Fuck. You.

[LordZentei]

Ah, yes. Dear Doctor. This was the episode which finally convinced me to abandon Enterprise and Star Trek in general. Good riddance.

I don't know what disgusts me more: the fact that this episode was aired at all or the fact that there are actually people out there morally bankrupt enough to defend it.

[SwingGirlBlues]

Wow. You really don't see the moral battle in that Dear Doctor episode?

Choice 1 - Do nothing, let Evolution do what is best.

Choice 2 - Perform genetic enhancements on every member of one species to keep the planet from changing and developing according to evolution.

In Observer Effect, it is a single shipfull of people that you can save or watch die. It has nothing to do with evolution.

[phantomdasilva]

1st point, I reject the idea of interference with nature/evolution. You can't interfere with nature. If humans gave them the cure, evolution intends them to survive. If they didnt give a cure then evolution intends them to die. There is no grand plan in evolution that say the world is going this single direction and that we shouldnt change or interfere with it. Its like saying evolution has a destiny when it does not (this is partly why I dislike the prime directive).

[phantomdasilva]

Part of evolution is not just environment interaction with species but species interaction with other species.

2nd, evolution is a scientific principle not a moral or philosophical principle. It says people with genetic defects die earlier and thats why genetic disease makes up a minority of population (which makes the premise of this episode absolutely stupid). It doesn't say that patients with genetic disease should die earlier and that we shouldnt look for a cure.

[phantomdasilva]

Evolution has no impact on morality. The message that we shouldnt find a cure for genetic disease is morally abhorrent and is similar to eugenics arguments.

3rd, to say that observer effect has nothing to do with evolution is incorrect. Everytime a person lives or die is part of evolution as they lose the opportunity to past their unique gene to the next generations. The idea that we should help small groups of people but not the population is illogical.

[SwingGirlBlues]

Evolution can have quite an impact on morality - one of the reasons I liked that episode so much. There was another species on the planet, full of potential, but treated as inferior to the first species, and they believed themselves to be inferior as well.

You comment about evolution knocking off people with genetic defects is not entirely accurate. So long as the genetic defect comes in *after* the reproductive stage in life, evolution has no control. Ever heard of Huntington's Disease?

[SwingGirlBlues]

They even addressed this in the episode, that this situation is similar to a hypothetical situation in which an alien species comes down 150,000 years ago and keeps the Neanderthalls dominant. Not cool, hypothetical alien species!

Actually, Observer effect has nothing to do with evolution. Whether someone lives or dies does not affect evolution - it is whether someone lives to reproduce or not. The disease that affected the ship was not the result of inferior genetics.

[phantomdasilva]

There's no difference between whether the disease is genetics or whether it is viral or bacterial infections. A sickness is a sickness and you treat an illness. I hate to see a day where someone develops a cure to genetic disorders and then say it is immoral to change a genes of a person. Evolution is still at play with observer effect. These people didn't have the immune system to deal with silicon infections. Natural selections ensures that people that can't deal with silicon virus dies.

[phantomdasilva]

So if USA was suffering from a disease that's going to wiped out the population. The rest of the world shouldn't give them the cure because they meant to die and it was time for another nations to become the dominant power on that planet?

This isn't time travel. There's no set future. It possible in the future that valakians give the menk equal rights (similar to how western world eventually stopped slavery).

[phantomdasilva]

Also it possible that while an valakian is suffering horrible while a menks stands by unharmed that in its final years, the Valakians might irrationally blame the Menk for this? That they might wipe them out in an act of deranged vengeance.

[acleverboy]

The Americans are humans... the Bulgarians are humans... so if there is a problem with the americans... there should be no problem for the bulgarian to help them.

[phantomdasilva]

why don't we throw away the principles all sentient life are equal.

Suddenly humans are worthy of medical treatment but when it's alien race, they are not and they have to develop it themselves even if they ask for help (In Pen Pals, Picard assisted a pre-warp civ after they ask for help).

What is this, racial segregation. Valakians made first contact with many alien races, they are part of the galactic community just like each individual country are part of an international community.

[acleverboy]

Well.... for example if the vulkans have problem, the humans will help them. But in this case there is another race that have more potential. Who are we to make desicion who have the right to exist and who doensn't. Yes... we have develop the tehnology, we have moral and understanding but we also have to look at the big picture. Every move we make will effect somehow the Alpha Q....

It's a difficult question and it need a lot ot debates. :)

[phantomdasilva]

"Other race that has more potential" there's no evidence that one race has more "potential" then another.Just because Phlox met an intelligent menk doesn't mean they suddenly have more potential.

"Who are we to make desicion who have the right to exist and who doensn't."

This isn't the choice between one species vs another. This is a choice between coexistence and extinction of a species.

"Every move we make will effect somehow the Alpha Q." Every move including inaction as well.

[acleverboy]

Well i agree with you about some things.

This is not an easy choise. What if this race give birth to another Hitler ot Stalin. Of course the other guys may as well "make" this demons. But we cannot take the chance. The Universe is so much bigger than us. At the time of Archer the Prime Directive didn't exist but i still thing that the desicion was right :)

[phantomdasilva]

"Giving birth to Hitler or Stalin?"

This is prime directive to the most extreme. If we are going to used that argument we might as well not help any person just in case they give birth to a hitler and a stalin.

They could just as easily give birth to a mother teresa etc.

It's not the job of any beings to be worried about far fetch hypothetical (such as the moral character of a child who will exist in the future). No doctor worries about creating hitler if he saves a pregnants mothers life.

[phantomdasilva]

The prime directive exist to protect pre-warp civilization for being exploited by more powerful nations. That was the original purpose in TOS.

However the Prime directive was then warped into interfering as an absolute moral wrong.

Suddenly it was ok to allow an entire species (Pen pal, homewards and now Dear Doctor) to go extinct because it's better for the civilization to not be interfered then to be extinct.

That defeats the original purpose of the PD, to protect pre-warp civilization.

[acleverboy]

Well, there is such a point:

We (the humans-24 century) have the tehnology and the understanding about most of the things and we should help to everyone that needs help. We also should share all we know about the universe, all our science...

But what if they are not ready. I don't speak about this case. What if we give tehnology to someone that have good intensions but after we leave they change their mind and use the tehnology to start wars or something.

[ringmaster316ms]

@acleverboy case in point, friendship one

[acleverboy]

Thats why there is The Federation. Only races that we are sure about can enter and after that to have every knowledge we have.

Well ,the greater monster Stalin still can be born but.... i admit this is something that can be done even by our own people...

[ringmaster316ms]

@phantomdasilva what about the menk? the whole issue in dear doctor was that by interfering, they would have disrupted the natural evolution of a planet.

oh yeah, pd doesnt apply to dear doctor in the first place, because the pd doesnt exist yet.

[Xondar11223344]

@ringmaster316ms Evolution does not work the way the episode assumed it works thus the point is invalid.

[ringmaster316ms]

@Xondar11223344 not in real life, but we're not talking about real life here, we're talking about science fiction.

[Xondar11223344]

@ringmaster316ms Science-fiction is unique in that it is based largely on real science and real scientific theories. That's what makes science fiction fun, it's what's possible in some way. If it doesn't have that, then it is just fantasy.

Just because the Enterprise writers show contempt for science or ever learning anything about science and incorporating that into their stories does not excuse this episode. It's very lazy writing, pure and simple.

[ringmaster316ms]

@Xondar11223344 tell you what, ill retract my excusing of this episode when you start questioning the reality of a show which takes place in a world where the inhabitants are flying about in gigantic space vessels, for free(since the federation claimed to have done away with money), and where God apparently likes to dress in drag and torment frenchmen. its not a big deal.

[Xondar11223344]

@ringmaster316ms I'm sorry, but your defence of this episode is absurd. Star Trek is supposed to be set in the real universe where the laws of physics are the same as ours, where the universe came to be in a big bang just like the real universe, and where things like evolution work the same way as in our universe. You can go ahead and assume the Star Trek universe was created by some deity sneezing and that evolution works the same way a hack writer assumes they work because he's lazy.

[ringmaster316ms]

@Xondar11223344 my beliefs are irrelevant here. as is the fact that, just like the big bang THEORY, they are simple beliefs. i cant prove mine, just like you cant prove yours.

[MoltenPlastic]

@ringmaster316ms Except that evolution and big bang theory can and have been proven.

They are objective facts, that you can argue with as much as you want, but continue to be true regardless.

[ringmaster316ms]

@MoltenPlastic so you have this "proof" on hand, then

[Saibrock]

@MoltenPlastic Actually, no they haven't. Belief in darwinistic evolution, spontaneous generation, or the self-creation of the universe is based in blind faith, and is as much a religion as any other. The only difference, is that proponents of these thing claim to have objective science at their back, when they clearly do not.

[MoltenPlastic]

@Saibrock Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is an enormous difference between belief and science: scientific theories can be discussed and recounted should the facts lean against them; religious beliefs cannot be discussed and cannot be recounted, no matter how many facts contradict them.

This is why the scientific method continues to be the preferred approach towards knowledge.

[Saibrock]

@MoltenPlastic I agree that there is a difference between belief and science. That's not what I said. What I said was that there are some who label their religious beliefs as science in order to gain credibility; specifically, many who hold to darwinistic evolution, spontaneous generation, or a self-created universe. These are easily disproved, and have scores of evidence against them, and yet their proponents never think to question them. Thusly, religion, not science.

[Zidana123]

@MoltenPlastic Actually neither evolution nor the big bang have been proven. That is why they continue to be called the THEORY of evolution and the big bang THEORY. If they were proven, they would be LAWS, like the LAW of gravity, or the LAWS of thermodynamics.

According to the scientific process, in order to prove a THEORY, it must be experimented upon. Big bang theory is fundementally unproveable without time travel and/or creating a new universe, and evolution is unproveable until -cont

[Zidana123]

@MoltenPlastic we observe a speciation event, which due to the massive time scale of evolution, requires humanity's written history to have existed for a few million years (which it hasn't).

And before you accuse me of being some kind of fundementalist, I am actually an Atheist, with a background in biochemistry, and I firmly believe in the THEORY of evolution. But I am also intellectually honest and feel compelled to point out when people have no idea what they're talking about.

[jimbopumbapigsticks]

@Zidana123 Yes, it's still a theory. But the fact that we have a wealth of evidence for it, and thus strong evidential grounds for accepting it (at least provisionally) can't be discounted. But what would have to happen for the theory to be false?

[Zidana123]

@jimbopumbapigsticks "But what would have to happen for the theory to be false?"

That's a flawed look at it. A theory cannot be 'true' or 'false.' Things like 'true' or 'false' can only be used to describe a HYPOTHESIS. A THEORY can only be 'proven' or 'disproven.' The point of a theory is that we do not know if it is true or false. That's what it means to be a theory.

In order to be DISPROVEN, we would have to observe something which is measureable and is not consistant with the -cont

[Zidana123]

@jimbopumbapigsticks current theory, in which case the current theory would be disproven and modified to produce a new theory, which fits with the new observations (for instance, Darwin's original theory of survival of the fittest was modified upon the examination of social insects, wherein individuals give up passing on their own genes in favor of supporting closely-related relatives). But we still wouldn't know if that new theory was true or false yet.

[jimbopumbapigsticks]

@Zidana123 Take your point, and you're right that a theory cannot be true or false, by its nature, but in order for a theory to be scientific it has to be falsifiable (or if you prefer potentially disprovable - it amounts to the same thing here). That's why some Marxist class domination theories aren't scientific - nothing could occur to disprove them. In the evolutionary case, what would be a potential scenario which could disprove the theory?

[Zidana123]

@jimbopumbapigsticks "In the evolutionary case, what would be a potential scenario which could disprove the theory?"

Lots of things, uh, say, we discover that there's a Lamarckian basis in heredity, we find some organism that makes modifications to its own genetic code in response to environmental stimuli and then is able to pass on those modifications to its offspring. Something like that would pretty much obliterate the modern synthesis of evolution.

Or, you know, the Rapture happens.

[Zidana123]

@jimbopumbapigsticks That being said, I do agree with you that we have a wealth of evidence for it, and yes, that evidence is the grounds for my personal acceptance of it, and I don't believe that evidence can be discounted (like some people say things like the fossil record is inconsistant or manufactured by the devil or carbon dating is inaccurate, or that shells have been found on the peaks of mountains because the flood swept them there). I personally believe. But that evidence is not PROOF.

[ringmaster316ms]

@Xondar11223344

the sad fact is that someone tried to mix beliefs into this show. we have God('the Q didn't come to be, the Q have always been'), and then the big bang, which delancie q chased quinn through, and then they made a few up(fek'lahr, the prophets, etc).

im not defending the episode. it shouldnt need defending. if you're so hung up on the details of a fictional universe, you really need to get a fucking life

[phantomdasilva]

@ringmaster316ms The whole point of Science Fiction is to bring up moral and social issues and elicit discussions about it.

I generally don't care about the scientific inaccuracy of Star Trek. However what I do care is about the issues it raises and the message it is spreading because that is the essence of science fiction.

Now in this case, scientific theory (evolution) is absolutely essential to the message the episode is spreading and hence is fair game for criticism.

[DarkKnightBob1o1]

@phantomdasilva yeah, umm weren't these guys POST warp.

Not to mention it kind of defeats the point to just not hand over the cure especially when flux seems to completely misunderstand how evolution works.

[Saibrock]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 No. The race was spacefaring, and aware of other civilizations, but did not have FTL technology themselves.

[DarkKnightBob1o1]

@Saibrock kinda pointless then considering.

Yeah I know the prime directive didn't exist. But having them DIRECTLY ask for help in the matter when they KNEW other races existed. Bit silly. It's the moral issue that the mess up though, based off stupid understanding of evolution.

[dafranx]

In the Original Star Trek, the Iotians contacted the Enterprise for help or something. The Enterprise crew found out that the Iotians were culturally contaminated by the Federation, couple centuries ago; they left many books in Sigma Iotia, including the Book that created their current society called "Chicago Mobs of the 1920s". Now the Enterprise has to undo the damage, somehow. What do you think? Do you think the accident did the Iotians better or worse?

[phantomdasilva]

I'm not saying the prime directive is a bad thing.

In fact I said before that in the TOS, the prime directive was mostly portrayed in a common sense way. They also made sure they didn't follow the prime directive in such a dogmatic way (such as "The Apple"). TOS did a good job with the PD.

It's just that the prime directive morph into something monstrous starting in TNG (Pen Pals) continuing in Homeward and leading to it's logical conclusion in Dear Doctor.

[Xondar11223344]

@dafranx The Prime Directive was originally designed to prevent more advanced, technologically superior cultures from enslaving and destroying less advanced cultures. This was to prevent the kind of thing that happened with colonists in the New World who destroyed native cultures through warfare, slavery and disease from being done by the noble and enlightened Federation.

The Voyager and Enterprise writers had little to no understanding of how the Prime Directive was supposed to work.

[phantomdasilva]

this argument is like saying you shouldn't cure someone of a disease as they meant to die and that if you do cure the person they may grow up to be the next Adolf Hitler. This could be true but we give people the benefit of the doubt because we are compassionate people.

Phlox does not practice clairvoyance and can not predict the future of evolution. He can not possible tell definitely that the Menk could never develop if the valakians were there.

[phantomdasilva]

if the genetic defects comes after the reproductive stage in life. Then there should never be a problem of the species going extinct. The premise of this episode was flawed.

[phantomdasilva]

If this episode was about whether we should give a cure to an oppressive race who are subjugating another species then I would have tolerated this episode. However Phlox make it quite clear he had no problems with the practices of the valakians and that we shouldn't enforce our morality of their people.

Instead Phlox only had a problem when he found out it was a genetic disease and then used eugenics to justify their deaths

[BorgHub]

this is the episode in which Archer and the doctor commited Genocide

[NecrosisOfLight]

The Prime Directive. Because just saying "We shouldn't have intervened in Vietnam" is too sane for Roddenberry.