Chuck's Opinion on The Observer Effect and Dear Doctor

[Mith]

While I hold some degree of respect for Chuck and his opinions in regards to Star Trek, I don't agree with his views on Archer in Dear Doctor and the Observer Effect.

Basically, in Dear Doctor, Archer is set out to help a pre-warp society called the Valakians develop a cure for their illness. During his study of the culture and the virus, Phlox learns of the Minx, another intelligent species that shares the planet with the Valakians. The Menk are less intelligent and live in primitive huts in poor land (Valakians won't let them live on fertile land)

In addition, Phlox has discovered that the virus isn't a virus; it's a genetic failure in the Valakians genetic code that is causing them all to die; ie, a genetic dead end. He does however, have a cure. But there's one problem; the Menk.

The Menk are growing more and more intelligent and aren't an evolutionary dead end. In addition, the Menk are in a sense being exploited by the Valakians. This has led Phlox to not want to interfere because if the Valakians die off, then the Menk can flourish.

He takes this to Archer. Archer says that no, they need to help the Valakians. However, the very next day he changes his mind and decides that they shouldn't have a right to choose because they're not out there to play God. He also denies them warp technology.

This leads to Observer Effect, where the situation is flipped. Chuck basically simplifies the incidents as "Oh, we won't help someone because of something they can't help, but please save us from our own poor choices!"

He claims that when Archer is begging for help, he was being a Rule Lawyer in attempt to get help. And while I agree that Archer's reasoning of it 'being an accident' isn't a good argument in general, it is different than the incident in Dear Doctor, despite Chuck's opinion that it isn't at all different.

How so? Allow me to explain.

First off, the Menk were being exploited and treated as secondary citizens by the Valakians. In other words, they'd never really have a chance to evolve because the Valakians would keep them repressed by social norms and by simply being more advanced. We'd be seeing a abuse process similar to how the Romulans treat the Remans.

The issue was never that this was 'evolution' and so they interfere. Yes, Phlox does make that argument, but not because he really wants to think that way. Understand that when Phlox first saw the Valakian-Menk relationship, he had thought that it wasn't abuse; but that the Menk were simply retards who the Valakians looked after (to a degree). However, as he came to know the Menk and understand that they weren't at all stupid--along with the belief among the crew that the Valakians were exploiting the Menk and that the Menk were on the edge of a sort of evolutionary awakening, he changed his stance.

This led to the issue that if he helped the Valakians cure themselves, he would very likely be an accessory to either racial slavery or racial genocide since one of the two were very real, negative possibilities that the Menk could face during that time against the Valakians.

This is why Phlox didn't want to give them the technology; because he'd be damning one species over another.

Archer's stance was different, recall. He said that it was their moral obligation to help the Valakians. When Phlox made his argument that in order for the Menk to flourish, the Valakians had to be out of the way, Archer basically stated it how he saw it; damning the Valakians for a possibility of saving the Menk.

The issue was never about non-interference or not helping people. It was about choosing which race flourished over the other. Phlox didn't want his research (whom he feels a personal attachment and responsibility for) to damn another species or lead to their enslavement. And although Archer wants to help the Valakians because of his compassion, upon reconsideration, he also didn't want to hurt the Menk.

Therefore, Archer chose not to help not because he thought it was the right thing to do--he even says that it goes against all of his principals not to help the Valakians--he chose not to help because he felt he didn't have the right to pick between the two.

In effect, they were being asked to choose between who lives and who dies. They found that they couldn't make that choice because of what their actions could cause for the future.

And while I don't agree with their conclusion, I don't think that Chuck is giving the two fair credit; they didn't just decide that x was right and y was wrong and that's that. They looked at a sticky situation and discovered they couldn't help one without killing the other and found themselves incapable of making that choice.

What the Organians were doing amounted to a social experiment and in a way, is far more cruel and diabolical than what Archer and Phlox did, who in my opinion just made the wrong choice. This is why Archer didn't agree with them; the Organians weren't hurting anyone else by saving those two crewmen and Archer. This wasn't a lose-lose situation. This was something that the Organians had turned into their own personal social experiment on other species and that they should have a moral obligation to help people.

Just like Archer would if he were to say, stop a falling asteroid from destroying the Valakians and the Menk. Because in that case the situation is lose-lose or win-win.

[Lucky]

While I hold some degree of respect for Chuck and his opinions in regards to Star Trek, I don't agree with his views on Archer in Dear Doctor and the Observer Effect.

Basically, in Dear Doctor, Archer is set out to help a pre-warp society called the Valakians develop a cure for their illness. During his study of the culture and the virus, Phlox learns of the Minx, another intelligent species that shares the planet with the Valakians. The Menk are less intelligent and live in primitive huts in poor land (Valakians won't let them live on fertile land)

In addition, Phlox has discovered that the virus isn't a virus; it's a genetic failure in the Valakians genetic code that is causing them all to die; ie, a genetic dead end. He does however, have a cure. But there's one problem; the Menk.

The Menk are growing more and more intelligent and aren't an evolutionary dead end. In addition, the Menk are in a sense being exploited by the Valakians. This has led Phlox to not want to interfere because if the Valakians die off, then the Menk can flourish.

He takes this to Archer. Archer says that no, they need to help the Valakians. However, the very next day he changes his mind and decides that they shouldn't have a right to choose because they're not out there to play God. He also denies them warp technology.

This leads to Observer Effect, where the situation is flipped. Chuck basically simplifies the incidents as "Oh, we won't help someone because of something they can't help, but please save us from our own poor choices!"

He claims that when Archer is begging for help, he was being a Rule Lawyer in attempt to get help. And while I agree that Archer's reasoning of it 'being an accident' isn't a good argument in general, it is different than the incident in Dear Doctor, despite Chuck's opinion that it isn't at all different.

How so? Allow me to explain.

First off, the Menk were being exploited and treated as secondary citizens by the Valakians. In other words, they'd never really have a chance to evolve because the Valakians would keep them repressed by social norms and by simply being more advanced. We'd be seeing a abuse process similar to how the Romulans treat the Remans.

The issue was never that this was 'evolution' and so they interfere. Yes, Phlox does make that argument, but not because he really wants to think that way. Understand that when Phlox first saw the Valakian-Menk relationship, he had thought that it wasn't abuse; but that the Menk were simply retards who the Valakians looked after (to a degree). However, as he came to know the Menk and understand that they weren't at all stupid--along with the belief among the crew that the Valakians were exploiting the Menk and that the Menk were on the edge of a sort of evolutionary awakening, he changed his stance.

This led to the issue that if he helped the Valakians cure themselves, he would very likely be an accessory to either racial slavery or racial genocide since one of the two were very real, negative possibilities that the Menk could face during that time against the Valakians.

This is why Phlox didn't want to give them the technology; because he'd be damning one species over another.

Archer's stance was different, recall. He said that it was their moral obligation to help the Valakians. When Phlox made his argument that in order for the Menk to flourish, the Valakians had to be out of the way, Archer basically stated it how he saw it; damning the Valakians for a possibility of saving the Menk.

The issue was never about non-interference or not helping people. It was about choosing which race flourished over the other. Phlox didn't want his research (whom he feels a personal attachment and responsibility for) to damn another species or lead to their enslavement. And although Archer wants to help the Valakians because of his compassion, upon reconsideration, he also didn't want to hurt the Menk.

Therefore, Archer chose not to help not because he thought it was the right thing to do--he even says that it goes against all of his principals not to help the Valakians--he chose not to help because he felt he didn't have the right to pick between the two.

In effect, they were being asked to choose between who lives and who dies. They found that they couldn't make that choice because of what their actions could cause for the future.

And while I don't agree with their conclusion, I don't think that Chuck is giving the two fair credit; they didn't just decide that x was right and y was wrong and that's that. They looked at a sticky situation and discovered they couldn't help one without killing the other and found themselves incapable of making that choice.

What the Organians were doing amounted to a social experiment and in a way, is far more cruel and diabolical than what Archer and Phlox did, who in my opinion just made the wrong choice. This is why Archer didn't agree with them; the Organians weren't hurting anyone else by saving those two crewmen and Archer. This wasn't a lose-lose situation. This was something that the Organians had turned into their own personal social experiment on other species and that they should have a moral obligation to help people.

Just like Archer would if he were to say, stop a falling asteroid from destroying the Valakians and the Menk. Because in that case the situation is lose-lose or win-win.

One thing to keep in mind is that at the end of Dear Doctor Archer sent a report to his superiors telling them about the Valakians and Menk, and the Valakians had years to go before they would become extinct.

What Archer actual did was give the choice to Star Fleet and the Vulcans to make while carefully not angering a high ranking and possibly hard to replace member of his crew. Star Fleet and the Vulcans could literally debate what to do for years then if they wanted to.