193
This was inevitable. (startrek.website)
submitted 11 months ago by khaosworks@startrek.website to c/risa@startrek.website
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] snake_case@feddit.uk 44 points 11 months ago

Should have cloned tuvix in the transporter then split the older one.

Or should have sedated tuvix so a unique personality couldn't manifest in the time before the doctor could design a cure.

But it's easy looking back with hindsight, when you're there and it's actually happening you don't have the luxury of time to think of the most perfect solution.

[-] teft@startrek.website 10 points 11 months ago

If you cloned him you’ve just doubled the problem since a cloned tuvix is still Neelix and Tuvok. Even if you split one copy the other is still made of people who deserve to live their own lives.

Also, fuck Tuvix.

[-] mpa92643@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

the other is still made of people who deserve to live their own lives.

But those "people" (i.e., the clones of Tuvok and Neelix) never existed in the first place.

The main issue in this episode is that two sentient beings were effectively destroyed against their will to create a new sentient being. To rectify the issue of two sentient beings being destroyed to create one new sentient being, the one was destroyed against his will.

But a clone of Tuvix would not come into existence at the expense of any sentient beings besides the original Neelix and Tuvok. It doesn't solve the original "we're killing a sentient being to bring back our friends" problem the original Tuvix caused, but it doesn't create new problems either.

We could just transporter-clone and combine Tuvok and Neelix into Tuvix in one shot. The net effect is one new being, Tuvix, at the expense of nobody. Doing it by cloning Tuvix is just an added intermediate step.

[-] teft@startrek.website 2 points 11 months ago

Ok, here is what we do. We make an appeal to Q to solve it since he seems to love moral dilemmas.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

What problem have you doubled? You flush Tuvix out the airlock it's not like you can never use that airlock again

[-] EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website 6 points 11 months ago

In a transporter duplication is there an older one?

It's some banach tarsky shit to create the same person twice out of their original matter steam, though mathematically possible.

[-] Infynis@midwest.social 3 points 11 months ago

Tuvix was on Voyager for a long time. Keeping him sedated that whole time would have been a strange choice

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago

What they should've done is just recreated him on the holodeck

[-] darelik@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I can't help but think this episode was paid for by Mars Inc to promote Twix

Edit: i mean do u eat it as one or do you split it into two

[-] Maven@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 11 months ago

Twix aren't conjoined... Are you thinking of kitkats?

[-] Flyberius@hexbear.net 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm not hear to debate anyone, but if you think it is ok to kill a currently living being to resurrect a dead being, then you are fucked in the head. Tuvok and Neelix died painlessly and unaware in an accident. Tuvix was murdered, and was made fully aware of their fate beforehand, to the point where they even begged to be spared.

[-] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 15 points 11 months ago

On the other hand, Tuvix creeped me out.

[-] TheMongoose@kbin.social 15 points 11 months ago

WELL THAT'S ALL RIGHT THEN!

[-] HolyDuckTurtle@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago

I think from their perspective Tuvok and Neelix weren't "dead", which was why they were more inclined to "correct" the situation at hand and save their crewmates while they still had the chance to do so.

Regardless, it's a fucked up decision, I don't envy it.

[-] limelight79@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

There's a line in the episode around that point:

"At what point did he become an individual, and not a transporter accident?"

But that's the whole point of the episode - it's a moral quandary with no real "right" answer. It's Hugh of Borg all over again.

[-] m_r_butts@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

The episode did its job challenging viewers with the question, because people still argue about this today. But to me there's an actual, unambiguous answer: 4.823 seconds after transport autosequence initiation, when the emitter array completed the materialization cycle.

[-] Saeculum@hexbear.net 6 points 11 months ago

One for one, sure. One for two? I can see the argument.

[-] pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago

So what if you could save five lives by harvesting the organs on one little old person?

[-] Flyberius@hexbear.net 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's not an equation to be worked out. It simply boils down to respecting the wishes of a currently living and conscious being. Otherwise anyone's life could be forfeit based purely on some arbitrary valuation of what that life is worth. Why don't we just harvest your organs and give them to people we deem more useful, ya know?

[-] Saeculum@hexbear.net 3 points 11 months ago

If I had come about through the unwilling merger of two people, and my death could restore those people, it's probably ethical to kill me to make it happen.

I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to call the two component people dead either. Death is a not a particularly well defined term, but we don't tend to apply it to people who might get better.

Why don't we just harvest your organs and give them to people we deem more useful, ya know?

The knowledge that you live in a society where you could be legally killed at any point for the greater good, and the resultant fear and uncertainty probably would cause more harm overall than doing so could actually alleviate.

[-] Flyberius@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

What you are saying is it is ethical to kill a being that has specifically said it doesn't want to die, in order save two others.

[-] Saeculum@hexbear.net 2 points 11 months ago

Same reason it's ethical to kill billionaires and eat the rich.

[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 11 months ago

How many people could we save if we harvested you for spare parts? You can't, or at very least shouldn't, make moral decisions on arithmetic alone.

[-] aeronmelon@lemm.ee 16 points 11 months ago

I love this because the Toymaker is basically Q.

Do this one again, this time use Janeway in the second panel.

[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 1 points 11 months ago

The whovian in me screeches the toymaker came first, the trekker points out that while Q seems to have some peculiar moral purpose the Toymaker is just an eternal ancient who sets shit on fire for fun.

Also supernovas can harm Q IIRC. The Toymaker, not so much.

[-] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

One of my co-workers perfectly quoted the Cyberman-Dalek scene never having seen a single episode of Doctor Who. Apparently it was all over her tik tok. I mean, I'll take it, I hope the memeability encourages more viewers. And if that doesn't do it, NPH should.

this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
193 points (98.5% liked)

Risa

6916 readers
93 users here now

Star Trek memes and shitposts

Come on'n get your jamaharon on! There are no real rules—just don't break the weather control network.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
USSBurritoTruck@startrek.website