Star Trek: Enterprise

“Cogenitor”

4 stars.

Air date: 4/30/2003
Written by Rick Berman & Brannon Braga
Directed by LeVar Burton

"You knew you had no business interfering with those people, but you just couldn't let it alone. You thought you were doing the right thing. I might agree if this was Florida or Singapore, but it's not, is it? We're in deep space, and a person is dead — a person who would still be alive if we hadn't made first contact." — Archer to Trip

Review Text

In brief: Yes. This is what I want to see.

Now here's the sort of episode that suggests the true potential of Enterprise as a series — an episode that takes every correct turn where it could've compromised itself by taking the safer road where human values automatically trump all else. It does not take the safer roads, for which I am grateful. By the end, it emerges as the best and most probing episode of the season. This is what is possible when a story takes a risk; that risk can pay off.

The grossly inaccurate trailer, which is played on an inappropriate note of ha-ha levity, makes this show out to be some sort of sci-fi sex comedy. It certainly is not. What was advertised is not even close to what they are selling. This story is no lightweight. By the end, it is dead serious.

What "Cogenitor" offers is some tough questions, tough answers, and surprisingly tough consequences. The last act is nothing short of a revelation (for this series, anyway), as we see exactly how badly good intentions can go wrong.

The episode begins on a refreshing note: first contact with a friendly race of explorers called the Vissians, who for once seem like real space travelers rather than artificial constructs for the sake of conflict. "It'll be nice to have a first contact where no one's thinking about charging weapons," Trip notes tellingly. The thing about aliens on Star Trek is that they're so often used as a shortcut source for shallow conflict. But conflict in real drama should be about situations and circumstances, not about "us" versus "them." Here is an episode that knows this. It also knows that the conflict is not just about two opposing groups of people, but about the multiple approaches to questions, opinions, and actions.

The Enterprise crew and the Vissians team up to study a star in the early stages of supernova. Archer quickly develops a pleasant rapport with Vissian Captain Drennik (Andreas Katsulas, who will be familiar to many genre fans) and the two take a specially shielded Vissian pod on a three-day survey of the star up close. T'Pol takes command of the Enterprise. The human crew and the Vissian crew socially interact and begin learning about each another.

Tucker befriends the Vissian engineer (F.J. Rio) and his wife (Larissa Laskin), and meets a mysterious individual called a "cogenitor" (Becky Wahlstrom). The cogenitor lives with the couple in their quarters on the Vissian ship. The cogenitor is actually a third sex that is required for Vissians to conceive children, providing, as Phlox explains, a crucial enzyme to enable conception from the male and female. In Vissian society, the cogenitors make up a very small percentage of the population (there is only one cogenitor on this ship), and have little standing in society, serving only the purpose of aiding in conception.

Phlox and T'Pol are familiar with three-sexed species, but this is a new one for Trip and, for that matter, for the Star Trek audience in general. The cogenitor here is a quiet individual. The other Vissians refer to this nameless person only as "it," which quickly arouses our suspicion in regard to the status of these people in Vissian society. "They treat her like a pet," Trip notes unhappily.

One of the pleasures I had during this episode was seeing how the show and I were constantly on the same wavelength. As the story established its elements and planted its seeds, I found myself thinking about how things would play out given what I knew about the situation and the characters. On more than one instance, as I was thinking something, the show's progress would follow in the direction of my own feelings. This should not be mistaken for predictability, but rather a show that lays out a logical story arc and prompts our intuition, and then moves in the direction that properly follows the story's logic.

Consider, for example, the way the story sets up Trip's concern for the rights of this individual. The treatment of the cogenitor is depicted as a questionable and possibly troubling issue, but in a subtle way. The Vissians treat the cogenitor with casual indifference — neither friendly nor unfriendly, but simply regarded neutrally as an object. Trip becomes the voice for our own developing troubled feelings regarding the cogenitor.

Then, in its slick and subtle way, the story turns the tables on us and we begin to see the potential disaster of Trip taking matters of this situation into his own hands. He starts telling the Vissians lies about where he is going and what he is doing. He spends time with the cogenitor without the Vissians' permission. He teaches the cogenitor to read and puts human ideas of independence and growth in her head. He tells her that she has the same mental capacity as the other Vissians, and he even proves it with a neural scan that hints at the cogenitor's true potential.

We understand Trip's feelings and why he is doing what he is doing, but we gradually see that it's the wrong thing to do and the wrong way to go about it. We see that this could blow up in his face. I like how the story hints at consequences for Trip's poor choices and then delivers on them, plausibly and forcefully. Given the nature of the dilemma and the central question of the cogenitor's "human" rights, the story could've let Trip off the hook for his actions. Much to my satisfaction, it does not. In the end, the show comes to the sober realization that this is not a story about human rights for a Vissian cogenitor. It's about the issue of human interference in alien cultures.

When Trip teaches the cogenitor to read, she's able to learn in a single day. Is this plausible? I don't think so, but I'm not too concerned about it. That the cogenitor can learn to read so quickly is simply a matter of narrative shorthand. The point here is that Trip's actions open an individual's eyes to completely new possibilities — possibilities that are wonderful and awesome and quite likely to change this individual's life ... before then being taken away as quickly as they were given. It's like "Flowers for Algernon," but with a central figure that's painfully aware of exactly what it's being forced to give up.

There's another question here, one that I'm struggling with. How could the cogenitors in Vissian society really not know what they're missing? If they have the same intellectual potential as the rest of the Vissians, how is it they haven't realized this potential before, even in small numbers? Surely what Trip unleashes here has previously happened internal to their society with their own cogenitor sympathizers. How couldn't it? And logically, a subjugated subset of a population with this sort of intelligence would know they are being subjugated and would in some way revolt, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The Vissian cogenitors don't seem to be aware of their subjugation, and the Vissian males and females don't seem to be aware that what they are doing is subjugation. It's simply an internal cultural fact, one that perhaps is impossible to understand in human terms. (Are we a product of only what we're permitted to experience? If so, Vissian cogenitors apparently are not permitted to experience much of anything, short of brainwashing and built-in repression.) But given how "Cogenitor" plays out — with the cogentior's eyes being opened and her desire to keep them open — this accepted belief by all the Vissians seems impossible. Not that this hurts the story; it simply makes me even more curious to explore the story points.

It also brings up that difficult issue of cultural moral relativism. The Vissians are right when they explain that we know nothing of their culture. But are they right to treat the cogenitors as they do? On human terms, of course not, but as Captain Drennik points out, "We're not on your world." It's not a particularly satisfying answer, but it is 100 percent true.

Putting all the moral questions aside, the real point here is that Trip interferes where he has no business interfering. The story strikes a fascinating balance between Trip's intentions to right what he believes is a wrong (in human terms), with the fact that he is so calculating in his efforts to do so without anybody else finding out. Just watch the way Trip carefully drops hints to the Vissian engineer to invite him to a meal in their quarters, so Trip can meet the cogenitor and take medical readings. Look at how he ignores T'Pol and walks away when she suggests he not get involved. Deep down, Trip knows he shouldn't be doing what he's doing (sneaking around, hiding things from the Vissians, etc.), and yet he forges ahead anyway, damn the consequences — and there are severe consequences — because he thinks he is doing the right thing. When the Vissians discover what has happened, they're not happy, and they demand the return of their cogenitor, which Archer grants despite her request for asylum. The cogenitor later commits suicide, apparently knowing her existence in society will henceforth be an empty one.

So because of Trip's meddling, a person is dead and a couple will not be able to conceive their child. I guess that's what they call a cautionary tale.

Like last season's wonderful "Dear Doctor" (among other episodes), "Cogenitor" is yet another episode that shows why the Prime Directive will be necessary. When you have a situation like this that's full of gray areas and potentially disastrous consequences, you begin to realize why dealing with such situations will require something more absolute than a judgment call.

The final act of "Cogenitor" is a potent one, well acted and directed, where Archer calls Trip on the mat to answer for his actions, and the news of the suicide is revealed. The strength of the language here surprised me: Archer has two tirades that do not go easy on Trip, with some potent lines including:

  • "We're out here to meet new species, not to tell them what to do."
  • "You did exactly what I'd do? If that's true, I've done a pretty lousy job setting an example around here." And, "Don't tell me you know what I would've done when I don't even know what I would've done."
  • Trip: "I'm responsible [for the cogenitor's death]." Archer: "You're damned right, you're responsible."
  • "You knew you had no business interfering with those people, but you just couldn't let it alone. You thought you were doing the right thing. I might agree if this was Florida or Singapore, but it's not, is it? We're in deep space, and a person is dead — a person who would still be alive if we hadn't made first contact."

It's also notable that, throughout all this, the Vissians, particularly Captain Drennik, are endlessly reasonable. Indeed, the Vissians are novel because they come across as real explorers trying to make friends. The genuine chemistry between Archer and Drennik during the survey mission in the Vissian pod (featuring some good FX sequences, by the way) is reassuring, particularly because of Katsulas' affable persona.

"Cogenitor," while excellent, isn't perfect. I'll briefly mention the subplot between Lt. Reed and the Vissian woman who invites Reed to sleep with her. Her rationale is that Vissian customs say a woman will choose to have dinner with a man only after he has proven his worthiness in bed. No pressure. (I'm now imagining the resulting sitcom where sex is shown as the precursor and the drudgery, while talking over a candlelit dinner is the long-sought payoff.) Odd, how this story thread is created and then hastily dropped as if it had been an afterthought. (It also features at least one groaner of a line when Reed says, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Notable is that Reed himself can barely bring himself to say this without pausing in doubt.)

On the whole, "Cogenitor" is an Enterprise-specific episode of Trek that takes advantage of this series' premise. It's brave enough to show something that we need to see in this first Starfleet mission: humans screwing up and creating messy problems that are their own fault. The crew isn't perfect and human morality is not absolute. We don't have all the answers. It's to this story's credit that it takes a strong position on the interference issue while offering up other questions that are tough to come to terms with. This show has meat on its bones.

The last shot of a disappointed and remorseful Archer is, to me, of particular interest. I think it shows Archer's realization that, in a way, the failure is his own and he blames himself. He hasn't set a solid or consistent enough example on the interference issue, and he hasn't gotten through to Trip or his crew. There is work to be done. Starfleet has a lot to learn about dealing with other societies. That is what "Cogenitor" is all about. And that's where Enterprise has an opportunity to say something new.

Next week: Helmet! So, at last, we meet the Borg for the first time for the last time!

Previous episode: The Breach
Next episode: Regeneration

Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee.

◄ Season Index

Comment Section

284 comments on this post

    I think out of all the four seasons Enterprise had season 2 was the weakest. I think if they was able to make more Episode like this, First flight, Minefield and Deadstop this season would had been great but at the sametimethe only reason we got the Xindi arc was because of the response of season 2 and I happened to love the Xindi arc. I love the idea of Archer and his crew having a year of hell.

    "And logically, a subjugated subset of a population with this sort of intelligence would know they are being subjugated and would in some way revolt, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. "
    There is a (to me) rather obvious parallell in human history: The way women have traditionally been treated in most societies. They have been (and in some societies still are) banned from getting an education, they have been banned from most meaningful occupations, and have frequently been seen as having no value except to provide (male) children. And the reason they haven't revolted (and possibly why the cogenitors haven't) is that they themselves are dependend on their subjugators for continued existence. You can theoretically have a society where one skin color revolts against the other, or where one religion tried to exterminate the other, but one gender cannot rise in rebellion to eliminate the other. Resolving that kind of conflict is extremely difficult - and in the trek example, the cogenitors were even severely inferior in numbers, unlike women the real world example. In short this episode seemed to me to be the perfect feminist parable, where 'Stigma' utterly failed to be the same for hiv/aids.

    Ah! Finally! This is the first Enterprise episode I have been able to actually watch without getting frustrated by the fact that its title has the name Star Trek on it.

    So I guess any child born on their planet could be either male, female, or cogenitor. I wonder what the chief engineer and his wife would say if their much awaited child would turn out to be a cogenitor. Even though the probability is extremely low, there is still a possibility of that happening.

    It`s a good episode alright, and to be sure, it was not on Trip to force some issue here, especially not in a "first contact" situation. I still can't bring myself to think of the episode as an outstanding one because I simply wasn't very convinced by the premise. Like Jammer said: If the cogenitors are so mentally capable, they all by themselves would have sought a minimum of rights during the last 1000 years or so. What Trip achieves in just one day of interference only makes that point of critique stronger. And considering that the Vissians seem just so enlightened in all other respects (treating aliens as their equals for example), it's not quite credible that they would not even show so much as a glimpse of doubt regarding their treatment of the cogenitors. What IS the criterion according to which someone is to be treated as a person IF NOT their mental (cognitive, motivational and emotional) potential allowing them to think, act and feel like one?

    Was probably my favorite Enterprise episode. was a very fresh First Contact situation that I foudn very plausible!

    Liked this episode, but Trip's immediate and overencompassing interest in the cogenitor felt a bit rushed and contrived.

    The Enterprise encounters a friendly advanced species and Trip is barely interested in the engineering marvels they're willing to share. I couldn't buy this, and so found Trip's ever increasing interference difficult to believe.

    I thought Trip did the right thing. If you see wrongdoing and do nothing to help, you are condoning the act. The Cogenitor's deserved to have an opportunity to reach their potential. If they are going on the principal of non-interference, then they should also have took no interest in the superior technology of the Vissians for the same reasons - They might discover a technology that their society is not yet ready for - Like giving Hitler Nuclear Weapons. I don't buy into that ideal. We must decide how to use technology morally rather than trying to surpress the knowledge.

    I really liked this episode, but was very put off by Archer's high-handed dressing down of Trip at the end. In terms of first contact screw-ups with potentially severe repercussions, Trip's actions seemed a lot more understandable and a lot less stupid than Archer's decision to escalate a war rather than admit that he and Reed were aliens in "The Communicator." Leaving one side of a conflict with the impression that its opponents are in the midst of developing vastly superior technology seems like it could cause a lot of deaths. But, of course, neither Archer nor the audience was ever given a look at the outcome of that situation.

    Of all the unconscionable acts Enterprise commits wherever it goes - from warmongering to genocide - the one at which Archer draws a line in the sand is helping one oppressed, emotionally abused individual with their self-esteem.

    The production company should have provided some supervisors to ensure the writers stayed on their medication. There are unparalleled levels of doublethink going on in this series.

    Personally, I'm convinced that this episode script must have been recycled from some other Trek series or else ghost written by someone other than the writers who usually handle ENT.

    There is no continuity between Archer's actions over the previous seasons and his dressing down of Trip at the end here. As was said above, he has made much worse first contact blunders.

    Also, Trip playing GO? He is way too much of a dunce to be so good as to be undefeated at the game, as he claims.

    Even something as small as these aliens' preference for a meal's aroma rather than its taste seems altogether too subtle (to say nothing of reasonable) a development for the typically sledgehammer-like cultural differences they've dreamed up for other aliens (e.g., "you eat like you have sex," or whatever that nonsense was).

    I watched this episode several years ago out of context, having never seen any other ENT ep. I thought it was really good. In context, it rings sort of hollow in light of the character inconsistency. I would much rather ENT was this way, but it hasn't been.

    What I really liked about this episode was the end, when Archer told Trip that there would be consequences, and just left Trip to himself. Basically telling Trip that he would have to live with the suicide on his conscience. I WISH they had done more with this throughout the series. It would have made for some great storytelling.

    Really good episode.

    Makes up for some (but not all) of the garbage so far. Not the genocide though. And not the execution of the non-corporeals just trying to survive.

    Still, Trip's actions were implausible. Like there wouldn't be established guidlelines for this type of thing on a starship? They're out there to meet aliens. You'd think someone would have thought about potential pitfalls beforehand, based on historical problems between cultures on earth.

    Another anoying thing for me is that the Vissians were basically Americans in space. The way they expressed themsleves ("Thank you for the invitation, Captain. We would be honored"), their willingness to talk about intimate things, their desire to become close friends after just five minutes, all of this made the encounter basically like meeting people from Milwaukee.

    What could be easier than meeting some dude from Milwaukee? The fact is, these Vissians had more in common with Americans than Candians do. Compared to the Vissians, Swedes might as well be the rock people from TOS. Nobody, I mean nobody talks the way Vissians do except us.

    And if the Enterprise can't even meet Americans in space wthout screwing it up, maybe their mission should be recalled.

    Well, at least it was interesting. It wasn't general low-key Enterprise garbage this time.

    The whole idea of a third sex, and an individual deprived of the ability to fulfill its potential because of the reproductive role he holds within an alien society is an interesting one. It isn't ORIGINAL mind you... (this story was taken from the "Alien Nation" episode "Three to Tango", 1989, as I found out from www.firsttvdrama.com/enterprise/e48.php3 )... but at least it's interesting.

    Unfortunately while the theme & idea had great potential, this episode falls horrendously short on two levels for me.

    Firstly, as ippolite stated, the "unparalleled levels of doublethink" going on in this series. With every major fu**-up Archer has been involved in since the show began, he has no business giving that talking-to to Trip. He has done way worse. "If that's true, I've done a pretty lousy job setting an example around here". Yes you have, douchebag.

    And secondly... why does Trip always have to be such a moron??? I mean, good intentions aside, why did the writers feel the need to make his attempt at fighting for the cogenitor's basic rights feel so awkward? Midway through the episode, why can't I help but cringe at the obvious negative impact Trip's actions will have by the time credits roll? WHY is every character from TNG, DS9, and even Voyager a role model of sorts (despite a few shortcomings), while for every major player in Enterprise I can only feel disdain or indifference?

    Dare I think how more graceful this entire episode would have been, if the crusader for the cogenitor's existential rights had been someone like... Picard, Riker, or Troi?

    Good God these writers suck.

    I had a different take on Archer's tirade against Trip at the end. I took his harshness as a result of his own feelings of guilt/responsibility. He HASN'T set a good example, this ISN'T the worst thing that Enterprise has done in a first-contact situation, and on some level Archer realizes taht. And it's knawing at him. Yet, he can't very well come out and address that fact directly right here. He has to START setting the right example, and he does so angrily because of all that background.

    Am I reading too much into it?

    The story was right to take the turns it made here, but I sincerely hope this race wouldn't be permitted into the Federation with this subclass of its society treated this way. And everything we've heard about the Federation indicates it wouldn't be.

    I really dont understand how this episode warrented a 4 star review. The characters actions made no sense (Trips facination for the cogenitor, the aliens complete disregard for it even though they seem so enlightened in other ways, the cogenitors sitting around all day long and doing nothing, Archer taking the moral high ground when he has done so much WORSE).

    My main problem is this- the cogenitor killed themself because it didnt want to live the way it was- could anyone really say that the cogenitor was properly alive as it living was before Trip intervened? I think I would rather live for a weekend and die than live out my existance as a pet. The only people inconvienced were the Vissians not being able to have a kid.

    And as said above, this show's problem is that the characters are so unlikeable and are not good as role models like you would see on other ST series over the years.

    While this is no doubt a tricky moral situation, and a very good episode because of it, I am surprised to see there aren't more commenters questioning Archer's decision to send the cogenitor back (on ethical grounds rather than just as a lack of consistency with his other actions).

    Doesn't the prime directive (once it is officially established) only, or at least primarily, apply to pre-warp species? With that distinction in mind, I think a request for asylum like this would be taken much more seriously, and possibly granted, by Picard (in my mind the preeminent defender of the prime directive). Arguably the advanced Vissians "should have known better" than to not anticipate some attempt at interference from the new-to-space humans (perhaps even on this particular issue considering that they know that three genders is not the norm in the galaxy).

    Without a doubt Tucker should be reprimanded for his deceptive tactics and even for his interference. However, once the damage was done, with the cogenitor rethinking its existence and making such an explicit, clear, and legitimate request for asylum, denying the request is not the moral choice. It is only the political choice. Although how he went about it was wrong, Tucker gave her a chance for life. Her death is on Archer's conscience. Her suicide is evidence that the request for asylum was real and was warranted under the situation.

    I don't even think the political fallout would likely have been that large. While granting the asylum would not have endeared humans to the Vissians, I also cannot imagine it causing irreparable damage considering the relationship already developed between Archer and the Vissian captain and how reasonably the captain was taking the asylum request. At best Archer might have appealed to the captain's logic that the cogenitor had already been "corrupted" beyond redemption and would only spread rebellion among other cogenitors. At worst you would have had one inconvenienced couple and maybe the Vissians considering a prime directive of their own (it seems surprising they don't already have one, if they are worried about interference with their culture, and/or haven't run into situations like this before). Nor can I imagine this incident (especially with no other cogenitors on their ship) making much an impact on the treatment or political consciousness of other cogenitors.

    I love this episode it is hands down one of my favourites of all the series.

    I also think many commentors reactions to it are indicative of some really clever writing as well, summarised I think by RussS' "Americans in space" quote. See, I didn't think the Vissians were 'Americans in space' - the thing is, they looked like they were, their mannerisms were similar, so was the food, the layout of the ship, the living arrangements...everything but, well, their culture.

    I find it a bit ironic that for years and years we've had crazy looking aliens with all sorts of appendages, but whose culture and society are identical to ours but for superficial deviations ("we investigate all anomalies before talking to our superiors!"); but here for one of the first times on Trek we have a society, that is superficially familiar to us but has standards and concepts are truly alien - and the first thing everyone thinks to do is judge them by our own standards, assuming Trip is 'correct' and that the cogenitor is being 'denied' basic 'rights'.

    Archer says as much in his tirade.

    No one on here can say the cogenitor (or their gender) was being abused or subjugated - not just because we know nothing about this species and how it works - but because we don't even know what the meaning of these words are in their society.

    I think the episode did such a good job of getting everyone to see the issue through Trips eyes, not even Archer's awesome truth smackdown at the end was enough to break the illusion!

    Re: the comment: "but are they right to treat the cogenitors as they do? On human terms, of course not, but as Captain Drennik points out, "We're not on your world." It's not a particularly satisfying answer, but it is 100 percent true . . .the real point here is that Trip interferes where he has no business interfering."

    No, in fact human rights ARE universal in scope, because according to Kant and other Enlightenment philosophers they properly apply to ALL rational beings, and beyond that to all sentient, intelligent beings who are individuals. The Cogenitor qualifies; thus her / its rights are inalienable, they cannot be taken away arbitrarily. I have to agree with Trip on this and disagree with T'Pol and Archer. He did the right thing by coming to the aid of a fellow sentient, intelligent being (human or not), trying to help her have autonomy of the will, liberty, freedom.

    To reduce morality as T'Pol does by calling it an "opinion" is quite wrong and really reflects poorly on Vulcans in general. Morality must have a universal foundation that applies to all, or else it is arbitrary, it becomes moral relativism, and that quickly leads to nihilism -- the belief that morality doesn't matter at all.

    For example, enlightened aliens could look at humans in the 19th century and say we had human slavery but it is none of their concern -- well, in fact it would be their duty to say something against this injustice if they knew about it, because it is wrong. Rights are universal, not to be withheld because of geography.

    "It'll be 100 years before it goes nova"
    - I was awaiting the OH SHI- KABOOM

    "It'll be nice to have a first contact where no one's thinking about charging weapons"
    - I was awaiting weapons fire

    I knew we were in for a good episode when both of those clichés were averted. Nice! How wonderful that they were friendly, too!
    (You know when a show about peaceful exploration has been going wrong for a long time when this is so refreshing)

    Trip's face when he found he couldn't directly mate with the blondes he picked up :P But hey, he gained noble intentions (if rather badly implemented, with the consequences that they had). And I was infinitely glad that the slight reminders I had of Riker in that episode with the non-gendered species weren't followed through with the same quality - there were some similarities but this was so much better.

    It's very easy to judge Trip based on already coming from a future series where non-interference is very much set in place and this kind of thing is a bit closer to common sense (though those days also of course had their substantial debates). For a moment I was honestly hoping/expecting for Archer to pull a Janeway and rip one of his collar pips off in an angry demotion, and let's be honest, for a first officer to be sneaking around and interfering like this knowing he's doing wrong he'd absolutely deserve it. His intentions were great, and he could've started some good debates/talks with these people to try and influence their culture, but instead his implementation was to blunder in and sneak around and act - frankly - like an idiot.

    But it's not so clear cut, now, is it? They haven't _had_ all these lessons and directives yet, and even Picard admitted that he didn't want a crew who would blindly follow orders and ignore their own morality. Then you get to the obvious question: is Archer really in the position to be throwing stones from the moral high ground, having not only the history of worse things behind him but also having refused asylum and thus the responsibility for his subordinate's effects on the cogenitor? Or indeed as Jammer says, he also has kind of failed as a leader to get this through to everyone. It's all debatable and there are many grey areas - that's what I love about it.

    I also rather feel sorry for Trip, that he's been left to deal with the full responsibility and conscience. It's certainly not something I'd deal with easily even if there hadn't been all the wrongdoing involved. Meaty stuff indeed.

    As an aside, the cogenitor learning so quickly felt plausible enough to me because of their captain being able to read and memorise so quickly, and that concept itself was introduced in a wonderfully natural way as part of cultural exchange between the captains. Far beats the exposition or "they just learn fast, ok?" technique.

    "Enterprise-specific episode of Trek" - this is what we needed more of. There's no point of having the prequel if it's just going to be treated as the same thing with slightly different terminology, but luckily episodes like this keep me watching.

    Excellent - can't argue with 4 stars at all. Biggest textwall comment I've made for quite some time says it all.

    Didn't let Archer die a whole race in Dear Doctor because he thought it unethical to interfere with other cultures and their "natural way of living"?
    And no he's disturbed over the death of one individual. His speech to Trip is beyond belief.

    More annoying is that there's no subtlety in the supposed message the writers tried to convey. These people on the Enterprise don't act out of their underbelly, they practically live there. I wonder what that training of theirs back on Earth consisted of.

    This was quite an episode, Jammer nailed it. I might go 3.8 stars but we only do 1/2 star units here. I was a little taken back by Trip's recklessness educating the "it" when he should know this is way out of bounds. In fact, they might meet races that are much, much worse to some of their peoples than we saw here. E.g. chattel slavery. I like the observation in an earlier comment about how this mirrored treatment of women though I'd add this treatment of women still occurs in some places and some people still want it to be the standard (almost all men of course). Anyway excellent episode, effects, and guest stars. It was great to see Commander Tomalak again; his easy manner with Archer really worked well. I didn't mind Reed and his forward alien though some of their dialog was a bit painful. The suicide was heavy and not very "lightweight" like most Enterprise stuff but it was realistic - actions have consequences that are sometimes tragic. Lastly, I really liked Arched chewing out Trip at the end; it's what I wanted to do the whole episode! I thought it might end in a demotion or at least a permanent mark on Trip's record but I guess I should be happy with a chew out. This scene so reminded me of Adama chewing out ... well, anybody! Adama gave these talks to Starbuck, Sharon, Lee, probably others. I particularly liked how Archer kept his back to Trip when he dismissed and Trip seemed taken about by that and the whole chew out. Excellent episode, very good tv sci-fi.

    "It'll be nice to have a first contact where no one's thinking about charging weapons"

    When Trip said that, I basically yelled at the screen: NO SHIT SHERLOCK.

    Same thing when Archer said he hadn't set a very good example to his crew about how to conduct affairs with other cultures.

    I constantly expected in this episode for the writers to fuck it up and end with a firefight. I was almost certain it would happen in the last ten minutes. When it didn't I was absolutely shocked. And very pleased. This is what Enterprise should have been. I honestly can't believe that B & B wrote this, given their love for stripping T'Pol and Hoshi and relying on unnecessary action. There's just no way B & B wrote this. I can't imagine them resolving a story like this without a firefight at the end.

    This episode is what a First Contact/Prime Directive episode should really be about. This is the reason the Prime Directive was invented. Not that bullshit immoral episode that I refuse to accept into continuity, "Dear Doctor." This is what a Star Trek prequel should be about: the knee-jerk reaction to help as a human versus the high-minded morality of non-interference. These are the sorts of issues that are worth exploring in a Star Trek prequel. Unfortunately most of Enterprise doesn't particularly care. But this is a gem in an otherwise horrible horrible season and show. A diamond in the rough.

    And yes, taken out of context, the actions of the characters are very much so out of character. That's because B & B couldn't possibly have written it. This script requires competent writers. But taken on its own simply as a Trek episode, it is very good. Ignore the rest of the idiocy in Enterprise. It's mediocre at best and immoral at worst.

    Addendum to my above:

    This kind of episode would be an average episode by TNG or DS9 standards. But it's ironic that when it's an Enterprise episode, we all get excited. Just goes to show how utterly bad this series is so far. Especially by Star Trek standards.

    CeeBee sez:

    "Didn't let Archer die a whole race in Dear Doctor because he thought it unethical to interfere with other cultures and their "natural way of living"?
    And no he's disturbed over the death of one individual. "

    In both scenarios he was on the side of noninterference, so it's consistent.

    I very good episode indeed; I would agree with most of what you've said Jammer.

    I also very much agree with Eric's comments above, particularly the points about Archer's decision to send the cogenitor back. As he says; "once the damage was done, with the cogenitor rethinking its existence and making such an explicit, clear, and legitimate request for asylum, denying the request is not the moral choice. It is only the political choice."

    So during the 'Archer chewing out Tucker' scene, there should have been a throwaway line about Archer having contacted Starfleet and them ordering him to release the cogenitor on politcal grounds. If they'd just rectified that issue I would rate this as a real Trek Classic.

    Anyway, as is, it's still a first-rate, thought-provoking episode.

    Note: I'm willing to give the writers the benefit of the doubt and assume that Archer was indeed expressing some genuine guilt when he said "You did exactly what I'd do? If that's true, I've done a pretty lousy job setting an example around here."

    @Jay
    When it comes to sticking to a principle you are right, of course. But my main point is again that it shows how convoluted Archer's ethics are.

    His implicit message to Tucker was: had you not interfered, we wouldn't have had a death on our hands. If the reason Archer is so upset over one death due to some decision, then why wasn't he disturbed about those millions he left dying back then due to his own decision?
    And we know how consistent his ethics are.

    Visiting a medieval world (Civilizations) he dispenses medication to cure a few people that didn't ask for help, obviously not making him feel bad. Result: many lives saved through interference.

    In Dear Doctor he withholds an advanced civilization medication that specifically asked him for help. He let them die without as much as shedding a tear. Result: millions of deaths through non-interference.

    In The Communicator he sends a civilization into a deadly war because these people shouldn't discover three advanced transistors and two futuristic condensors in a piece of equipment. Result: possibly millions of deaths through non-interference.

    And now again he refuses to interfere again, sending a sentient being into death. Remember: it was HIS decision to _stop_ interfering here, not Tucker's. If he had interfered and given it refuge it would not have commited suicide. Result: one death through non-interference and he's upset about that death because it's the result of interference.

    If you see time and again that non-interference leads to death and destruction, sometimes millions of people at a time, and interference leads to lives saved, you should reconsider your non-interference ethics. Archer couldn't be bothered. In his arrogance he even lectures other about these genocidal ethics.

    It has been said so often: Archer is written as a psychopath and it's totally unclear how future Star Trek ever came to embrace such a non-interference "prime directive" if it gives such a repeated and guaranteed high death toll. In my opinion viewers shouldn't be pointing out those gaping flaws of ethic and logic.

    Yes. Far better argumentation for PD delivers B5' episode "Believers" written by "our" Gerrold:
    www.astro.umd.edu/~avondale/Reviews/B5/s1-believers.html

    Maybe 8abylon 5 isn't Trek, but renamed Star Trek: The Birth of Federation or Star Tek: Babel 5:
    foolquest.com/star_trek_the_ship_of_fools/foolquest.htm
    with cosmetic changes (another names, another aliens' characterisation) it will makes Trek prequel far better then ENT.

    ps. Babylon 5 is maybe not Trek-ish in narrative structures, and not very Trek-ish in tone, but have TOS veterans (Fontana, Gerrold and Ellison) as writers and Majel's famous cameo.
    And... yes, I know that B5 plagiarised TOS "Journey to Babel" (partially it was Fontana's self-plagiarism), and DS9 later plagiarised B5, but I like it, as I like Trek and Star Wars "allusions" and cliches in Firefly/Serenity or Wormhole Aliens... err.. wormhole builders in FarScape. It looks as parallel timelines in one BIG universe (you know, TNG "Parallels") or side effects of (in)famous Temporal Cold War ;D.

    BTW. You can find very good arguments for Prime Directive in written Eastern SF fiction. I mean: Strugatskys' "Hard to be God" and Lem's "Eden".

    The reason this episode is stupid - A society advanced enough to invent a polymer with 200 naturally occurring elements and a shuttle that can fly into a star would easily be able to synthesize an enzyme in astroglide or other personal lube to make cogenitors unnecessary. Thus, the cogenitors could spend their lives pursuing life as they chose.

    @Christopher

    You say this in a world where fertility treatments are considered evil and ban worthy by a church that holds 1 billion members as its followers. I wouldn't be so sure of your assertion.

    This episode is good because it makes us think and if you take it out of context (about the characters and what happened before).

    Having friendly aliens was refreshing, the experience shown between the two captains was excellent (and A. Katsulas was such a great actor).
    There are more questions than answers and that's a good thing, it lets our imagination run.

    But like I said, there's something that doesn't ring true about two characters: Trip and Archer. Not everything is wrong, it's just insidious and is forced for the sake of the story, but it bothered me. Especially Archer's speech: it would have rung true from any other captain.

    So, Trip is right but the way he tried to uncover the potential of the cogenitor was wrong. I'd have liked a little more insight about why this race chose to treat sentient beings like objects, or pets. I'd have liked to know the true reason for Archer to not grant asylum: was it for political reasons ? To keep theses aliens as friends ? Because he thought the loss of the cogenitor would have severe repercussions on the society ? Or was it because he didn't recognize the cogenitor as a sentient being with the right to claim asylum ?

    What I mean is that was one of the points of the episode. It would have been nice to explore the dilemma further and let Archer acknowledge that he truly hasn't been a stellar example for the crew when it comes to non-interference. That would have made his shouting at Trip much more powerful and believable.

    I can't believe how many people agree with the outcome of this episode. It's scary. That it's okay to let other societies enslave people because it's their business. Totally uncharacteristic of Archer. Trip did the right thing, and the suicide was NOT his fault. Ending the show with Charlies death on his shoulders was wrong. If society suppresses people who would rather die than not be free than who is to blame? Society, not freedom. A society that is not outraged by this sort of situational morality is in danger of accepting it. I thought I would see more outrage here, but to my dismay a lot of people agree with the stupid story. AHHHH!

    "The reason this episode is stupid - A society advanced enough to invent a polymer with 200 naturally occurring elements and a shuttle that can fly into a star would easily be able to synthesize an enzyme in astroglide or other personal lube to make cogenitors unnecessary. Thus, the cogenitors could spend their lives pursuing life as they chose."

    They probably could, if they wanted to. But there's lots of reasons they might not want to. Maybe 'un-natural' reproduction is a revolting idea. Maybe the scarcity of cogenitors is long sanctified as a means of population control.

    "...to my dismay a lot of people agree with the stupid story."

    I *didn't* agree with the outcome (meaning Archer's position), but I thought it was a fantastic story nonetheless. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that sometimes our heroes do the wrong thing.

    I agree with Arachnea that there were more dimensions that could have been explored. This could have been a two-parter.

    Trip had the most to do but this was Archer's episode and an important one for him. Because he hasn't been the best captain or set the best example. He's been running around doing things by the seat of his pants--in fairness, partly because Starfleet hasn't figured out the rules yet--and his officers have followed suit. Bakula wrung every drop of drama out of his scenes in the final act with a wonderful performance that, finally, has me thinking that Jonathan Archer is a worthy ancestor of Kirk and Picard. Bravo to Bakula and the show in general, and the four stars are deserved.

    This episode had the potential to be one of Enterprise's very best episodes but was ruined by the morally bankrupt ending. Captain Archer's decision to return the cogenitor to the Vissians was the wrong decision plain and simple. He basically sent a sentient being back into slavery and the individual chose suicide over continued nonexistence as a slave with no name and no rights whatsover.

    Let's not sugarcoat this decision with ridiculous talk about the moralities of alien civilizations. There are no alien civilizations that we know of at this point in time. This is a work of fiction. The only moralities we can look to in this situation our human moralities. And by those standards Archer's decision to return the cogenitor is morally wrong.

    And please no more talk about the prime directive. As a 40 plus year fan of Star Trek I can say with certainty that the prime directive does not apply to warp capable civilizations. Captain Archer is within his rights to consider a request for asylum from the cogenitor as he himself points out to the Vissian Captain. His big mistake was not to grant asylum in this instance.

    Trip was wrong to interfere in Vissian affairs without getting the permission of the Captain or the First Officer. But he was not ultimately responsible for the death of the cogenitor. The Captain was responsible. It was his decision. The buck stopped with him. He made a command decision as Captain and he has to live with the consequences. To throw all the blame on Trip was cowardly and reflected very poorly on his leadership ability.

    It had to happen so that Trip could meet her (or it, I guess) and trigger the main plot point, but considering the regard the society gives the cogenitor, it's rather odd that they even brought the cogenitor aboard the Enterprise for dinner in the first place. Imean...if they don't even get to have names...

    ANd on that...the lack of a name seemed really absurd. For one, even pets have names, and more importantly, if cogenitors spend their lives being farmed out to couples, I'd think the department of the Visian government (or whatever entity) manages that task) would need a way to keep track of their various cogenitors, numbers at the very least.

    This episode had a good story to tell, but there were flaws.

    this episode is sick! it condones sex slavery. I cant believe star trek was allowed to continue after this kind of shit

    This episode disgusted me, frankly. I thought the cogenitor's suicide was the fault of many people, but Trip was not among them. Archer, despite his lamabasting Trip at the end, was most directly to blame for refusing the asylum request. Vissian society is also to blame for treating fellow sentients like chattels. Trip could have been more careful, but ultimately he was acting from a moral position whereas just about everyone else was concerned with expediency and not rocking the boat. I wanted to punch Archer during the last scene for having the gall to chew Trip out for something that was mostly HIS OWN damned fault.

    I have to throw my two cents in here because this is one of my favorite episodes of Enterprise. I agree that the ending is very depressing and that the Vissian's treatment of the cogenitors is morally wrong. But to me that it was makes this episode fantastic. I loved that this episode refused to take the easy way out and instead offered a cautionary tale about how difficult and dangerous first contact can be even when weapons aren't being fired.

    As for the Prime Directive, I have to disagree with the people above who say that it only applies to pre-warp civilizations. The Prime Directive covers that situation, but it also covers warp-capable civilizations that are not Federation members. The best example is the Bajorans. Sisko, Picard, and numerous other Starfleet officers state that they are bound by the Prime Directive not to interfere in the internal affairs on Bajor (in "Emissary" Picard even summarizes Sisko's mission as "You are to do everything, short of violating the Prime Directive, to make sure they are ready [to join the Federation]").

    In some ways, this episode reminds me of the DS9 episode "Accession," in which the Bajorans go back to a caste system which results in civil unrest and eventually one death. Sisko says that as long as they have a caste system, they will not be eligible for Federation membership because it violates some of the Federation's basic principles about personal freedom. However, he does not try to stop the Bajoran government from reinstating the caste system, and he doesn't stop the Bajorans from following the caste system on the station. Even though he disagrees with it, he respects their culture.

    In this episode, while Trip had good intentions, there really wasn't much that he could have done personally to help the cogenitors. The best case scenario was that the cogenitor Charles would have spent the rest of its life in exile among aliens, unable to return home. That's fine for Charles, but what about all of the other cogenitors? We know that in a few years, the Federation will be formed; perhaps when that happens, they could offer membership to the Vissians only if they gave the cogenitors equal rights and ensured they had access to education. The Prime Directive, as I understand it, prevents individual Starfleet captains and officers from interfering in alien civilizations (both pre-warp and warp-capable). However, the Federation as a whole is not bound by the same limitations, although they also tend to favor non-interference. To me, the point of this episode is that interference by a single officer or a single crew in an alien society is very dangerous.

    I do agree that the weakest part of this episode is Archer. I agreed with what he said, and I liked Bakula's performance, but I kept thinking about all of the times Archer did even worse things during first contact missions. Like that planet he visited in "The Communicator" -- his claim that he was a genetically-engineered Alliance spy probably led to a civil war.

    I agree that The death of the cogenitor is Archer's fault for inexplicably refusing to grant asylum. His throwing it all onto Trip - and the writers apparently expecting us to do so as well - is disgusting.

    So we are never to interfere because each culture has its own rules? Let's take that to its logical conclusion. The writers make this more palatable for us by showing "it" as a complacent, "happy" pet. What if cogenitors were kept in cages and the reproductive act was painful and fatal, or ended with a ritual mutilation such as female circumcision? Would it still be shrugged off as "well that's their culture" and non-interference be presented as the moral high ground?

    How bad does it have to get before we realize that there is a right and wrong, and that we must stand up for what's right?

    The comparison to the way women were treated in the past is apt, but the oppression of women has often been treated by men like B&B as somewhat regrettable, but not really THAT bad. There's a reason the cogenitor wasn't played by a male, folks.

    I agree with Jordy, and ironically this episode was directed by Geordi LaForge himself, LaVar Burton, who played Kunta Kinte in Roots. Like "Cogenitor", Roots was a story of a slave who wasn't allowed to have his own name. But in "Cogenitor", the slave is forced to have sex with thousands of people, and most people commenting here seem to think that's ok as long as "it's their culture". The best part of this episode is that the Cogenitor finally exercised her power - she denied her slavemasters what they needed from her by killing herself. In a free society, people would have to ASK a Cogenitor to participate in reproduction, and therefore Cogenitors would be important and valued people. It may be similar to women's rights issues in Muslim countries, but it's not much like women's issues in modern America. In our culture, men are the ones with no reproductive rights, and the government has taken over the role of men in giving women what they need and want in terms of a protector and provider. But even in the history of Christian countries, women weren't treated like Cogenitors, since they willingly sought reproduction and the marriage arrangement. The biggest difference is that Cogenitors have the power to hold their species hostage and deny reproduction until their rights are recognized, so they could win their rights and hold them by their own merits. In our culture it's completely different, since women's rights are gifts given to them by men, protected by men, and taken for granted by ungrateful women. A man can walk down the street without fear, because he knows he can protect himself. But the only reason women can walk down the street without fear is because men are constantly protecting them from other men, and most of our women are childlike in their complete ignorance of the luxuries afforded them by our safe society (which was built by men). Google "The Manipulated Man" by Esther Vilar.

    @Nathaniel,

    You ignored about 34 comments from other people supporting the enslavement of an entire gender. Your willfully stupid hypocrisy is showing.

    I was disgusted by Archer (and T'Pol) in this episode.

    Trip should have chewed that son of a bitch out. Or least said the S word (SLAVE), rather than just standing there and saying "it's not your fault capn" while Archer browbeat him.

    No, women's rights are not "gifts" given by men. Women have no obligation to be "grateful" for their rights. Men do have their reproductive rights, they are perfectly free to keep their pants on. Until relatively recently, women had little rights over who they married and little rights over how many children they had. It used to be legal for a man to force his wife to have sex.

    Trip didn't make the cogenitor do anything. The cogenitors were essentially slaves, sent where they were sent regardless of what they wanted. If this episode was about women being sent against their will to be impregnated, few people would say "it's OK, it's their culture." Since their are so few cogenitors, one would think that cogenitors should be in high demand, and thus enjoy a high status in culture. Instead, they are slaves. What this culture needs is a slave revolt - a Lysistrata Option. Withhold their services until the cogenitors can choose which couples they will partner with.

    When someone wishes to have a mate and have children, they have to persuade that person to join them. But wooing someone and getting them to agree is a lot of work. Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you could just force someone to have your children? It would be easier, yes, but unacceptable. The congenitors don't want to be forced, what makes that acceptable? The wrong here was not with Trip, the cogenitor was already unhappy. If the congenitor was happy with the situation, then Trip would have been in the wrong.

    It's a shame that the cogenitor committed suicide, and it really felt contrived. The cogenitor could simply have used passive resistance, refused to cooperate until demands were met.

    Off topic, but I cringe every time Archer says "Tell Chef that blah blah blah". The ship's cook surely has a name, it's absurd and impolite not to use it.

    I've been watching the series in relatively rapid succession on Netflix. This episode seemed out of place to me. The writers obviously wanted to try something new and avoid the neatly packaged ending. They wanted to disturb the viewer and force them to think. But I'm left wondering what it was they were trying to say, and have to agree with those who were turned off by the ending.

    For me, the story was mostly about the congenitor and "her" possibilities -- to live, to love, to learn, to feel joy, and to be useful for society in some capacity beyond just making babies. The tragedy of her slavery was amplified by the fact that her species can learn so quickly. Upon first seeing her, Trip immediately noticed something was wrong, that her energy was sad and heavy, and it stirred his curiosity and his conscience. For whatever reason, Trip was the only character who expressed any concern about her lack of freedom.

    It appears that the writers were trying to convey how societal conventions and norms can so readily influence how we think and stifle our conscience and humanity -- how someone who swims against this stream (in this case, Trip) is often silenced and shamed.

    However, I can't be sure that's what they were trying to say. The ending seemed odd to me, and left a bad taste in my mouth about Archer, T'Pol, Flox, etc., The execution of the story also seemed odd.

    Overall, I have really enjoyed this series, but this episode fell short. A beautiful theme with tremendous potential, but the execution fell short.

    Let's take this episode seriously, shall we?

    YOU are the captain of a starship. The fastest your planet has ever built. Built specifically to explore space, of which your species still knows precious little.

    YOU then meet a starship belonging to another species. One that appears to be friendly. One which has technology considerably superior to that of your own.

    YOU seem to get along with the alien captain. He even invites you to participate in a short trip into the corona of a star, displaying said superior technology. Similarly, your crew seems to get along with the alien crew.

    Could it be that this encounter could lead to further encounters between your two species? Could YOU actually be paving the way to lasting, friendly relations between your two spacefaring species?

    Then one of your crewmembers discovers something about the aliens. For some reason, they kill some of their babies immediately after birth. Apparently, this species has three genders, not two. But the third has become redundant. So all babies of the third gender are killed immediately after birth.

    Will YOU tell them it's wrong? Will YOU not only risk the friendly relations with this crew, but potentially risk antagonizing this technologically superior species by telling them how YOU think they should behave? Will YOU decide Earth's foreign policy towards other worlds? Is that YOUR responsibility?

    If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, you are not only grossly incompetent, but should be court martialled the minute you set your foot back on Earth.

    It is NOT YOUR responsibility as a starship captain during a First Contact to tell other species how to behave themselves and run their societies and worlds. It is NOT YOUR responsibility as a starship captain to singlehandedly run Earth's foreign policy.

    Your only duty, in a fortuitous First Contact such as this one, is to establish as smooth and friendly relations with the alien species as possible, and later report back to your superiors as accurately as possible.

    Your superiors will then decide whether Earth should attempt to establish formal diplomatic relations with said species or not, and in which manner, and under what conditions such diplomatic relations should be pursued.

    It's as simple as that.

    When humanity eventually meets other species out there, we are most certainly going to be faced with many different fashions of strange and, certainly also in a few cases, questionable (by our standards) behaviours. We might, for example, meet some sort of 'Space Chinese', with full spacefaring capabilities but few political or individual rights at home. And we might meet far, far worse.

    When humanity eventually meets other species out there, we are going to, at least initially, have to accept all sorts of alien behaviour just to make some friends out there.

    That is, quite simply, what this quite remarkable episode is telling us. Whether or not Archer should have granted the alien asylum or not isn't even open to debate. And if Trip had been anywhere else but in deep space, he would have been dismissed, and rightly so, for doing what he did.

    We humans share a certain responsibility for one another on this planet. It's our planet. We're all humans.

    We have no responsibility whatsoever for an alien or aliens belonging to a species we barely know or understand at all during a First Contact. How anyone can condone Trip's behaviour or criticize Archer's is astonishing, and only shows that some people are discussing this episode for what is, a TV episode, and not for what it pretends to be, a story about First Contact in space.

    Similarly, those people are discussing this for what they think it is about, notably some sort of slavery - completely oblivious to the fact that from the perspective of an alien species, things might look very different altoghether. That's being extremely ethnocentric, folks. If you think this is about slavery, or any other form of exploitation, we have missed the point. This is about alienness, and our right to interfere. What is right, and what is wrong, is all in the eye of the beholder. We on Earth have agreed to certain standards. Is is really that hard to imagine the existence of truly different perspectives? Hopefully, you would all be a little more sensible in an actual First Contact situation...

    This episode shows us what being alien is all about: that other and utterly alien perspectives may exist. And in many cases, we'll just have to accept them in order to establish good relations - and certainly during a fortuitous First Contact like this one. Great episode.

    This episode wants us to believe Trip's behavior was unethical, but it is T'Pol's condemnation of Trip's interest in the cogenitor, Phlox's indifference to its status, and Archer's apparent ignorance of the Vissian's treatment of its cogenitors that is truly immoral. It's not a question of human rights versus alien values, but of the kinds of values that would deny basic freedoms and liberties to any sentient being that desires it.

    One may speak of non-interference and of how something like the Prime Directive might have influenced these character's choices, but I don't think taking an interest in and discussing matters of personal rights with those you are interacting with would be consiered a form of interference under the Prime Directive. It's one thing not to impose your values upon other cultures, but quite another to speak as if the ethical treatment of sentient beings is simply a matter of cultural relativism. Even if Trip was wrong to go about things the way he did, for Starfleet to condone continuing ties between themselves and aliens whose society condones slavery would itself be a kind of interference far less ethical than anything Trip did in this episode.

    I think this was my favorite episode so far. A good plot, and Trip-centered (my favorite character).

    I can't believe so many reviews of this episode are *positive*. This episode is the absolute nadir of Star Trek as far as I've seen, and is the proof why the Prime Directive is either the absolute worst idea in Star Trek, or is the most viciously abused one.

    Let's put the events of this episode in perspective, and call everything by its proper name. So we have a person that is treated like an animal, and is sexually abused. This dehumanized sex slave meets another person that attempts to help her. Her new friend teaches her to read, write, shows her movies. Basically, he's the first person ever to treat her like a sentient being she is. But when her owners realize their "property" was taught reading and other things she ought to know as a basic sentient right, they get pissed and punish their sex slave. Then the sex slave asks her new friend's captain for asylum. Instead of treating her like a person, the captain treats her like property and sends the victim back to the abusers, against the victim's wish. When the victim commits suicide to escape further abuse, the MAN WHO TRIED TO HELP HER gets blamed for the death - not the people who abused her, or the captain who helped them in it.

    This is a person who's not only sexually abused, she's also literally treated like an animal. I don't care about your vaunted Prime Directive, this stuff is WRONG. There is no possible moral justification for doing what the aliens are doing, or for what the captain has done. And "it's not our business" is MOST DEFINITELY NOT a justification for this despicable act. This is worse than the "eugenics is actually kinda good" episode from the previous season.

    This has completely ruined the character of Archer, and possibly the entire show, for me. I'm seriously considering just never watching it again if something as bad as this has passed the basic conceptual stage. 0/10

    @Verroak (and half the other commenters here):
    Let’s settle this once and for all, shall we?

    You have to accept the premise of this episode: Archer has *just* met an alien species that is *clearly* technologically superior.

    Let me put it in a way that you perhaps can understand:

    Imagine Archer is flying around in the Enterprise, and suddenly meets Darth Vader, aboard his huge imperial super star destroyer from ”The Empire Strikes Back”. And Vader behaves politely, and says, ’Come along, captain, I’ll show you the Death Star we’re building’. And off they go, and Archer can only be awed by the colossal power of the Imperial Fleet. But once they’re aboard the Death Star, the imperial admiral gets mad at someone for no apparent reason and sentences him to death. But the poor victim then turns to Archer and asks him for asylum. And the admiral says that there can be no such thing: his officer is to stand trial and be executed for no good reason. What would you want Archer to do? Would you want him to tell Vader that his admiral can go screw himself, and that he isn’t turning the officer over to them?

    Or, if you want to keep it in the Star Trek universe, imagine that Archer and his little Enterprise meet the Voth from VOY and their huge city ship. Imagine a similar scenario ― say a scientist accused of heresy against Doctrine. Would you want Archer to tell the Ministry of Elders that they can screw their Doctrine, that he isn’t turning their scientist over to them?

    That’s what’s at stake here. We have no idea who these people are, only that they are more advanced than we are. Archer cannot risk offending, provoking, or antagonizing a technologically superior species. The message of the episode is more subtle than my examples, but still clear, simple, cruel, and true: we need friends out there. Not enemies.

    Guys and Ladies:

    These aliens are not human and do not need to be placed on a pedestal of human values.

    I might be in the minority on this, but I felt Trip's actions were inappropriate.

    In Star Trek, if a culture wants to have honorable martial battles to the death, then we are all for it. However, when a culture has a third gender and they mistreat "it" as a matter of custom, we throw a tantrum.

    The Prime Directive was rightfully developed for Star Trek's universe and it is probably why I enjoy the shows. Ethically, it is the right thing to do, if you do not want to interfere in another race's natural development.

    On TV shows like Babylon 5, which I love as well for exploring what Trek is afraid to including opening up same sex relationships among humans :P , there is no prime directive and lesser developed species are in constant conflict over values and cultural beliefs.

    In this episode Enterprise did something right in context to the Star Trek universe, we learn why the Prime Directive is not only useful, but why we can't judge another alien race by our standards.

    Too many reviewers here place too much a premium on human values, but Star Trek has always been about exploring "New worlds" and "new civilizations" to "bodly go where no one has gone before".

    If you argue this as a moral judgment against slavery, then let's reduce the issue from there. Slavery is only a vice in human value system after the 18-19th century Judeo-Christianization of the world. Without Judeo-Christian values, most cultures did not have an issue on slavery; labor or sexual to begin with.

    I am not defending slavery or in sexual repression, but who are we to judge any other cultures value on what is morally right or wrong, if they don't share our system of beliefs or ideologies.

    -----------------------

    This is a great episode, one that is not bound by human values and one that strives to prove itself worthy of Trekkian ideals.

    9.5/10

    Just chiming in to agree with Verroak - I couldn't have put it better myself. I saw this episode and was so disgusted with Archer, T'Pol, and the writers that I never watched another episode. All of this moral relativism is hideous.

    'Who are we to judge' is wilful moral complacency in the face of evil.

    'We need friends out there' is nothing but ghastly cowardice that enables others to get away with the most wicked crimes. Evil flourishes where no-one dares, or cares, enough to stand against it.

    Been going through Enterprise and have to say that this was probably one of the better episodes in the series at least up to season 2. I disagree that the episode touted 'moral relativism' 'in the face of evil' or something. The episode was completely neutral--it provided enough important details to allow the viewer to make up your own mind about things. If it's bothersome, that's only because it strikes close to home as good sci fi often does.

    The cogenitor is -as much a part of that 'culture' as anyone else-. We are invited to sympathize with the cogenitor and take its/her side. The episode purposefully included the detail of the cogenitor's suicide because clearly the cogenitor couldn't bear to go on living. The people who are using the cogenitor tell us to suspend judgment. Who of the above do you side with?

    There were a lot of parallels that could be drawn here in terms of complacency with slavery and other things. It was incredibly well done.

    The final point however was that meddling in foreign cultures nearly always makes things worse. Ignorant heroes have no business rushing in when they don't understand what the consequences of their actions will be. It shouldn't take too much searching to find historical examples on this planet. And Archer was clearly conflicted by the end, after all he granted the cogenitor asylum.

    Wish there were more episodes with this level of nuance. This is such a step up from some of the terrible 'ethical' episodes of TNG. Ethics isn't a picnic, it's messy, it hurts, and heroics won't always save the day. Four sparkleys out of four.

    @Verroak, I Agree

    @Andy's Friend,
    You are totally missing the point.

    It's not about what's at stake.
    That's a political question.

    The question is a moral one.

    "Human" rights are universal and should really be called "Rights of Sentient Beings".

    It is universally wrong for one sentient being to enslave another sentient being.

    Hence Archers decision to deny the cogenitor's request for asylum is morally wrong.

    For him to do it on political grounds is another question. But do we really want to be friends with a race that enslaves, objectifies and de-"human"-izes an entire gender?

    This just makes the ending so utterly disgusting and illogical.
    That Archer sits on a moral high horse and places the responsibility solely on Trip when it's his own decision that caused "it's" death.

    @Andy’s Friend's Enemy ― a.k.a. my best fiend ;)

    Thank you very much for your reply ― and thanks for referring me in your name, I am honoured! :D :D Well, this is what I have to say:

    Although I understand what you’re saying, I must stress that this is only a moral question on the surface. The true message is about cultural diversity, and accepting that which is different (I won't use the word tolerance, because I could write a whole treatise on that specific word alone).

    Morality is a philosophical concept. Specific morality is the child of a particular culture and a particular age. Our morals in the West today are not the same as morals in India, or China, or among the Amazon Indians. Our morals in the West today are not even what they were thirty years ago, much less three hundred. Who knows what they will be three hundred years from now? Or three thousand?

    As such, this episode is clever writing because it speaks to a Western audience with our present moral beliefs, and provokes reactions based on those Western beliefs. If this episode were shown to a Chinese audience, for example, the vast majority would wholly agree with Archer, and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Why? Because Chinese culture is one of diversity, much unlike what is perhaps generally thought. As long as you obey the Emperor ― or nowadays, the regime ―, the specifics are not important. Hong-Kong and Macao are prime examples of this: most people were expecting China not to respect the agreements with the UK and Portugal, but China has, in fact, respected the two-system models agreed upon, and kept Hong-Kong and Macao as different societies than neighbouring China. In China, there is no paradox in this at all. What better example can be given of how the mentality you claim to be, quite literally, universal, isn’t even shared by all societies on Earth today?

    *****************

    There is also no such thing as “human rights”. That concept, too, is the child of a particular culture and a particular age. Read the above paragraphs: the same applies. Even in the West, many Christians will tell you that the concept of “human rights” goes against Christian doctrine: “human rights” are given by man; but only that which is given by God can hold universal value.

    If you accept this view, morals turns into a religious question. And who is to say which religion’s morality is more equal than others?

    If you deny morality as a religious question ― i.e., if you deny God or the gods ―, all you have left is philosophy. You may believe that our Western set of morals, if such a thing can be said to exist, is the pinnacle of morality. You may even believe that nothing truly new has been written in Western philosophy since Plato and Aristotle, and that such longevity proves that morality as we understand it in the West is universal and eternal. I would almost agree with the first part of that sentence; but certainly not with the second.

    *****************

    For the record: personally, my dear Enemy, I am fond of the morals you defend. But then again, I am also a Westerner, and a child of our day and age.

    However, unlike you it would seem, I am perfectly capable of imagining societies that abide by very different moral standards than ours. And I am especially willing to accept the existence of strange, alien, extra-terrestrial civilizations with wholly outlandish ethical and moral systems.

    There is a fantastic poem by a very atheistic poet, who in one of his major personae is close to reading as a Zen master, which sums it up nicely:

    “Accept the universe
    As the gods gave it to you.
    If the gods wanted to give you something else
    They would have done it.

    If there are other matters and other worlds
    There are.”

    (Fernando Pessoa [as the Alberto Caeiro heteronym], 1917)

    This huge little poem really says it all. But try also reading the philosophical treatise that is “Star Maker”, which deals with these matters in a fundamental way:

    “Star Maker is a science fiction novel by Olaf Stapledon, published in 1937. The book describes a history of life in the universe, dwarfing in scale Stapledon's previous book, Last and First Men (1930), a history of the human species over two billion years. Star Maker tackles philosophical themes such as the essence of life, of birth, decay and death, and the relationship between creation and creator. A pervading theme is that of progressive unity within and between different civilizations. Some of the elements and themes briefly discussed prefigure later fiction concerning genetic engineering and alien life forms. Arthur C. Clarke considered Star Maker to be one of the finest works of science fiction ever written.” [Wikipedia]

    In a few hundred pages, Stapledon merely elaborates on a colossal scale on what Pessoa wrote in the six lines above: that the issue we are discussing here is not that of political or even moral questions, and much less of moral relativism ― is it one of diversity on a cosmic scale.

    I don’t have the imagination to think of the exact manifestations of such “infinite diversity”, to quote Star Trek, much less to describe it; nor does Stapledon, for that matter, nor does he really try to. Pessoa wisely reduced the matter to six lines! But I am capable of imagining the possibility of that existence ― much like in that other huge novel that is "Solaris" ―, and I understand how the matter we are discussing here is absolutely trivial and absurd ― i.e., meaningless ― from a moral point of view, if you accept the premise of "Star Trek: Enterprise". If there are other matters and other worlds, there are.

    *****************

    What is not trivial, however, if you accept the basic premise of ENT, is that Archer has in no way carte blanche to conduct Earth’s foreign policy. He is not an accredited ambassador to this specific civilization; he has no mission objective regarding other cultures in space other than to learn about them, and make friends out there. Implicit in that mission objective is that you do not antagonize alien civilizations. Especially ones that are technologically more advanced than we are. How anyone in their right mind would dispute this is beyond me.

    I see that you realize this: “Hence Archer’s decision to deny the cogenitor's request for asylum is morally wrong. For him to do it on political grounds is another question.”

    But the matter is, that it is only morally wrong from his perspective. And Archer realizes this. So in the end, we're back where we started: it is not up to Earth to tell the rest of the universe how to behave.

    But as Q would put it, some of us puny, insignificant creatures are so arrogant, or so naïve, that we think that it is our place, and that we have that right...

    As I said, this is all very clever writing. Because the writers know their prime audience: early 21st century Westerners. And they know that many of them will feel, and react the way you, my dear Enemy, do. So we end up having nice little debates likes this one, more than ten years after the original television episode aired. Which is no small achievement for a television episode, or a television series on the whole. Live long and prosper, dear Enemy :)

    If moral is completely arbitrary (which is the same as to say there is no such thing), the only thing we can truly rely on is our own view on morality. And in that case Archer still acts immorally because he's acting against his own morality. Also if it is arbitrary, he has just as mush right to interfere (grant asylum) as they have to treat a an entire gender as cattle.

    To say that it is not his place to interfere when there is no such thing as morality is a contradiction.

    He could simply chose to grant asylum because he recognizes, as a sentient being, that that the cogenitor is unhappy with the situation.

    The problem with the writing is that they destroy the integrity of Archer when he gives the speech to Trip.

    A few episodes later (Rajiin) he frees, what he believes to be, a sex slave and then gives a speech that humans don't believe that one sentient being can own another.

    This is in complete contradiction.

    If he had simply stated that he would not grant asylum because of earths foreign policy or because of his own decision (based on fear of consequences?) not to interfere it would have made more sense.
    But now we have to episodes almost next to each other where his moral views are in complete opposition.

    -------------------------------

    I would like to argue that the human race still hasn't truly achieved sentience, and that any fully sentient/"enlightened" being would recognize that since they them self would not wish to be enslaved, they would chose not to enslave other sentient beings.

    Hence "Rights of Sentient Beings".

    But I think you are right. Everything is arbitrary, and as humans we have no way of appreciating just how alien conscience can be.

    I am now a nihilist...

    I got the impression that the Vissians wouldn't give Charles up without a fight. In a case of "you give 'it' back or we blow you up," Archer would have no choice but to give Charles up. But if the day ever came when the Vissians wanted to join the Federation, they'd have to change their ways, wouldn't they? There's a limit to what a lone captain can do vs. a Federation.

    Oh, and for those who keep referring to the "Dear Doctor" episode, remember it was the *Doctor* who made the compelling argument of the show... which was that choosing to help one species over another in the case of the Valakians/Menks would be the equivalent of alien visitors to Earth choosing Homo neanderthalensis over Homo sapiens under similar circumstances.

    This episode is a travesty. Humans have not yet met aliens. But self-aware sentients should have a value beyond that of what a majority decides to assign to them.

    The show's message is morally reprehensible, and condones virtual slavery in the name of moral relativism.

    Starfleet should be ashamed. Archer, relieved of command. And personally, I'm disgusted with the author of this episode.

    It could have been decent if the cogenitor was not fully sentient. It could have been decent if Archer granted asylum but was forced, at gunpoint, to give the cogenitor back despite his ruling. It could have been decent if Archer granted asylum at the expense of the aliens rejecting all future relations.

    As it is, the episode teaches evil.

    While I can appreciate the idea that we may not understand alien races enough to judge them, that falls by the wayside by how "human" these people behave. Any aliens that can appreciate MacBeth and Hamlet aren't alien enough to justify Archer & Co. turning a blind eye to what is essentially sexual slavery. I really wanted to slap Archer for accusing Trip of being responsible for the cogenitor's death. Clearly his own decision to deny her asylum, out of a selfish desire to have friends in space, led to her suicide. This is the worst portrayal of Archer so far in the series. I couldn't have cared less that the couple wasn't going to get to have their baby at that moment (aw, too bad so sad), but Archer seemed to think that was something to scream at Trip about.

    I wish the cogenitors would get together and demand not only their rights, but to be treated as the rare resource they really are. They should be reviewing applicants and making the decisions!

    Jammer:

    "There's another question here, one that I'm struggling with. How could the cogenitors in Vissian society really not know what they're missing? If they have the same intellectual potential as the rest of the Vissians, how is it they haven't realized this potential before, even in small numbers? Surely what Trip unleashes here has previously happened internal to their society with their own cogenitor sympathizers. How couldn't it? And logically, a subjugated subset of a population with this sort of intelligence would know they are being subjugated and would in some way revolt, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The Vissian cogenitors don't seem to be aware of their subjugation, and the Vissian males and females don't seem to be aware that what they are doing is subjugation. It's simply an internal cultural fact, one that perhaps is impossible to understand in human terms. (Are we a product of only what we're permitted to experience? If so, Vissian cogenitors apparently are not permitted to experience much of anything, short of brainwashing and built-in repression.) But given how "Cogenitor" plays out — with the cogentior's eyes being opened and her desire to keep them open — this accepted belief by all the Vissians seems impossible. Not that this hurts the story; it simply makes me even more curious to explore the story points."

    Great point. I think this IS the story here.

    So many get into trouble by viewing the cogenitor's "situation" through human eyes with human rights as their justification for praising Trip's actions and sticking a knife in Archer's back for returning "it".

    From what we've witnessed this is the assumption I've come to with regard to how "it" is treated within the Vissian society.

    The one cogenitor we know, learned to read etc and obviously couldn't handle the knowledge/status within their society. We do learn that cogenitors make up only about 3 percent of their population so protecting them would seem to be mandatory for their species survival. Could it be that one day in their history, the cogenitors were so powerful that the "masses" had to rally to overtake them to survive? Could it be that the cogenitors aren't emotionally stable enough to handle knowledge and freedom and the way "it" is treated is mandatory for their survival? I tend to believe the latter because of the suicide and how open the Vissian's were to the Enterprise crew. If this advanced civilization wanted to hide any knowledge of the treatment of the cogenitors it would have been very easy.

    I just wish we could have had one more scene on the Vissian's vessel that could have shed some light on this.

    What makes this episode so good, is that it could have been a great TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY episode as well.

    Love Archer’s lambasting of Trip. He deserved it for sure and Archer didn’t let him off the hook.

    This episode took us where 'Dear Doctor' should have. Archer should have helped the Valakian’s and there should have been grave consequences as a result. This is a true “Prime Directive” episode.

    Hats off to another wonderful SCI-FI performance by Andreas Katsulas. He was a truly gifted actor.

    Easy 4 stars for me. Tremendous trek here.

    Another horrible piece hailing horrible principle of non-interference. It is Their Way Of Life, so it should be out of ethical scope at all. Great.

    I can only add what rich people should probably stop paying taxes. Their money interferes with natural way of poor people's life after all, and, according to the ENT logic it would be better to let them rot in their poverty.

    It was hard to see the point of teaching the Cogenitor English. She could

    It's surprising to see how many people justify slavery, rape, and severe prejudice.

    If she didn't have the same rights as me, then neither do any of you. If you deserve none of these rights and you squander them on your own selfish desires, then I consider you the worst kind of scum.

    America prevented teaching slaves and that's how we kept them in line. they didn't know they could do anything. they didn't know another world laid over the horizon. Dying birds with broken wings. If they not even to dream, then there is no hope.

    In just two days, it was as if she had touched the face of god, and it was all swept away a in the span of a few breaths. My familiarity makes me glad she escaped that wretched life.

    Archer was just wrong. The other captain was clearly understanding enough to allow them to leave with her and not hold a grudge.

    Logan,

    #1. It's not "she". "It" is more appropriate.
    #2. The "rights" you refer too are "human rights". They don't apply here. This is why the need for a Prime Directive is so important.
    #3. Captain Drennik gave Archer time to make an unemotional informed decision. His actions can't be confused with being passive in this situation.

    "DRENNIK: We're in no rush to leave. Take your time. Consider what we've said."

    T'Pol even thinks Archer makes the right choice here:

    "T'POL: You shouldn't have misgivings. You've made the right choice."

    Not an attempt to make your experience insignificant BTW.

    Another subtle and complex Enterprise episode is derided by the overzealous and self-righteous commentary community.

    The episode acknowledges that Trip's motivations and actions were quite noble and does not condemn him for acting with his conscience. But, it also realises that sometimes, unfortunately, the broader political ramifications supersede individual rights. More specifically, if the Vissians were members of the Federation, they could not subjugate their Cogenitor sex the way the do, any more than the Klingons would be able to ban women from serving on the High Council. But of course, the Federation doesn't even exist in this time frame. So, as a prequel series, this is the perfect episode to demonstrate, via tragedy, why the Federation is a good thing and *should* come into existence. That's the point of the series, isn't it?

    The way Vissians treat their Cogenitors *makes sense* given their biology, even if it's not justified ethically. It often takes an outsider's perspective to instigate cultural change. What would have made the episode stronger would be for the Vissians to have been replaced by a more familiar species from the other series, one of the one-off aliens from TNG we never really get to know, but are in the Federation, so we would know that, eventually, their cultural practices were reformed.

    "T'Pol even thinks Archer makes the right choice here:

    'T'POL: You shouldn't have misgivings. You've made the right choice.'"

    Except, as a feeling human being, he of course should have misgivings. He still made the logical [correct] choice, but he ought to feel miserable about it, because that's the price of command.

    "What would have made the episode stronger would be for the Vissians to have been replaced by a more familiar species from the other series, one of the one-off aliens from TNG we never really get to know, but are in the Federation, so we would know that, eventually, their cultural practices were reformed. "

    I would vote for the Bolians. That could have been cool.

    Elliot,

    "The episode acknowledges that Trip's motivations and actions were quite noble and does not condemn him for acting with his conscience. But, it also realises that sometimes, unfortunately, the broader political ramifications supersede individual rights. More specifically, if the Vissians were members of the Federation, they could not subjugate their Cogenitor sex the way the do, any more than the Klingons would be able to ban women from serving on the High Council."

    I just don't think we know enough about the Vissians, their biology etc to assume any of this.

    @Yanks :

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that--I don't even mention the Vissians' biology in the text you quoted. Can you be more specific?

    Congenitors are required for reproduction. All we know is they provide it, we don't even really know if the act is "sex" as we know it. So when someone mentions "sex", I always trickle to biology. Especially when someone bring up the Federation as somehow this sexual repression would be corrected "if" .... like I said, we don't know enough about the Vissian's. It could easily be determined that the Vissian's treatment of the cogenitors is acceptable and factually mandatory.

    I believe all we know is this:

    "PHLOX: Multi-gendered techniques aren't always the same, but in this case I imagine the cogenitor provides an enzyme which facilitates conception."

    ..and that's just Phlox speculating.

    Also you state that the episode does not condemn Trip. I think it does. Archer put Trip in a place he's never been put before. That can only be seen as condemning what he did I think.

    @Yanks - "It could easily be determined that the Vissian's treatment of the cogenitors is acceptable and factually mandatory."

    I'm not sure I can agree with that any more than it was factually mandatory to have slaves to keep the plantations running.

    I don't think Elliott meant that the Federation would fix their reproductive "issues", I think Elliott meant the Federation would fix their human rights issues.

    Sperm is necessary to procreate, but it's not acceptable for the government to assign mine to anyone. And then not teach me to read so I don't know I'm getting a crappy deal.

    I think Elliott is right here, this species would never be accepted to the Federation. I don't think Archer is wrong though.

    Robert,

    Again, you make assumptions based on "human" values. Exactly what we need a prime directive to protect ourselves from.

    What did Picard say?

    "You see, the Prime Directive has many different functions, not the least of which is to protect us. To prevent us from allowing our emotions to overwhelm our judgment."

    We don't know what (or how) the cogenitor participates in the reproductive process, hell - we don't even know its lifespan. The only real thing we can draw from this is that whatever they provide can't be synthesized.

    We can just as easily surmise by looking at the facts that are presented to us in this episode that the "treatment" of the congenotors is mandatory for the survival of the Vissians. Look what happened to the one that was taught to read! "it" killed itself!! This very well could be the mental state of all the cogenitors. 3% is not a big percentage.

    The Vissians are not cavemen. They are 100's of years ahead of humanity. Why does everyone just jump to the "sex slave" / equal rights side? Because it's the "human" thing to do.

    Could that be true? Sure, but we can't judge here because we don't know what we don't know.

    This is not an equal rights episode, it's Enterprise's best "prime directive" episode.

    I'm not disagreeing with you. But the Prime Directive does not apply to Federation worlds. In the Federation a sentient being gets free will. It's really that simple.

    That said, if this species never joins the Federation then we wouldn't interfere with them. But I still feel pretty justified in saying we would not let them in unless circumstances are very different than the assumptions this episode encourages you to draw.

    I'm not saying sex slave. I was actually talking about sperm banks. In the Federations individuals have self determination, no matter how badly other individuals need or don't need them.

    And last... I actually do think it's a great prime directive episode for the same reasons you do. I just also agree with Elliott that this race would never be allowed in the Federation without some serious social reform.

    Robert,

    You are saying you wouldn't allow them into the Federation based on assumptions gleamed from this episode.

    That doesn't make any sense. You can't say they would have to change when you don't know all the facts. It is very plausible that "it" can't handle self determination.

    Superb. Aside from the "In the Mirror Darkly" two-parter (which was fun in a goofy way), this is the only episode of Enterprise that has genuinely impressed me. I'm sure part of the problem is that I'm watching the show completely out-of-order, but nonetheless the hit-to-miss ratio so far has been pretty abysmal. But "Cogenitor" is the only Enterprise episode I've seen so far that I'd rank as a Trek classic for all of the reasons Jamahl describes here. I didn't even mind the 'Reed hooks up with an alien' subplot. I wish more Enterprise episodes explored ideas like this - deep ideas that have serious consequences and complex moral implications - instead of focusing on routine action.

    @Elliott, and Robert, and Yanks, and everyone else:

    The narrow-mindedness of commenters here never ceases to amaze me. And people here call themselves fans of sci-fi?

    Most of you are not asking the right questions. In this case, the only real question here is:

    What would human society be like if only 3% of all women (or men, for that matter) were fertile ― and it always had been so?

    Does anyone here have the least doubt that *every* human culture on Earth would have developed religious, philosophical, and ethical systems that would justify some sort of similar tratment of the fertile 3%?

    Does anyone have the least doubt that those fertile few would be treated as some sort of breeding machines? In a cage of gold, perhaps, pampered beyond belief by the societies they kept alive, but breeding machines nonetheless? Does anyone have any doubt whatsoever that *every* human civilization in History would have taken their personal freedom from them, and that they themselves would consider this perfectly logical today?

    Elliott’s ― and so many others’ ― perception that the Vissians “subjugate their Cogenitor sex” is absurd. It is so anthropomorphizing and ethnocentrical it hurts.

    This is sci-fi, people. It doesn’t necessarily have to be allegory of human society every week. It could also be the occasional exploration of truly different, exotic species, and their provocative societies, and philosophical and ethical systems.

    On a televison budget, yes; hence all the humanoid species, etc. But please, try to be a little more abstract in your thinking, most of you.

    I’m with you on this one, Yanks.


    PS. Just think, in human history, how certain European powers in certain periods in history quite simply sentenced criminal women to exile to their overseas colonies, to help populate them -- where men convicted for the exact same offences offences would be jailed, or fined, or sent to the galleys, or a variety of other sentences.

    Think of how white women were sometimes prohibited to leave the European overseas colonies for precisely the same reason: populating them, i.e., birth and population control.

    Think also how all over Europe, depending on many factors and time periods, women and men would be sent to convents as nuns and monks in order to regulate birth rates.

    Throughout human history, we humans have done precisely the same thing as the Vissians here: taken personal freedom away from people for pure birth control reasons -- and their further implications.

    We in the Western world have moved away from that in the last two hundred years. But the question, I repeat, is: what if only 3% of women, or men, were and had ever been fertile? How would Humanity have developed then?

    Think big thoughts, people. Live long and prosper.

    @Robert:

    "Sperm is necessary to procreate, but it's not acceptable for the government to assign mine to anyone. And then not teach me to read so I don't know I'm getting a crappy deal."

    If humanity had developed differently, and you were one of only 3% of men who produced sperm, you would be regularly milked for sperm, Government would assign it to whoever met the specified criteria (or paid the most, or whatever), and like everyone else, you would find it right and proper.

    You only think the way you do because you grew up in the world you grew up in.

    Andy's friend,

    A friend of mine had the same thought about the "3%". One would think they would rule the planet! I might agree had our "it" had not committed suicide. My thought is based on that fact. We just can't make the assumption they are mentally "stable". It could very well be that they are subjugated to breeding machines too. But we really don't know enough about the Vissians to make that conclusion.

    @Andy's Friend & Yanks, et al. :

    I explicitly said that the Vissians' treatment of the cogenitors could very well make sense given their biology. After all, the fact that women used to (and still do in some places) die in childbirth is a predictable if specious reason to treat them as 2nd-class people--their lives seem to end once they've fulfilled their reproductive purpose. The same can be said of gays--their seeming inability to contribute to the gene pool makes them less valuable, doesn't it? The point is, while one can make the argument as to why treating the cogenitors in the way the Vissians do might make sense given a certain perspective, the Federation's (an extension of certain modern humanist values, you are correct in that) perspective is that every sentient being has rights equal to any other. In this episode we learn that the cogenitors possess sentience and even intelligence.

    Andy's Friend, your hypotheticals about humanity's fertility ratio and potential sexual classes are certainly interesting food for thought, and hell, would make for a great Trek allegory, but what you don't address is the morality of the issue. It is possible for one's mind to be sufficiently broad to look on our past (or an hypothetically alien future) and understand perfectly why people acted the way they did and also say, unequivocally that that action is wrong.

    Yanks,

    ”A friend of mine had the same thought about the "3%". One would think they would rule the planet!”

    A most interesting scenario, and a possible one in very primitive societies on Earth. However, I think than on Earth, it would become less probable the more advanced any culture and civilization became. Let’s entertain the thought for a minute:

    In very primitive, nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, it makes perfect sense that the few who fathered/bore the children would become patriarchs/matriarchs. But the larger and more settled the communities became, I believe that the role of the 3% in all likelihood would shift to that of Queen bees or ants ― constantly laying eggs/breeding, being cared for the community, but in all aspects as powerless as the King in the game of chess.

    This would be especially true of the males: as soon as they became sexually mature, they would undoubtedly become institutionalized breeding machines, mounting the maximum number of females per day (assuming all females were fertile). This would be done in order to maximize the population ― and thus power ― of that given community/culture/civilization. This is what any sane ruling class, in any society on Earth, would do in order to achieve maximum greatness ― maximum number of subjects, and hence taxpayers, warriors/soldiers, etc.

    The women might be slightly better off. But only slightly. First of all, they would be bred on from their very first period until the menopause, assuming one still existed. Second, it usually takes repeated copulation to ensure a pregnancy. So they would probably be mounted by either any number of selected males daily during the fertile period, or by the specific male who had been selected (much less likely, I believe, unless the privilege could be purchased by the wealthy) until pregnancy was achieved. And finally, once the pregnancy was confirmed, the women would be monitored closely ― in special institutions, with controlled diets, for example ―, and most physical activities would be prohibited to them, in order to prevent any miscarriage, in a way much similar to that of women in medieval high nobility and royalty, living out one pregnancy after the other in the tranquil gardens of their palace. Except that to ensure maximum efficiency, these women would, with almost absolute certainty, be locked up together in special, purpose built institutions.

    I can imagine a few scenarios where smaller communities who never developed the goal/ambition of achieving maximum population size/greatness would never develop institutionalized “breeding farms” in case the 3% were men. Such communities would remain rather small and remote, and would eventually be reduced to inaccessible pockets in say, the Himalayas, the Alps, or the Andes, and quite probably be seen as odd religious or philosophical curiosities by the much greater cultures that would surround them.

    I have great difficulty in imagining a society where, if the 3% were female, “breeding farms” wouldn’t be established, though. And this is because siring a child is very different from bearing it to term. To maximize efficiency, and the safety of mother and child ― especially in a 3% scenario! ― in a Classical or medieval-analogue setting, such institutions would certainly be founded virtually in any case.

    And there’s the rub: regardless of whether the fertile 3% were male or female, as soon as the society became sufficiently advanced those fertile few would, in all likelihood, be concentrated in such “breeding farms” as soon as they were identified, to live out their entire fertile lives there. These would most probably be luxurious by the standards of the society, to ensure the well-being of the fertile few ― think a Roman palace with pools and gardens, etc. ―, but for all practical purposes, those people would become mere breeding machines, living totally for the purpose of maximizing the number of births.

    This is what I meant with:

    “In a cage of gold, perhaps, pampered beyond belief by the societies they kept alive, but breeding machines nonetheless”

    And, to connect that to this episode again, there can be no doubt whatsoever that every single such civilization on Earth would develop religious and philosophical systems entirely different from the present ones which all, each in their own way, would justify these practices. The concept of personal freedom in such an alternate Earth would be very different from the one we know; and the breeding machines would never miss their personal freedom ― just like the cogenitor doesn’t.


    P.S. On a final note, all this reminds me of Chinese mentalities, and how much they differ from the Western-Christian mindset. There are so many discussions going on here on this site that would be meaningless to most Chinese that you wouldn’t believe it. The degree of ethnocentricity, narrow-mindedness, and sheer ignorance here on Jammer’s is mind-boggling...

    Elliott,

    Your comment:

    “what you don't address is the morality of the issue. It is possible for one's mind to be sufficiently broad to look on our past (or an hypothetically alien future) and understand perfectly why people acted the way they did and also say, unequivocally that that action is wrong.”

    ...is absurd in its first sentence. And it is so for two reasons.

    First, because you make here the same mistake that you made in one o your responses to me in “The Outcast”. And here, as there, since I never answered your last two replies to me there: I am under no obligation whatsoever to elucidate this forum on my own or any other moral beliefs. You must be careful about feeling entitled when it is not due, Elliott.

    I am an academic, not a cleric. I analyse and describe; I don’t preach.

    Here, as on “The Outcast”, I do something you fail to recognize: I don’t waste time on normative ethics, but prefer descriptive ethics. As one should, in a sci-fi forum, I might add. What is sci-fi, after all, if not the exploration of “strange new worlds”? Descriptive ethics is what matters most here, Elliott; not normative.

    Second, because of exactly that. To “adress the morality of the issue”, as you would like it, requires a fixed set of universal values that quite simply does not exist. What you say is wrong today a Chinese or an Indian ― or I ― might find right. What you find right today someone three hundred years ago, or three hundred years from now, might find wrong. And what the 22nd century Earth believes, or for that mater the 24th century Federation, after having seen first TNG and then DS9, is anyone's guess.

    So what morality would you have me debate? Without a universal morality, we’re left to our personal ones. But while discussing my morality, your morality, Robert’s and Yanks’ moralities, etc. may prove entertaining, it is ultimately pointless. It’s the Alien Species of the Week’s morality that is interesting.

    You might then answer that the Federation morality could serve as the universal morality I demand, poviding we could agree on what that is, and that the Vissians could then be judged by it. Regardless of the fact that such a thing does not yet exist at this time, you would be missing the point. You would be no better than the early European navigators and explorers, who in the 16th century sailed forth and judged everything they saw on distant shores morally based upon what they knew was universal moral truth ― because the European churches said so.

    What the audience must ask ― and fails abysmally to do so, if this thread is any testament ― is: what would it have taken for us to have similar moral systems on Earth? This is the only truly important question, because the answer to it is what allows us to better understand this particular society, and that particular species. Sadly, no one has asked it.

    It is not up to us to judge, Elliott ― and certainly not based on as little evidence as we have here. It is up to us to try to understand.

    I may agree completely with you on say, ENT’s “Dear Doctor”. But notice how many, on what they believe are moral grounds, disagree with us. We, a bunch of Western Star Trek fans, can’t even agree here, on a Star Trek fansite, on what is the “right” thing to do. We can't even agree on what the exact Federation policy would be in any given situation ― and I'm guessing we've all watched every single episode of Star Trek several times. What relevance does my personal religious, or philosophical, or moral positions then have? And why should it interest you at all, when it has no effect whatsoever on this alien society’s systems of morality?

    So I fail to understand what you have me do. Should I debate the Vissian’s morality juxtaposed to say, Catholic, or Lutheran morals? Or your system of moral philosophy of choice? Or should I perhaps look at it using specific methodology, say, the Quadriga, in what would certain prove to be a highly amusing attempt at exotic xenoexegesis? Those are the kinds of talks I might have with good friends over a bottle of wine or two and some good laughs. Not here, Elliott.

    Here, I am merely interested in observing, and attempting to truly understand the Vissians' society and morality, as I should. My own morality is totally irrelevant to the matter. So is yours, or anyone else’s. Only when we have a firm grasp of a moral or philosophical system may we attempt to evaluate it. And judging by this thread, most commenters haven't even tried to understand the Vissians, by putting themselves in heir place. This is what I am trying to show.

    I know that many characters, and whole civilizations on Star Trek are mere symbols and allegories ― what you often so aptly call myths. But not necessarily so in this case. This isn’t necessarily about slavery, or gay rights, or women’s lib. Sometimes new life and new civilizations are just that.


    P.S.: On a final note: I’m betting that the main reason the vast majority of people who side with Tucker and the cogenitor do so is simply because the Vissians are ― alas, as always! ― so humanoid. This episode would have been very different, and would have made its point much better, if the Vissians were truly exotic, bizarre, outlandish non-humanoid beings, that required us to look at social dynamics in a truly different manner.

    This is, as always, the fault of Star Trek: it is a television series with a television budget. But it is also the fault of the viewers: for being so literal, and taking everything at face value, and failing to reach a higher level of abstraction.

    I’m sorry to see that this also seems to be the case with you here, Elliott.

    P.P.S: Do you know of the Chinese Rites controversy of the 17th/18th centuries, in which Catholic Jesuit missionaries to China adopted a series of Chinese customs as a way to better understand the Chinese ways and thus better spread the Word of God, and of the long conflict with the Vatican, and the Dominicans and Franciscans it provoked? I suggest you study it, as it is one of the finest examples of the problems of interpreting, truly understanding, and respecting the nature of alien beliefs and customs in human history, between two highly civilized, and yet so distant cultures.

    I honestly can't see why the statement that these aliens would not be admitted to the future Federation is so controversial.

    I'm going to address a few points.

    1) I'm NOT judging them. I see your points in what might happen to humanity in similar situations. I hope that in an enlightened society (I'm not arguing we have one either) the government would not be assigning my sperm, but instead that I'd be free to do with it as I please and the rest of the people would make it really, really worth my while to impregnate as many women as I could. I'd like a lot of monies please.

    2) I'm not even applying MY morality to the situation. I'm applying the morality of Picard's Federation to the situation and extrapolating that they would not be welcome in the Federation under their current system. Although maybe by then they'd have changed anyway, the Federation doesn't exist yet.

    3) I'm assuming the Congenitor kills itself because it would rather die than return to it's own life. I take the episode how it's presented. Nobody even considers the fact that Trip screwed with a mentally unstable being. You may consider it to be a possibility, but you have to look at what the writers were trying to say as well as what's actually in the canon, and to me the episode never really raises this possibility, so I discount it. You can feel free to have a different opinion, but until we agree to disagree and/or set this aside there is no point in continuing because it so radically changes the premise of the argument.

    So again, ALL I'm saying is that this species would need to allow their Congenitors self determination to join Picard's Federation. I'm not making any judgement calls on my own morality. I'm looking at 2 fictional morality systems (the 22nd century Vissians and the 24th century Federation) and seeing if they are compatible. My assessment is that they are not.

    I just wanted to be very clear as to what I personally am actually saying. Interesting arguments all around though, specifically what would happen if only 3% of men were fertile (if 3% of women were fertile I think we'd all be screwed for obvious reasons unless we were able to have litters of children).

    Robert,

    ”I'd like a lot of monies please.”

    :)! Yes, that would be nice, wouldn’t it?

    But now, let’s be serious: “the statement that these aliens would not be admitted to the future Federation” isn’t “controversial” ― it’s simplistic.

    Your biggest problem, which is also the problem of just about anyone else here, is this that you write, Robert:

    “I TAKE THE EPISODE HOW IT'S PRESENTED” [my emphasis]

    This is exactly what I meant to Elliott:

    “But it is also the fault of the viewers: for being so literal, and taking everything at face value, and failing to reach a higher level of abstraction.”

    I feel like Q here, talking to Picard in “All Good Things...” You have to go further. You have to think deeper.

    This reminds me of trying to discuss theology with the kinds of people who have only ever learned how to quote Scripture. I very much enjoy discussing the finer points of theology. But with such people, it’s impossible: they may know the entire Bible by heart, but that's all they know; and they don’t understand the meaning(s) of the Word of God. They take it as it is presented. So they are typically wholly ignorant when it comes to the questions of interpretation that existed already in the early Church, and the commentaries by the early Church Fathers, or by later, medieval theologians such as say, Aquinas, or Bonaventure, or Ockham, and so on.

    All they know is to quote Scripture. Which really is not knowing at all.

    This is what I mean, Robert: commenters here need to start asking much, much bigger questions, and stop quoting the scripts.

    To put this episode in context, let’s take an actual example: slavery.

    *Every* single human culture and cultural region that reached a minimum of civilization above that of nomadic Amazon Indians or Australian Aborigines saw slavery at one time or another. The Arabs, the Aztecs, all China, all Europe ― from Greeks and Romans to Vikings ―, the Incas, all India, all Japan... and so on and so forth: all ancient civilizations had slavery, and many had so until very, very recently. According to the space and the time, such slaves went by different nomenclature ― serfs, slaves, thralls, etc. ― but the condition of slavery was common to all.

    This tells us something extraordinarily powerful and important about mankind that you cannot simply ignore: mankind, thoughout almost all its history, has had no qualms whatsoever about taking away the personal freedom of some to the benefit of others.

    Consider this: even in certain Christian, democratic cultures, slavery existed as late as the second half of the 19th century.

    Now take our hypothetical 3% scenario.

    This is a scenario so radically extreme that it would completely have transformed humanity. The concepts of democracy, free will, personal freedom and slavery would never have developed the way they did. Everything, from religions to philosophies, would be radically different, to reflect the fact that the 3% were, for all practical purposes, a third gender, a class of its own.

    Had you been one of those 3%, you wouldn’t have been given a free choice, nor those nice monies ― but you would be equally compensated ;) In a Classical or medieval analogue society, you would live happily in a stud farm mounting ten women a day, being fed a healthy but exquisite diet, and pampered for in any way you could imagine. You would exercize, have music and dance performed for your pleasure, and be happy. But you would not be allowed to leave. Ánd I'm guessing you would never wish to do so, either ;)

    By the time we got to a 21st century technologically analogue society, our alternate religions, philosophies, morals and customs would be so deeply rooted, that although your semen might be used to artificially inseminate as many females as deemed necessary by society and civic planners, I’m betting all my money that because mentality was so deeply rooted, you would still enjoy ten women a day, and the actual old-fashioned intercourse. And fertile women everywhere would be waiting for it to be their turn, to visit one of the stud gods in one of the lavish stud farm palace baby-making rooms. And husbands wouldn't be jealous if their wives enjoyed the sex with the stud gods, those few times in their lives. Which sane woman wouldn't?

    So you would still live in a lush stud farm ― we wouldn’t want you to walk about the streets and get hit by a bus, would we? ―, would be fed a tasty and healthy diet, and your group holidays with the other stud gods to the Grand Canyon or the Great Wall of China would be as closely monitored as European crown jewels in an overseas exhibition.

    And all your mentality would make you never want to get an education, or a job, or a wife. It would make you never wish to leave the stud farm palace you were so lucky to inhabit, being pampered like a god, other than for the occasional group holidays ― not until you behan losing your vitality with age, and would then either reire with a pension (best-case scenario) or be ritually sacrificed à la "Half a Life" (worst-case scenario). No, you would not be allowed to leave even if you wished to during your most potent years. But of course, you yould never wish to.
    .
    .
    .
    Now suppose this alternate Earth develops warp drive, and meets... the Vossians. The Vossians are the leaders of an enlightened United Commonwealth of Planets, which places great emphasis on individual freedom. The Vossians greatly admire alternate Earth’s artistic and scientific achievements, but... they believe that you, a stud god at the height of your virility, and all the other stud gods, are subjugated slaves. And so they deny alternate Earth admission to the Commonwealth.

    Is this in any way fair? That the Vossians and the Commonwealth should tell you that you are not a stud god, but that you are a slave? That if you’re perfectly happy to be a stud god in your stud farm palace, and not see it for the cage of gold that it is, it is because you have been brainwashed for millennia?
    .
    .
    .
    These are some of the scenarios that people must imagine when watching this episode. These are some of the questions that they must ask. The stud gods in this scenario are not being mistreated in any way. And they’re perfectly happy to be what they are.

    So are the cogenitors.

    The one major fault of “Cogenitor” is that this is not made more obvious. But that is really nothing but clever writing, aknowledging the fault of the viewers: of only understanding things in human terms, and needing everything to be explained to them in human terms.

    Tell me: if the cogenitor in "Cogenitor" were all Colgate smiles, excitedly telling Trip how thrilled it was, and how it looked forward to help the next couple have their child, and then the next, and the next, how many of the viewers do you think would find that the cogenitors' situation, based on having seen just that one, was a happy one? Do you think we’d be having this conversation? And finally: would the Colgate smiles change anything at all on a philosophical level?

    This whole discussion reminds me of those wonderful lines in Lem's "Solaris", which unfortunately seem so truen when I read what is written here. Please see my next message.

    I therefore, once again, repeat my last paragraph in my P.S. to Elliott:

    “But it is also the fault of the viewers: for being so literal, and taking everything at face value, and failing to reach a higher level of abstraction.”

    "This reminds me of trying to discuss theology with the kinds of people who have only ever learned how to quote Scripture. I very much enjoy discussing the finer points of theology. But with such people, it’s impossible: they may know the entire Bible by heart, but that's all they know; and they don’t understand the meaning(s) of the Word of God. They take it as it is presented. So they are typically wholly ignorant when it comes to the questions of interpretation that existed already in the early Church, and the commentaries by the early Church Fathers, or by later, medieval theologians such as say, Aquinas, or Bonaventure, or Ockham, and so on."

    I just don't see that as being a good argument to what I said. When I say "I take the episode how it's presented." I mean that if the writers did not intend the Congenitor to be mentally unstable then it is not. It's not the same as quoting scriptures without understand them, it's a matter of seeing things that aren't there.

    It'd be like reading the Bible and then saying "We should persecute gay people". Totally ignoring the love everybody, turn the other cheek, judge not SPIRIT of the Bible. When I say "I take the episode as it's presented" I mean the SPIRIT of the episode. The SPIRIT of the episode does not support the possibility that Trip took advantage of a mentally unstable individual accidentally. The SPIRIT of the episode is that Trip gave a slave a taste of freedom.

    Now the civilization may have had good reason to enslave said person and it's great fun to ponder if the ends justify the means, but to argue that the Congenitor could be mentally unstable is to throw out what's presented. It's a little too death of the author for me, sorry.

    I will also say that I don't disagree that your stud farm is a likely result of the scenario we discussed. I merely question if it is in line with Roddenberryism (ie the Federation).

    "Is this in any way fair? That the Vossians and the Commonwealth should tell you that you are not a stud god, but that you are a slave? That if you’re perfectly happy to be a stud god in your stud farm palace, and not see it for the cage of gold that it is, it is because you have been brainwashed for millennia?"

    I suppose if a Vossian could convince me in the span of oh say.... 1 hour long episode that I was miserable and I really wanted to leave they might be on to something? Just maybe....

    I can agree that the Vissians are a breath of fresh air from the usual hard headed Trek aliens. I can agree they had good reasons for doing what they did in preserving their society. But the episode presents the fact that when the Congenitor is shown it's potential and that in it's life it cannot reach said potential it becomes unhappy.

    I guess I just can't figure out why you don't want to deal with or talk about that.

    And again, I still want to say that I'm not judging or imposing MY morality on this situation. I'm just trying to discuss if this is compatible with Roddenberry's brand of enlightened society, because if not they would not be welcome in the Federation.

    To all,

    Expanding on all my previous messages on this thread, a quote from Lem’s “Solaris” (1961), a novel I cannot recommend enough:


    “Man has gone out to explore other worlds and other civilizations without having explored his own labyrinth of dark passages and secret chambers, and without finding what lies behind doorways that he himself has sealed.

    [...]

    We take off into the cosmos, ready for anything: for solitude, for hardship, for exhaustion, death. Modesty forbids us to say so, but there are times when we think pretty well of ourselves. And yet, if we examine it more closely, our enthusiasm turns out to be all a sham. We don't want to conquer the cosmos, we simply want to extend the boundaries of Earth to the frontiers of the cosmos. For us, such and such a planet is as arid as the Sahara, another as frozen as the North Pole, yet another as lush as the Amazon basin. We are humanitarian and chivalrous; we don't want to enslave other races, we simply want to bequeath them our values and take over their heritage in exchange.

    We think of ourselves as the Knights of the Holy Contact. This is another lie. We are only seeking Man. We have no need of other worlds. We need mirrors. We don't know what to do with other worlds. A single world, our own, suffices us; but we can't accept it for what it is. We are searching for an ideal image of our own world: we go in quest of a planet, a civilization superior to our own but developed on the basis of a prototype of our primeval past. At the same time, there is something inside us which we don't like to face up to, from which we try to protect ourselves, but which nevertheless remains, since we don't leave Earth in a state of primal innocence.

    We arrive here as we are in reality, and when the page is turned and that reality is revealed to us ― that part of our reality which we would prefer to pass over in silence ― then we don't like it anymore."


    Never has this ― or the whole novel ― sounded truer to me than while reading comments on this thread.

    It’s sad, isn’t it? Here is ENT finally presenting us Lem’s other world and other civilization (please note that his formula antedates Star Trek’s), and at the first sight of essential difference, what do we see here? People holding up mirrors...

    “We think of ourselves as the Knights of the Holy Contact. This is another lie. We are only seeking Man,” Lem writes.

    Most of the commenters here, in a sci-fi forum of all places, would seem to prove him right.

    If you're speaking of me, I'm just acting as a mouthpiece for Gene. I still am not passing any moral judgement here.

    In any case Trek espouses your viewpoint in the Maquis. "Everyone should want to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join. You're only sending them replicators because one day they can take their rightful place on the Federation Council. You know, in some ways you're 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."

    For the record, I agree that what you say is what we're likely to do when we go up there.... but that still doesn't change the fact that all I'm arguing is that the Vissians wouldn't be accepted into the Federation.

    ::shrug::

    Andy's Friend,

    I appreciate what you're trying to say. Really, I do.

    The thing is, is sci-fi and Trek in particular really supposed to be a handbook to our real-life encounters with alien beings, or is it an allegorical structure for dealing with ourselves? It could possibly be both, I suppose. But Trek has at this point a very firm foundation in using sci-fi (the undefined other) as a vehicle for social commentary. While it may not have been perfect, TOS' idealistic diversity of crew and hierarchy of principles managed to get on the air *only* because the sci-fi setting shielded the show from critics to an extent. I don't know if I'm willing to grant ENT this level of social-awareness, but the episode seems to me like a 21st-century equivalent to the integrated crew of the 60s.

    We have found ourselves in a world where fundamental differences in culture have encountered an impasse. The ideals and achievements of Western Enlightenment can no longer coëxist tranquilly against the reactionary sects of the old world, and we are called upon to accept an ugly truth, that perhaps, in the words of Bill Maher, "liberal, Western culture is not just different – it’s better."

    From your quote of Lem's :

    "We are searching for an ideal image of our own world: we go in quest of a planet, a civilization superior to our own but developed on the basis of a prototype of our primeval past."

    Yes, that is called mythology, of which Trek is a futuristic subtype. Like it our not, life is an egocentric experience; all we can do with the information we accumulate over our lifespans is change ourselves, and hope that that change will be for the good of many. While Lem's idea (as presented by you; I confess I have not read his work, but I intend to) is an interesting exercise in exploring the truly unknown, in the end it seems woefully limited to that hypothetical space. In sci-fi which mirrors the human experience (as Trek often does masterfully), we are asked specifically to see ourselves in these aliens and, in so doing, *evaluate* our choices, our morals, our standards and our future. Evaluation often goes hand in hand with judgement. While I think Robert's (and Trek's) attitude about withholding judgement is a wise rule of thumb, what really can we do in this case? Either we accept at face value the Vissians' claim that their social order is not only natural, but GOOD for their society, or we evaluate their society by the only means we have at our disposal, the mirror.

    "Now take our hypothetical 3% scenario.

    This is a scenario so radically extreme that it would completely have transformed humanity. The concepts of democracy, free will, personal freedom and slavery would never have developed the way they did. Everything, from religions to philosophies, would be radically different, to reflect the fact that the 3% were, for all practical purposes, a third gender, a class of its own. "

    While, of course, such a scenario would totally change the way human cultures look and feel, the *concepts* of class, race [yes it's a concept], freedom, etc. would not be any different. Equality of gender, for example, is not based on the fact that humans tend to be about half female and half male. The *concept* exists independent of statistics. That is why, conceptually, those who identify without gender or as transgender or as possessing non-binary genders are afforded equality of status, even though their numbers are somewhere in the ballpark of the Vissians' cogenitors or even smaller.

    Your scenario about stud farms and the like is certainly a plausible course of human history given human nature, but that doesn't make it RIGHT! No more so than slavery (which is also plausible). We have decided to evaluate our own societies based on certain axioms which are borne of the European Enlightenment. Either we abandon those axioms or we embrace them. You keep suggesting that, because some cultures do not embrace those axioms (you specifically mentioned the Chinese--which is, ironically, a broad generalisation that doesn't hold up, as I know personally at least a dozen individuals who grew up in China who not only understand by embrace Western ideals), they cannot be regarded as Universals. Well that may be true, but let me ask you, do you think societies (all societies including the Chinese's) would be better or worse off for embracing those Universals? I think it's worth lifting your head outside the cave of abstraction for a moment to answer that question honestly before continuing.

    Robert,

    Yes, Eddington's words echo Lem's in this passage. But unlike you when you write: "[Lem's "seeking Man"] is what we're likely to do when we go up there", I'm pretty sure that the minute we meet a truly alien species, we'll give up such childish, foolish thoughts.

    Before I get back to your main question, consider this, though: the fact that you are willing to seriously discuss the one cogenitor you have ever seen in your life, and that for a mere half-hour or less, and use him as sole reference, concerning a species that you have also only seen once in your life, and that for about the same half-hour, just proves my point: you are being concrete to the extreme.

    You need to raise your level of abstraction, Robert.

    ROBERT ― "When I say "I take the episode how it's presented." I mean that if the writers did not intend the Congenitor to be mentally unstable then it is not. It's not the same as quoting scriptures without understand them, it's a matter of seeing things that aren't there."

    My point is much, much simpler: these are alien beings. You don't know what you are seing. You only think you do, because you choose to interpret it in human terms.

    ROBERT ― "When I say "I take the episode as it's presented" I mean the SPIRIT of the episode."

    The spirit of this episode is that we should not interfere in that which we do not understand. The spirit of this episode is Archers fantastic final delivery to Tucker. YOU see a slave. I see an alien. And I recognize that I am in no way in a position to even begin to make an educated guess about its nature.

    You seem to believe that you are not merely capable of making that educated guess, but in fact of knowing the Truth. You, Robert, must be a wiser man than I.

    ...which brings us back to the Federation issue. I get it: all you're arguing "is that the Vissians wouldn't be accepted into the Federation" because of the cogenitors' situation as per this episode.

    I understand you, and unfortunately, gladly concede that you may have a point. This is because the TNG Federation has failed, abysmally, in depicting true alienness within its member planets. How are the Bolians different from humans? They're blue!

    But what else do we know of the Bolians? Or the Betazoids? Or the Benzites? And so on and so forth. I can't recall a single episode of TNG that deals with serious ethical problems arising from the native customs of a member planet.

    TNG thus unfortunately painted itself into a corner by not establishing, through carefully studied example, what situations would and would not be accepted in member worlds. And we of course tend to see Picard, the paragon of virtue, as representative of all the Federation worlds, not merely professionally (which he of course is), but also mentally (which he can never be).

    Are we to believe that the only difference between Bolians and humans is that the former are blue? This is ridiculous. We must make room for some cultural idiosyncrasies in every alien species in the Federation. Again: it is Star Trek's fault that we were never presented such true, cultural diversity.

    And again: this is why you, and so many others, must raise your level of abstraction.

    Allow me to give a real-world case: in the European Union, every single expansion has included specific clauses for each country that allowed for some very specific national legislation to be maintained above the common EU law.

    In the case of Austria, for instance, when Austria joined the European Union in 1995, that country specifically demanded that its constitutional paragraphs barring the members of the former Imperial House of Habsburg to candidate for the presidency of the country be maintained. So if you happen to be the great-grandchild of the last Emperor of Austria, you can't run for president. These paragraphs are of course illegal under European Law and might be contested at the European Court; but the EU gladly accepted this among Austria's several demands in order to have them as members. And other such highly specific exceptions have been made in every single admittance to the European Union.

    I cannot possibly believe that something similar is not the case in the Federation, and that every single world has not specific clauses of membership, and specific local legislation that accomodates and respects its historical heritage.

    Are we for instance to believe, as suggested by Elliott here the other day, that the Klingons wouldn't be accepted to the Federation just because they won't allow females on the High Council? This is a ridiculous thought. I can think of much better reasons why the Klingn's shouldn't be allowed to join, and could also argue that they should. Klingons give their females ample rights. Who cares if there are a few special cases of "males only" or "females only" to certain specific bodies or institutions ― on Qo'noS, on Betazed, Bolias, wherever? These are alien planets and cultures, after all. There must be some fundamental Federation law that is important. Are they democratic? Austria is.

    What you are implying, Robert et al., is a policy of admission to the Federation that would be narrow-minded to the extreme, and more akin to pure fantasy than anything resembling science-fiction. We must allow for some cultural peculiarities and idiosyncrasies to exist on alien worlds, even if TNG never showed them. Is our goal to seek out new worlds, and new civilizations? Or are we really merely seeking Man?

    Andy's Friend, I am in awe. My respect to you, good man! I am tempted to write something more, so that this doesn't sound like simple "what he said", but I feel I can't contribute anything meaningful to your fantastic series of posts.

    And yes, I'd also recommend Solaris. A great book, to be sure. (While we're at it, Interstellar has energised my SF batteries to dangerously high levels. I plan to re-watch some great SF movies these days, both Solarises included.

    Paul M,

    I am with you.

    In awe with this conversation and I loved Interstellar too! :-)

    One comment. If "it" looked like Jaba the hut 90% of the empathizers wouldn't be there.

    "The spirit of this episode is that we should not interfere in that which we do not understand. The spirit of this episode is Archers fantastic final delivery to Tucker. YOU see a slave. I see an alien. And I recognize that I am in no way in a position to even begin to make an educated guess about its nature.

    You seem to believe that you are not merely capable of making that educated guess, but in fact of knowing the Truth. You, Robert, must be a wiser man than I. "

    I'm not saying I know the "truth". I'm saying that it's not an alien, it's an actor in an art piece.

    I do agree that if we were watching a documentary about this incident there would be no way to no if the Congenitor was unbalanced, if the other Congenitors are happy, how oppressed they are, etc.

    But if you look at what the WRITERS are trying to say (or at least I will admit that it's what I THINK the writers are trying to say), the episode stops making sense if the Congenitor is not oppressed. And it REALLY stops making sense if the Congenitor is unbalanced.

    If the Congenitor is unbalanced and none of the other Congenitors are like this it stops being a story about Trip interfering wrongly and starts being a story about Trip getting supremely unlucky. Can we agree on that?

    "I cannot possibly believe that something similar is not the case in the Federation, and that every single world has not specific clauses of membership, and specific local legislation that accomodates and respects its historical heritage."

    Yet a small moon penal colony where former soldiers are pampered caused Picard to recommend that Angosia not be Federation members. It didn't matter that they were treated well or that the government deemed it necessary to make a bunch of super soldiers to fight a war. Picard deemed it wrong, so no soup for you!

    I do agree that in the beginning Archer was likely bending over backwards to lick the Andorian's and Vulcan's boots to get the first few guys into the Federation, but once you have HUNDREDS of worlds you can be pickier. Now perhaps they SHOULDN'T be pickier, but I don't think I'm arguing that here.

    "What you are implying, Robert et al., is a policy of admission to the Federation that would be narrow-minded to the extreme, and more akin to pure fantasy than anything resembling science-fiction. "

    Actually I don't think I am. The Klingons are one of the quadrant powers. They nearly became Romulan allies multiple times during TNG. If I were the head of the Federation and they asked to join I'd lick their boots.

    And now back to what the episode is about... and of course here we can agree to disagree.

    To me the writer of the episode seemed to make a Congenitor that was oppressed (I understand I'm seeing this through human eyes, but the writer was human and wrote it with human hands) so that Trip could do the right thing and still be wrong. I mean, that's a helluva kicker right? You did the right thing and you were still wrong! Why were you wrong? Because

    Huh.... I lost the bottom there. Did I make it too long?

    It should say

    "Because (insert Archer's speech here). I will agree with you that Archer's speech is the moral of the story. But we disagree on what it means. I think it means that it's not OUR PLACE to judge these aliens. You think it means that we CANNOT judge these aliens. I hope you are wrong. I hope when we make the eventual Federation we don't allow the Vissians in while they are still oppressing their Congenitors, the Vidiians while they are still harvesting organs or the Cardassians while they are occupying Bajor. As a cautionary tale for building a Federation with the "wrong people" go watch the very excellent VOY S7 episode, "The Void"."

    I guess my point is... I would hope the EU wouldn't accept "it's totally cool to fry the Jews" as a rule bending from a Nazi Germany that was trying to join. And yes I know you automatically lose internet arguments when you mention the Nazis, but I still think it's a good point here. Mostly because I'm not comparing the Vissians to Nazis.

    Robert,

    Why don’t we meet each other half-way?

    ROBERT ― ”But if you look at what the WRITERS are trying to say (or at least I will admit that it's what I THINK the writers are trying to say), the episode stops making sense if the Congenitor is not oppressed. And it REALLY stops making sense if the Congenitor is unbalanced.
    [...]
    I will agree with you that Archer's speech is the moral of the story. But we disagree on what it means. I think it means that it's not OUR PLACE to judge these aliens. You think it means that we CANNOT judge these aliens. I hope you are wrong.”

    There are two possibilities here:

    1 ― The Cogenitor is oppressed. Yet, it is not Tucker’s, or Archer’s, place to judge these aliens. “it's not OUR PLACE to judge these aliens”. And Archer tells Tucker that.

    2 ― The Cogenitor may or may not be oppressed. We don’t know. We know next to nothing about it. And knowing so little, we have no means of really interpreting it. Yes, it may very well look opressed to us, but that may be our interpretation tricking us. Knowing so little about it and Vissian society, “we CANNOT judge these aliens”. And Archer tells Tucker that.

    Either way, the episode makes a lot of sense. But one of these interpretations is for children, and the other is for grown-ups. One of them is simplistic, and childish, and the other is intelligent, and adult. You choose, Robert.

    ...and I had already written this, on May 10, 2014:

    “As such, this episode is clever writing because it speaks to a Western audience with our present moral beliefs, and provokes reactions based on those Western beliefs.”

    So what are the writers really trying to say? This episode is outstanding because it knows its broad viewer base, and reaches both the simple minds who can only make literal readings of everything they see, and the ones who can reach a higher level of abstraction. It thus fuels discussion between the two. Which is exactly what we are doing here. This does not change the fact that your interpretation is the simplistic and naïve one, and mine is the more complex and much more realistic one.

    Can we agree on that?

    Agreeing that my view is simplistic and naive is meeting half way? You have quite the ego. I think we can all agree on that.

    I will agree with you that both 1 and 2 are the two possibilities. At least that eliminates 99% of the rest of this discussion.

    "Either way, the episode makes a lot of sense."

    Perhaps, but in your scenario Tucker learns not to jump to conclusions and in mine he learns not to play morality police. Both lessons are pretty simple and useful to learn while exploring the stars. Both are pretty basic and simple. Your interpretation isn't some magic awe inspiring life altering lesson. Don't jump to conclusions is advice we teach to young children.

    Now if the episode was about our inability to understand the aliens because of how alien they were, THAT might be interesting. But the episode CANNOT be about that. As you yourself said "We know next to nothing about it. And knowing so little, we have no means of really interpreting it."

    If 2 is correct our failure to understand enough to judge the Congenitors is a lack of information, not a culture clash. You WANT this to be about the alien-ness of it all. About how we are not able to judge them because we're too human, too Western, too whatever. You want to think that you've expanded your abstraction enough to see this episode as some great truth... but if 2 is correct than Tucker was wrong because he judged without all the facts. Not because of any great truth.

    And if 1 is correct Tucker learned something about not being an arbiter of morality. PERSONALLY, I find #1 more interesting, but your mileage may vary. Either way (1 or 2), the episode isn't about what you think it is.

    And lastly, Elliott is still right. Sci-fi, and Star Trek in particular very rarely is about what it would be like to meet something alien and much more about shining a mirror on ourselves.

    Even if Western liberal culture is the correct morality, going into the middle east and forcing it on them overnight is going to have some pretty horrible consequences. Trip learned a lesson that interfering has consequences, even if your morality is correct. At least that's how I see it. As I said, other interpretations may be valid, but don't kid yourself that yours is deeper.

    Robert,

    On a different note, you have of course a point regarding admission to the Federation, that “once you have HUNDREDS of worlds you can be pickier”.

    But I gave you an actual, historical example of how such proceedings actually work in a real-world scenario, in a case where all the involved parties are actual human beings.

    The United Federation of Planets is not, and cannot be, like the United States of America, a federation of rather homogeneous states with very little history and individual culture, and all sharing the most important common markers, including language.

    The UFP will of course much rather resemble the European Union, a more loose confederation of very heterogeneous states, with millennial histories and different cultures and languages, composed of Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Latin, Slav, and a few other, more peculiar peoples, such as the two Finno-Ugric ones.

    These are nations with much, much stronger national identities than the individual US member states, and therefore much more akin to the varied nature of the UFP worlds. I mean, even Albania has its own, very peculiar language and more than two thousand years of history. What has Alabama?

    I come from a southern European EU member state, and at the moment I live in a northern European one. I essentially live in a proto-UFP. If anything, the multinational dynamics are greater at EU level than they would be at UFP level, because of the geographic proximity and the physical interconnectedness of the member states: an earthquake in Italy may disrupt electricity supply in France; a flood in the Netherlands, or a livestock epidemic in Germany, may affect food supplies throughout the EU in a matter of days. We actually depend on each other, in ways the UFP worlds cannot begin to compare.

    I read regularly of the various issues concerning transnational or multinational cooperation at EU level on areas of key strategic interest to specific member states. It can be exasperating, at times: here are member states attempting to cooperate for the common good, while at the same time defending of course a minimum of national interest.

    But I also read of simple cooperation on matters of less strategic importance, but very long and proud traditions, such as say, reforms of education systems at universities that are more than five hundred years old.

    Imagine a EU proposition of reform that would force a few 700-year old faculties to close and be merged with others. How well do you think such a proposition would be received in the affected countries? These are ancient and almost sacred institutions in the respective EU member states. That is the power of history, and tradition, and culture: its beauty, and its disadvantage. It is what makes my Old World so incredibly beautiful. It is also what makes it so slow to change. Old habits die hard.

    Now, if ancient European universities can make a fuss about standardization procedures and abandoning old traditions for the sake of a European common education policy, what would the universities on Bolias and Betazed and Benzar say? Why should they abandon their peculiar traditions, and change everything, or anything, to accomodate “HUNDREDS” of distant worlds, of which they probably only regularly interact with the closest dozen or so?

    Again, Robert ― and I don’t know how many times I must say this ― you must raise your level of abstraction. You have to think bigger thoughts.

    Suggesting that every member planet of the UFP has NOT its own, very specific memberships clauses, but just has signed on the same standard charter as everyone else, with no special provisions for its specific cultural characteristics, practices, and heritage, isn’t simplistic: it’s rather weak thinking. That could only have two interpretations:

    1) The Federation charter is nothing but a vague and not legally binding declaration of intents, or
    2) The Federation has a legal, educational, etc. framework which is identical in every single world, and once you've signed the charter, you must adopt that framework.

    Either one of these suggestions is preposterous.

    So even if you’re right in saying that “once you have HUNDREDS of worlds you can be pickier”, the Federation would still need to, as I wrote previously, “allow for some cultural peculiarities and idiosyncrasies to exist [...], even if TNG never showed them.” And this means also at the legal level. And this means negotiating terms of admission.

    This is how the real world works. And we must debate Star Trek based on a minimum of realism.

    You wrote: “I'm not saying I know the "truth". I'm saying that it's not an alien, it's an actor in an art piece.”

    And this is your problem, and my point, ever and always: if we want to have serious talks about Star Trek, we have to stop pretending these are actors and start pretending it’s all actually true. And we have to debate it as such. Not in a concrete, literal sense, but in a more abstract manner, based on how reality actually works.

    Ergo, what we see in this episode is a First Contact. Ergo, the cogenitor is an alien. And ergo, you ― or I, or Elliott, or Robert, or Yanks, or anyone ― have no clue whatsoever as to its true nature.

    The episode doesn't lose its value as a result. Quite the contrary: it functions also as an important reminder of that old saying, "Don't judge a book by its cover".

    So what will it be, Robert, of the two in my previous message? Interpretation 1, or interpretation 2?

    You accuse me of not thinking big enough, yet when I get to the point where I see your point and yet still tell you I think that reading of the episode is wrong you tell me my interpretation is naive.

    I totally agree with you about the EU, but I ask you... would the EU accept a slave state. If the British slave trade still existed, should we allow them into the EU?

    Since the ORIGINAL point of the discussion is if they'd be allowed in the Federation, it would be thinking big to discuss if there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. Could we allow Klingons in even though they treat women less well than men? Could we allow Vissians in when 3% of their population isn't allowed self determination? Could we allow Romulans in when they keep Remans as a slave caste.

    You say we cannot judge alien cultures, I look at an episode like "The Void" and say eventually we're going to have to. And judging doesn't mean interfering, this episode paints the price of interfering quite high. Judging means deciding for ourselves who we ally with/do business with/whatever.

    So I still come down on Interpretation 1. And that's not because I'm not thinking big enough or don't understand your point. It's just because I genuinely don't think that's what the writer was trying to say. I WILL say that it's GREAT that this stuff makes us all think big thoughts about the universe though.

    To phrase the question in another way. Even if the Federation has done away with inherited aristocracy you'd probably, if you were the head of the Federation, allow Mrs. Troi to keep the holy rings of Betazed, right? Because it'd be worth getting the Betazoids into the Federation.

    But is there something a race could do that would give you pause? That would be non negotiable? Anything at all?

    Robert,

    Very interesting. I missed your previous message, as I was writing to you. Perhaps you missed the folowing:

    "Perhaps, but in your scenario Tucker learns not to jump to conclusions and in mine he learns not to play morality police."

    Not really. In my scenario, Tucker learns NOT TO PLAY morality police because he learns NOT TO JUMP to conclusions.

    I get to have my cake and eat it. That is one of the reasons why this is the superior interpretation: it encompasses everything. As I said, this is the more complex interpretation. It takes more factors into consideration. That is also why it is the more realistic approach. This is what we're actually seeing, if we are to take this in any way seriously.

    It seems to me that it is you who "WANT" this to be merely a simplistic story, and only want to see part of what's going on. My interpretation gives you everything. Why not take it?

    "If 2 is correct our failure to understand enough to judge the Congenitors is a lack of information, not a culture clash."

    You are actually completely missing the point here: it is precisely because Trip receives TOO MUCH information that we see this culture clash.

    Tucker simply cannot correctly assimilate what he is told in such a short period of time. That is why he jumps to conclusions. It is a paradox, but a very true and well-know one: too much information in too short time is also too little information.

    Anything sufficiently "alien" to you will quite simply be misunderstood or not understood at all at first, in spite of the information amount, by any normal human being. It is an ages-old paradox, and one of the reasons why meeting and moving to sufficiently different cultures can be such a tricky business.

    Being an expat myself, and having lived in various countries in Europe and Asia, this is perhaps why I tend to particularly like this episode. What Trip goes through is the absolutely typical response of anyone not understanding and not liking what he is experiencing in a sufficiently alien culture. He then jumps to conclusions. And he then gets carried away and plays morality police.

    As I said, the cogenitor may or may not be oppressed. But the important thing is that Trip really doesn't know. Unlike what you claim, he's actually suffering from information overload which he cannot possibly assimilate in such a short period of time. i say again: it is possible that the cogenitor is opressed. But Trip can't know. And he wants to know. Because he's been told too much ― and not enough. He therefore loses emotional control, and starts acting clearly on his emotions.

    Doesn't this seem a fair interpretation to you?

    "I get to have my cake and eat it. That is one of the reasons why this is the superior interpretation: it encompasses everything. As I said, this is the more complex interpretation. It takes more factors into consideration. That is also why it is the more realistic approach. This is what we're actually seeing, if we are to take this in any way seriously."

    Taking MORE factors into discussion is better, but what if some factors don't hold up. I just don't personally find it to be as powerful a message to learn to not be the morality police because you misunderstood/didn't wait for the facts as opposed to "Trip got the facts right, the Congenitor is oppressed and he STILL shouldn't be the morality police." To ME that's a deeper, more interesting message.

    "It seems to me that it is you who "WANT" this to be merely a simplistic story, and only want to see part of what's going on. My interpretation gives you everything. Why not take it?"

    I may see the story as simple, but I don't see the morality beyond it as simple. I guess THAT'S why I like the episode. I think it's a hard lesson to learn that can't save everyone and it's even harder to learn that you shouldn't always try. I just think that lesson is more interesting than don't jump without all the facts.

    "Tucker simply cannot correctly assimilate what he is told in such a short period of time. That is why he jumps to conclusions. It is a paradox, but a very true and well-know one: too much information in too short time is also too little information. "

    See now, I DO find this to be an interesting interpretation. And it's certainly a cool though, but I don't see the way the episode played out as being about this. I tend to think that Trip could spend 4 years with the Vissians and still make the same mistakes. Leading with his heart over his head is a character trait. I don't think Trip could ever get to a place where he accepts the subjugation of Congenitors. It's just not in his nature.

    YOU (and perhps Q) might say that shows how limited we are, but Kirk and Gene would probably say that it's what makes humanity great.

    "Being an expat myself, and having lived in various countries in Europe and Asia, this is perhaps why I tend to particularly like this episode. What Trip goes through is the absolutely typical response of anyone not understanding and not liking what he is experiencing in a sufficiently alien culture. He then jumps to conclusions. And he then gets carried away and plays morality police. "

    I do really appreciate this point of view. And I can see it. I just don't think that's where the episode is coming from. These are little hour long drama pieces, right? We don't have more than 15-20 minutes to learn about the alien of the week because the episode doesn't allow it. I guess I just assume that what we learned in those 15-20 minutes was correct and that the conclusions we draw are those the writer meant us to draw. I think Trip's all to short crash course on the Congenitor is not the point at all, but besides the point and a limitation of the medium. We don't assume Lucy and Ricky were actually monochromatic, do we? ;)

    I will concede that it's great and Star Trek worthy that this episode has caused you to think big thoughts about how alien is too alien, how we would be judged by aliens, how aliens would judge us, how we judge other cultures here on Earth and so forth. I STILL don't think it's what the episode is about, but ANYTHING that makes you think like that is great :)

    I will definitely agree that Trips emotions get carried away. But I also know that if this was TNG and the Congenitor was attracted to Riker that Picard would have granted it asylum.

    It would be fascinating to live in another country for a time though. I'm sure I'd get a whole new perspective on many things I take for granted. So perhaps neither of us is right and both of us see it through the lens of our own experiences. Death of the author that I was rejecting up top and all that.

    @ Andy's Friend ;

    To echo Robert, in addition to the numerous, gaping logical flaws in your admittedly prolific arguments, you have consigned your analysis of the Federation to a comparison with the EU, because it is the only example you care to use from extant history.

    To quote from TNG's "Attached" :

    "Every member of the Federation entered as a unified world, and that unity said something about them, that they had resolved certain social and political differences, and they were now ready to become part of a larger community."

    The premise of the Federation is not that other worlds would simply embrace human ideals, it is that *all* races/species inexorably evolve these ideals, and would naturally seek unity with other worlds once interstellar exploration became possible. The mirror/myth of this premise is that contemporary humans, just like every other species, are evolving in this direction and we should embrace/encourage that evolution. The EU may be seen as a kind of embryonic form of this--wherein those things which already hold the nations together in common are formalised politically and economically. But we shouldn't hold the futuristic Federation's admittance practices to the EU's standards. On the contrary, we should encourage the EU to be more Federation-like!

    "What Trip goes through is the absolutely typical response of anyone not understanding and not liking what he is experiencing in a sufficiently alien culture. He then jumps to conclusions."

    Maybe. But as Robert has pointed out a couple of times, the episode itself supports the idea that Trip's conclusion was correct. Maybe he stumbled onto this conclusion because the TV format doesn't allow for him to come to this conclusion in careful, considered ways (and the episode is mindful of the fact that this is true), but that does not discredit his, shall we say, "accidental" revelation.

    @Elliott: "The premise of the Federation is not that other worlds would simply embrace human ideals, it is that *all* races/species inexorably evolve these ideals"

    Ah, there are no terms strong enough with which I could express my disagreement. You seem to contend that every single society in the vastness of universe will inevitably (unless some shit, like extinction or whatever else) come to the same conclusions as present-day humans from the Western civilization. This is simply a preposterous train of thought. Not to mention that this reasoning supposes that our present socio-economic ideals are the *only* ideals worth having and that the future is hence unable to deliver anything new except means of attaining said ideals more easily. What you're proposing aren't ideals; it's religious dogma.

    No wonder we have a history of slavery and genocide. Everyone who's not exactly like us *is* by default inferior, since the only explanation why they're not like is that they haven't yet reached the "inexorable" point in their evolution. It is up to then to help them along. Earthman's burden indeed.

    Some strange word-eatage occurred. My last paragraph from the previous post should read as:

    No wonder we have a history of slavery and genocide. Everyone who's not exactly like us *is* by default inferior, since the only explanation why they're not like us is that they haven't yet reached the "inexorable" point in their evolution. It is up to us then to help them along. Earthman's burden indeed.

    "Ah, there are no terms strong enough with which I could express my disagreement. You seem to contend that every single society in the vastness of universe will inevitably (unless some shit, like extinction or whatever else) come to the same conclusions as present-day humans from the Western civilization. "

    I won't weigh in on either side of the argument, but that is not what Elliott said. At best he said the EU is the beginning of an eventual evolution of better ideals.

    You can still disagree with Elliott, but the premise was that "Every single society in the vastness of universe will inevitably (unless some shit, like extinction or whatever else) come to the same conclusions as FUTURE ENLIGHTENED humans".

    Robert: No, that's exactly what Elliott said.

    I will quote him once again:

    The premise of the Federation is not that other worlds would simply embrace human ideals, it is that *all* races/species inexorably evolve these ideals.

    I'll quote Elliott too!

    "The mirror/myth of this premise is that contemporary humans, just like every other species, are evolving in this direction and we should embrace/encourage that evolution."

    If we are evolving towards that ideal now, we cannot currently be there. I'm not saying you can't disagree with Elliott, merely that your use of "present-day humans from the Western civilization" is a misrepresentation.

    @Paul M.

    I am not offering this as a theory of my own design, but as the underlying premise of the Star Trek universe. You getting your knickers in a bind about it is like complaining that Luke Skywalker can move things with his mind.

    Well, then it's up to you to prove that this is "the underlying premise" of Star Trek universe. For example, Vulcans, especially as depicted in TOS era, are most certainly nowhere near such value system. As far as I can remember, Andorians were also pretty suspect in that regard. Odo's people, by the very nature of their dual individual/communal existence could never accept the same value system as humans. Individuality, freedom of choice, civil liberties, hardly anything could be mapped to the traditional tenets of enlightenment.

    Why the need to insist on such utterly anthropomorphic perspective. Software needs hardware, right? The idea that everyone can subscribe to the same underlying value system is impossible even on the level of DNA. We can't impose human societal norms on dolphins, elephants, or chimpanzees if for no other reason than because of our "hardware", our DNA, our physical needs. Every society is built upon such a material basis. Hypothetical alien life would be hardly different. Their perspectives, value systems, moral coordinates, or whatever you'd like to call it, would always be superstructures that grow on the foundation of their underlying hardwired physical selves.

    Elliott,

    ELLIOTT ― “To echo Robert, in addition to the numerous, gaping logical flaws in your admittedly prolific arguments, you have consigned your analysis of the Federation to a comparison with the EU, because it is the only example you care to use from extant history.”

    Thank you very much for alerting me to logical flaws in my argumentation. As you yourself mention, I am somewhat of a prolific writer; and unlike certain dilettantes, who essentially have but one argument, which they repeat ad nauseam, and certain other intellectually vain types, who prefer to point out faults in other people’s ideas rather than advance some ideas of their own, I do try to develop, as you know, some independent thoughts in every other message or so.

    It is thus hardly surprising that, among all my lines, a few ― nay, perhaps even numerous, and gaping ― logical flaws may appear in my argumentation, and I thank you for alerting me to them.

    Unfortunately you only mention them en passant, instead op pointing them out. I would normally say that merely alluding to a man’s mistakes without stating them smacks of slander; call me old-fashioned, but I just wasn’t brought up that way. But I am sure you must have very good reason to not actually mention them. You were very busy, perhaps?

    I myself would of course never point out a man’s mistakes in public without explicitly referring them, thus giving him a chance to defend himself. It’s just the sporting thing to do, don’t you think? I have for instance called a couple of your thoughts ridiculous, but made quite clear which. It’s just the sporting thing to do.

    Anyway, I would like to ask you to be so kind as to point out the logical flaws that you allude to, that I may attempt to avoid them in the future. It goes without saying that I have no idea of what you are referring to, or I would have corrected them myself; but being so numerous and gaping, I’m sure you can remember a handful of them.

    Will you please be so kind to show them to me, Elliott?


    As to the second part of your sentence that I quote, well, what can I say? I’ll be direct, as I always am, and quote von Pauli, in what is a remarkably adequate use of the famous quote: “es ist nicht einmal falsch!“

    Elliott, and Robert,

    ROBERT ― ”Interesting arguments all around though, specifically what would happen if only 3% of men were fertile (if 3% of women were fertile I think we'd all be screwed for obvious reasons unless we were able to have litters of children).”

    Robert, I’ll deviate from our nice chat to examine this, and ask you to indulge me in some “Statistical Probabilities” of my own. Because you're actually right, in a way, I think. Consider the following:

    I’m guessing that in a 3% alternate Earth society, with my suggested specialized breeding farms, medical discoveries such as the benefits of personal hygiene, and sterilisation of instruments with fire or alcohol, would be made much quicker than actually happened in the real world.

    Women in my suggested breeding farms, being well-fed and well taken care of, might thus expect to survive their pregancies and births, and have perhaps up to 20 children while 15-40 years old. It is not unrealistic.

    Of these, again with said basic medical improvements, some 17-19 might perhaps be expected to live into adulthood. So while not exactly having litters as you suggested, for practical purposes the effect is roughly identical.

    Contrary to popular belief, women and men in the real world often only married as late as in their mid-20s in the days of yore. Miscarriages were frequent, and infant mortality, as is well-known, was sky-high, often around 50%. Historical birth rates in the world suggest that on average, very roughly, only about 2-3 children survived into adulthood, out of twice that amount of births, and even more pregnancies. This is why population growth in the world was so moderate for most of human history.

    So our 3% fertile women could perhaps produce a number of babies corresponding to some 25% of the real-world women. Add to that some 10% of women in convents in medieval Europe, and our 3% correspond to about a third of the actual women ― some ten times more than their actual number.

    This is the very advantage of regulated and planned breeding that I have suggested, and why it would undoubtedly be practised. While population growth would certainly be slower than in the real world, it is absolutely feasible that 3% of the women, if well bred on, could sustain thriving civilizations.

    ...because, if one wished to go even further, we might begin contemplating SELECTIVE BREEDING ― just like we’ve done, and still do, in the real world with any livestock. Why do cows produce more milk today than a hundred years ago? Why do sows give more piglets? Improved nutrition, and selective breeding. This would mean, for example, intensive selective breeding of women with a history of producing twins. And selective breeding of women known to produce large, strong, healthy children. And selective breding of women known to stay fertile until say, in their 50s.

    How long would it take before a subspecies of women with a very high probability of producing twins had been bred?

    How long would it take before a subspecies of exceptionally strong, athletic women who gave strong, athletic children had been bred?

    Would such women not be reserved for the upper classes of society?

    Would such differentiation not further divide human society into biologically differentiated castes? From the menial workers who only were granted access to inferior-grade females, to various upper castes with access to the more formidable females?

    ELLIOTT ― "[Now take our hypothetical 3% scenario].
    [...]
    While, of course, such a scenario would totally change the way human cultures look and feel, the *concepts* of class, race [yes it's a concept], freedom, etc. would not be any different.”

    This is utterly absurd. Do you seriously, really believe that? This is merely a scenario, but a highly plausible one. I could give you others. Admittedly, it's all "Statistical Probabilities". But have you ever considered the ramifications of scenarios, Elliott?

    Andy's Friend,

    I am exceptionally close to being done with this conversation. I commend you on all the thought you've put into this, and I daresay, your talents would be put to better use co-writing your own fiction than analysing Trek, because your scenarios spin further and further away from what this show is trying to be about. And let me be clear, that in itself is fine, good even, that you should be so inspired as to keep the gears turning and churning. However, I don't feel that you are necessarily able to leave all that baggage behind and analyse what you see before you critically. "Independent thoughts," as you put it, can become so in-dependent as to become superfluous.

    I am going to do the honourable thing and pedantically point out each little flaw that I see in your arguments above, but I want to be totally clear that I don't think those little flaws are particularly important in the scheme of this argument. In a sense we are having different conversations and with each subsequent alternate scenario you present, yours gets further and further away from this story. With that caveat out of the way, here we go:

    1. The nature of the Vissians and the cogenitors:

    You wrote : "I'm pretty sure that the minute we meet a truly alien species, we'll give up such childish, foolish thoughts."

    That is not a logical argument, it is a belief. Your belief is predicated on, it seems, a style of science-ficiton/fantasy which you prefer to Trek's style.

    That is completely fine, of course, for you to prefer other's (ie Lam's) style of fiction. But in analysing a work of Star Trek, you do have to take it on its own terms. Just as you adamantly put forth the arguments of historical and cultural relativism, *fictional* relativism is important. If it is your conclusions that Trek's myth/mirror approach is faulty, foolish or dangerous, you are free to make that argument, but it is tremendously self-defeating to impose your own preferences onto a Universe which has chosen another path. You decided for yourself that the Vissians were "a truly alien species," but in Trek, no alien species is actually alien; each is a mythological magnification of humanity, so that one may tell tales via proxy. The prejudices we face are after all the result of dismissing others as somehow *less* human than ourselves. By making the other human players "alien," the distinctions between actual human beings are revealed to be laughably minor in comparison. Thus the original premises for our prejudices are robbed of their power to hold us. That is the power of the Trek myth, and why it is next to pointless arguing that the Vissians or any other Trek race is truly alien from us. They are not, and cannot be because that is not the *reason* Trek has alien races, or is set in the future. It has always been about us.

    Hence your statement, "these are alien beings. You [Robert] don't know what you are seing. You only think you do, because you choose to interpret it in human terms."

    is utterly baseless. It isn't Robert or I who interpret the aliens in human terms, it's the writers who INVENTED them who do so. You are free to take that invention and roll with it, inventing and conjuring your own scenarios as you do, but that act doesn't give you the right to substitute your version of their creation inside their premise, and then criticise the rest of us for failing to see the genius of your arguments.

    "I understand you, and unfortunately, gladly concede that you may have a point. This is because the TNG Federation has failed, abysmally, in depicting true alienness within its member planets. How are the Bolians different from humans? They're blue!...it is Star Trek's fault that we were never presented such true, cultural diversity."

    As I've already said, if you want to be critical of Trek for being what it is, you are in large company (just take a look at this site!), but it seems pretty obvious that, for you, this was the episode which broke the mould and suddenly stopped being Trek in favour of a wholly different type of science fiction. There are episodes of Trek in nearly every series (some more than others) which really cross the line and become something else, but this is not one of them. This is so classically Trek it could easily be adapted into a TOS format and told forty years earlier. The subject matter (read: the human social dysfunction which the episode is criticising in moral terms) is more contemporary than the issues typically dealt with on TOS, but the spirit, as Robert put, is very blatantly there.

    "There are two possibilities here:

    1 ― The Cogenitor is oppressed. Yet, it is not Tucker’s, or Archer’s, place to judge these aliens. 'it's not OUR PLACE to judge these aliens'. And Archer tells Tucker that.

    2 ― The Cogenitor may or may not be oppressed. We don’t know. We know next to nothing about it. And knowing so little, we have no means of really interpreting it. Yes, it may very well look opressed to us, but that may be our interpretation tricking us. Knowing so little about it and Vissian society, 'we CANNOT judge these aliens'. And Archer tells Tucker that."

    First of all, "The cogenitor is oppressed" and "the cogenitor may be oppressed" are not mutually exclusive possibilities are they? Logically, there are two possibilities, the cogenitor is or is not oppressed.

    It may not be our place to judge, I'm basically with you there, but what happens in the episode? The cogenitor is exposed to the rights and privileges of male and female Vissians (and exhibits the exceptional proficiency that most of the species seems to possess) by Tucker, and in having its consciousness expanded, chooses to leave its society. But politics do not allow for this possibility and, given the option of living with an expanded consciousness in a world which has made no room for that expansion, chooses to end its life, which the Vissians all agree is a tragedy. We may not know *everything* about Vissian biology or culture, but we know what happened to this one individual. This one individual demonstrated the classic symptoms of oppression as defined in human terms, which are, I might reïterate, the only terms with which we are capable at all of defining things. It is possible to determine, knowing full well that the Vissians are Trekkian stand-ins for certain subsets of humanity, and given only the information in this episode that the congenitor is oppressed.

    Allow me to take a small but relevant tangent. I once had a conversation with a Lebanese man who found the West's treatment of women morally appalling. We "let them" expose their bodies in public, allow them to be mistreated by men who don't even have the decency to marry them, and it seems (to him) we don't really care about them enough to protect them from the difficulties of the world with which only men are biologically capable of dealing. From a traditional Muslim perspective, his views are not strange. From a culturally relative perspective, his attitudes about women are natural and normal, and in his world, a woman who would actively choose to rebel against those ideals or, say, end her own life because she was exposed to different life which she may never get to live, would be considered mentally unbalanced. And what do we say to that? Do we say, "To each his own! In the West, our women are to be treated equally to men, but your women must be different. So, we shall be sure not to pass judgement on your society and consider women who are de-sexed, privilege-less, and purposefully kept ignorant of the larger world to simply be too alien for us high-minded Westerners to understand? If that is your view, I pity you, sir, but not nearly so much as millions of souls here on earth who continue to lead lives mired in oppression because such perspectives as yours and my Lebanese friend.

    2. The Federation :

    "Robert,

    On a different note, you have of course a point regarding admission to the Federation, that 'once you have HUNDREDS of worlds you can be pickier'.

    But I gave you an actual, historical example of how such proceedings actually work in a real-world scenario, in a case where all the involved parties are actual human beings. "

    I am rather perplexed by your choice to judge a fictional, idealistic political body by the actions of a contemporary and woefully flawed one. An integral part of the Trek message is that humans--all humans--eventually outgrow most of the very natures which make the EU, as an example, so tenuous an organisation. It's just as preposterous as assuming that the Federation would operate like the Roman Empire, annexing and subduing different peoples into its sphere of influence. Whatever clever parallels headline-grabbers like to draw between contemporary powers and the Romans, surely you as an historian know how ridiculous a comparison of actual Roman political policy and contemporary models is!

    Robert's citations of TNG's "The Hunted" and VOY's "The Void" are perfect examples of how the Federation is UNlike contemporary political organisations. Just like with the Vissians, you don't have to like what Trek is, but you cannot pretend it simply isn't in order to suit your own arguments.

    3. Gender equity :

    The ironic thing about all of your spun out examples of hypothetical human breeding is that they are totally unnecessary for proving the point here. Humans have managed to treat legions of of other human beings unfairly to the point of slavery and genocide within the parameters of our current biology. If you (and you in particular should be a rich font of knowledge on this point) consider the historical justifications for the treatment of women, other races, gays, the elderly, the poor, the unbred, etc. you can easily see that (just like my Lebanese friend from before), from a certain cultural perspective, there is a kind of relativistic justice in those crimes. We humans haven't changed our biologies, have we? Our species procreates the same way it always has and the numbers of genders and genders hasn't changed in proportion very much, has it? So why is it that now, those same attitudes are considered immoral? Because we evolved. We discovered new worlds, as it were, and we changed our beliefs accordingly. The excuse "this is simply the way we are" is no longer sufficient.

    Can it go too far? Absolutely--that's where I think we agree, the Prime Directive comes in. In the specific case of this episode, the wisdom which eventually becomes the PD is what drives Archer to make is decision. Even though the Vissians are oppressing their cogenitors, the solution is not to impose our moral standards upon them, but to invite them to catch up. Eventually, with a UFP and history behind us, that invitation becomes all the more appealing.

    "...because, if one wished to go even further, we might begin contemplating SELECTIVE BREEDING ― just like we’ve done, and still do, in the real world with any livestock. Why do cows produce more milk today than a hundred years ago? Why do sows give more piglets? Improved nutrition, and selective breeding. This would mean, for example, intensive selective breeding of women with a history of producing twins. And selective breeding of women known to produce large, strong, healthy children. And selective breding of women known to stay fertile until say, in their 50s."

    Would such a thing even be possible? I feel we may be in a beggars can't be choosers scenario. If 3% of women are fertile we would kind of have to use all of them, right? I don't know that'd we'd just lean more heavily on the "right" women.

    Granted twin producers over some 20 or so births as you suggested would naturally spread their genetic material faster and possibly lead to a takeover, but I don't think we'd be able to only breed with the best women. When 97% are infertile, the 3% ARE the best women.

    But that is besides the point, the likelihood of your scenario is not required to answer it's main point. Is freedom (the concept) different because of our individual scenarios? I think yes and no. In the Western world we think we are free yet most of us are indentured servants to whomever owns our debt. In the Middle Ages I assume hating your King meant you wanted a different one. Likely most of them felt they WERE free. The idea of truly being free from a King would have seemed preposterous. And although children often retort in America when someone tells them to stop doing something that it is "a free country" it most certainly is not.

    That said, I do think that great philosophers understand Freedom is a "scenario-less" way, in which you can decouple it as a universal truth from whatever scenario you happen to be living.

    But back to the conversation at hand. I think it is possible that the Federation have a standard of "freedom" that equates not to being truly free to do anything one wants but to self determination and equal rights. And I think that, Gene's Federation would require members to have reached that point.

    I will also say that this conversation has opened to my eyes to why TNG/TOS fans sometimes consider DS9 to be too great a departure. In "The Void" Janeway disconnects needed equipment and sends alliance members away because they broke her rules and killed someone. In "In The Pale Moonlight" Sisko violates Federation rules to save the Alpha Quadrant. And that's not even touching on Section 31. I still love DS9, but after sitting here preaching to you that you don't seem to "get" the Federation, I realize that DS9 doesn't either.

    As to the rest of the argument. What Elliott said, basically.

    "I still love DS9, but after sitting here preaching to you that you don't seem to "get" the Federation, I realize that DS9 doesn't either."

    Oh come on, that was a needles jab! I can just as well say that TNG doesn't get the Federation in its naive self-righteous anthropomorphism. I'm being intentionally harsh here, but I think there are some merits to such words. TNG, and I do love that show, chooses to show all Federation members as essentially the same homogeneous thing with almost identical beliefs. Of course it's no problem to form common interests with such species. Thing is, all those 150 Federation species of TNG era seem to have more in common with humans (and Western humans at that) than two thirds of our own planet. It's a gross simplification that doesn't strike me as particularly plausible.

    Robert,

    “I still love DS9, but after sitting here preaching to you that you don't seem to "get" the Federation, I realize that DS9 doesn't either.”

    Hehe, mission accomplished! I love being the Devil's Advocate, Robert, and I’m very happy to say that you’re reading me all wrong: you seem to be reading to much into certain phrases of mine, and (quite understandably) not considering others that were never said. I am a TNG man to the bone. As much as I also like DS9 as a series, I would hardly call it Star Trek at all, and it makes me very happy if all this has made you realize at least part of that. But before I answer another interesting question of yours, I’d like to answer your question on selective breeding:

    ROBERT ―”Would such a thing even be possible?”

    This is very important to understand my point of how this could potentially change mankind. In short: you cannot breed on a billion women. But take a thousand, and you can do anything.

    It is thus exactly because the number is a small one that intensive selective breeding would be absolutely feasible. As you of course know, humanity has done this for millennia. There’s a reason for the huge disparity between colossal Spanish mastiffs and tiny Spanish Papillons: selective breeding ― the big and strong get bigger and stronger, the tiny and cute get tinier and cuter.

    We saw a reflection of this in Europe until the 19th century: old nobility ― the high nobility descended of medieval knights (noblesse d’épée), who were generally physically far above the rest of medieval society ― was on average taller and stronger than the rest of society. This was not only due to better nutrition, but also to exclusive endogamic practices.

    We still see this in some places in India today ― a visible, physical differentiation between high- and low-caste people, a result of millennia of endogamic practices.

    Just like dogs or horses, you could, almost literally, breed a race of human Titans if you so wished. And before you accuse me of being the last Nazi doctor alive, writing from my hideout in Argentina to share my experiences in perverted human breeding programmes: just like with the cogenitor issue, I am merely being descriptive, not normative.

    It would be extremely easy to run selective breeding on women if only 3% of them were fertile, and kept in breeding farms. The children of stronger women who bore the highest number of children, were less susceptible to suffer birth complications, and had longer fertile lives would be paired with each other ― and their offspring likewise. The overall quality of women, for breeding purposes, would surely rise. The quality of the top percentiles would rise enormously. And in the process, the overall quality of men, and especially of the top percentiles, would also rise, though not as much.

    We did this to cows millennia ago, because we needed them. We made them bigger; made them give more milk, and more calves. And in the process, oxen grew meatier, too. We would surely also do it to women if only 3% of them were fertile, even before reaching say, an Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek or Roman-type level of society.

    You are of course right in saying that all 3% of women would be used for breeding purposes. What I am saying is that while the general level of women ― and also men ― would rise, some would rise more than others. The top percentile of prize women would be repeatedly paired with the prize men in society. They would have large, strong, healthy children; and their baby boys would go on to win battles and conquer enemies, and the right to be paired with other prize women in the very top percentile. The more vulgar men would be paired with the more vulgar women in the 90th percentile or so ― and the intermediary groups with each other. In time, such intensive selective breeding would almost surely lead to the development of a hierarchy with few near-Titan individuals at the top, many regular citizens at the bottom, and some intermediary categories. And mind you: we are talking of a hierarchy in a way much more conspicuous than the Indian caste system.

    This is of course only one scenario, but that which I consider most probable. It is possible to imagine absolute randomness in allocation of women, for example, though I consider it extremely unlikely. If you were a Prince, or a Duke, would you not demand to be paired to a prize woman? If you were a knight, would you not expect to be paired with the second-best? And if you were a lowly peasant, would you not accept the scrawnier woman you were offered?

    I am thus merely trying to illustrate that Elliott’s assumptions that class and freedom notions wouldn’t be affected in a 3% scenario are highly unlikely: class divisions would probably become much more conspicuous; and surely all mentality, including freedom concepts, would reflect this.

    Consider this: it is perfectly possible to imagine a system of morality that emphasized INDIVIDUALITY such as the ancient Greek would arise in such a scenario. But would a religion that stressed EQUALITY such as Christianity ever arise?

    Would the West be the West without Christianity? Is it any coincidence that modern concepts of civic liberties and human rights developed in Christian Europe, and not in the caste system of India?

    PAUL M. ― "all those 150 Federation species of TNG era seem to have more in common with humans (and Western humans at that) than two thirds of our own planet."

    Exactly. And would a 3% scenario on Earth, in fact, not alter mankind entirely?

    ROBERT ― “it's great and Star Trek worthy that this episode has caused you to think big thoughts...”

    That’s why I love it :)

    Paul M.

    You basically answered your own question from earlier : "Why the need to insist on such utterly anthropomorphic perspective[?]"

    with

    "I can just as well say that TNG doesn't get the Federation in its naive self-righteous anthropomorphism."

    Call it what you will (I think 'anthropomorphism' is fine), but, c'est le Trek.

    Robert & Andy's Friend :

    You have both made my morning.

    Quickly, re: Christianity and the Enlightenment. It is important to point out that the flavour of Christianity in which humanist ideals were born was one which was heavily influenced and reformed by pre-Christian Athenian culture whose priorities ended up being very different from the Roman Catholic worldview. Hence why so many of the ideas emerged in non-Catholic Germany and England (as well as ostensibly Catholic but highly cosmopolitan France).

    @Paul M. - "TNG, and I do love that show, chooses to show all Federation members as essentially the same homogeneous thing with almost identical beliefs."

    This is literally Gene's vision. I like DS9 better than ALL OTHER Star Trek. But I never truly understood why people didn't think it "fit" until I was sitting here explaining Gene's vision.

    I was NOT taking a jab at DS9! I'm just saying it's more of a departure than I thought it was!!

    Also, those DS9 episodes I mentioned as strikes against it holding up the vision are among my favorites. I suppose what I'm saying is....

    I hope the future turns out like TNG, but when I'm in the holodeck the entertainment I'm running will look more like DS9 :P

    This is an interesting discussion. I haven't actually seen this episode because I stopped watching Enterprise back in its original run before this episode; I guess I can't help being curious and I will probably watch it soon. A few general points:

    I think that it is possible to maintain, as Elliott and Robert do, that there is a certain standard of at least an attempt at equality for sentient beings, especially autonomy over one's body, which the Federation seems to try to maintain. It is possible that this definition of personal liberty is a purely parochial and narrow-minded conception of the West, but it's still more or less shown to be one of the key values of the Federation and a key value that the artists making Star Trek generally believe is a philosophical position that is admirable, that, to quote prominent Star Trek fan Martin Luther King Jr. :), “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice,” and that personal liberty and bodily autonomy are not faddish products of Western excessive individualism but values which are as close as we can determine to goodness. A great example of this in effect is the case of Worf in "The Enemy," where Worf is granted a very wide latitude to choose what to do with his blood, even if it is damaging to the Federation as a whole. And I think to Trek's credit, it is not really just a function of assuming the future will be like the West. TOS sort of hints at it but TNG goes something like full-tilt socialism during the Reagan/Thatcher era; Trek's vision of what a "better" future looks like is not necessarily the same as fans'. But it does suggest that it is "the best" way of balancing the needs of the community with the needs of the individual, or at least the best up to that point in human history. The Federation has no right to impose its views on other species, but acceptance into the Federation means acceptance of those values. Perhaps this *is* narrow-minded, but I think it's believable that the Federation (or any organization) has certain core tenets which should not be compromised for its voluntary-joining members.

    That said, I do think Andy's Friend and Paul M have a point about the ethnocentrism of the Federation as we see it. I agree that it's not a very convincing depiction of alien life, though like Elliott I don't really think this was ever the function of alien races in Trek anyway, so I'm not too concerned. However, at least on some level, Humanity really *is* The West, in a sort of overwhelming way. I don't think that the values of the importance of voluntary service to the community ("we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity") coupled with certain lines of important freedoms and personal bodily autonomy are ones that the show need divest itself with on a regular basis; Trek has a point of view and an ethos, and I think that's fine. But it becomes uncomfortable especially when other species in Trek are always painted as backward compared to the heavily Westernized view of humanity.

    And the image of the future still is based on assumptions of what constitutes "normal" in 20th century America in certain key ways. In TNG, which I'll take as the seminal Trek series for the purpose of this post, it is notable that the only two adult white male humans in the cast are the top two in the command structure, and that the other white male adult *actor* plays the third in the command structure and the character with (arguably) the biggest role save Picard. The only female cast member who starts in a "non-nurturing" role and a line officer is quickly killed off. Homosexuality is not acknowledged. Humanity, rather than other Federation worlds, is inevitably the focus of most of the aliens, including Data and Q and the Borg. The main character who fulfills similar roles to that of Uhura or Sulu in TOS, as the mark of the series' progressivism and inclusiveness, is Geordi, starting with Roddenberry's concept of the blind man flying the ship, so that's good. One can say that these are surface features, but I think representation is on some level important especially if the series is imagining a future which is *supposed to be* far more "advanced" than our own. That humans are the default and that white men are on some level the default kind of humans suggests the kind of cultural bias that prioritizes not just some Western ideals, but the whole of the West as the centre of the universe, with most variations (e.g. the Klingons with their feudal Japan-esque warrior/samurai culture) being ones demonstrating other human cultures' inferiority. I think the show's general anti-capitalist attitude, going after the Ferengi, at least seems to be some form of self-criticism, especially with the Ferengi being introduced (however poorly) as Yankee traders and thus an implicit criticism of the entire foundation/history of the USA.

    That said, there is a big precedent in Trek history that I think needs to be talked about that supports Andy's Friend's contention that the Federation's rules for its members may be less strictly adhering to the TNG-style Western humanism than Elliott, Robert and, indeed, I think seems to hold most of the time.

    Two words: "Amok Time."

    I think it's fair to say that the episode was made before the TOS writers had nailed down what the Federation was supposed to be, and the secrecy with which Vulcan was shrouded seems not quite to fit the Federation as depicted in TNG. I think there is some implication somewhere that Vulcans got special leeway as a founding member of the Federation. Regardless, "Amok Time" is actually maybe very relevant to the discussion of this episode, as I understand it, because there are certain biological imperatives in Vulcan physiology which significantly alter the way we usually think about procreation. Vulcan males during the pon farr, at least before the holodeck was a reasonable substitute in Voyager for Tuvok, need to either fight to the death or to have sex, we are told; there are no other options, or they die. This is an odd starting point, to be sure, but it also marks the Vulcans as particularly alien in a weird way that also reflects on certain aspects of humanity. Now, as far as I can tell, during the episode, no one actually is forced to do something against their consent from without; Spock maybe has lost control of himself, but if he's a slave it's to his own biology. Kirk agrees to the fight with Spock willingly, and it's made somewhat clear that he has the *option* of refusing, even though his refusal might make Spock have to fight Stonn or die. Stonn seems willing to fight as well, and Spock is raring to go because of his pon farr. So no one is entering unwillingly. Still, it's already a stretch from what we think of as traditional Federation values to allow fights to the death in the first place, a concession made to biology, though the concession means they are suspending what I assume would be general regulations against death matches, not suspending people's right to choose.

    Still, here we have something that goes really uncomfortably against what seem to be more global Federation values:

    T'PRING: You have become much known among our people, Spock. Almost a legend. And as the years went by, I came to know that I did not want to be the consort of a legend. But by the laws of our people, I could only divorce you by the kal-if-fee. There was also Stonn, who wanted very much to be my consort, and I wanted him. If your Captain were victor, he would not want me, and so I would have Stonn. If you were victor you would free me because I had dared to challenge, and again I would have Stonn. But if you did not free me, it would be the same. For you would be gone, and I would have your name and your property, and Stonn would still be there.

    So from this exchange we learn:

    1) T'Pring cannot divorce Spock except by the kal-if-fee ritual combat challenge;
    2) Spock *can* "free" her for daring to challenge;
    3) Spock owns personal property which his wife has access to.

    So apparently divorces are illegal except through ritual combat to the death on Vulcan? OR, perhaps -- women are unable to divorce men, but men are able to divorce women? It's unclear exactly what these rules and laws are, whether Spock would be able to divorce/"free" T'Pring at any time or if he can only divorce her because she insisted on the kal-if-fee. I'm not sure.

    Since it seems as if Spock has property, it seems to me that it is *possible* that the terms of the divorce are actually more economic than purely legal -- maybe T'Pring could get a divorce under normal circumstances, but would lose all her property if she pushed for the divorce. Or maybe there is an intense social stigma, and "the laws of our people" are more equivalent to unwillingness to break social taboo than a legal requirement. Certainly, I could imagine T'Pring, cold-blooded as she is, just suggesting Spock and Kirk fight so that if Kirk wins T'Pring keeps all of Spock's property anyway. Still, while one can interpret different possible meanings to her words, I do think that the most straightforward one is that it's not legal for T'Pring to get a divorce.

    We know, too, that he and T'Pring were actually betrothed at age *seven* by their parents, in an arranged marriage which it is fair to say is below the age of consent. Vulcan children maybe grow up quickly, but regardless, it was their parents who made the arrangement. Spock distinguishes between the betrothal and what is basically the "marriage" ceremony which is what is to happen during the episode, which will presumably end with consummation; so, not only is T'Pring not allowed to get a divorce, she can't get a divorce from a *betrothal* which was arranged by her parents when she was seven.

    Now here, I think, putting moral judgment aside and looking at the facts of Vulcan biology as we know it, I think it makes sense that divorce is legally forbidden. The biological effects of the pon farr, we learn in "Amok Time" and "Blood Fever," are such that Vulcans go crazy with life-threatening afflictions, and then need to either mate or kill. In "Blood Fever," the possibility of undergoing a deep meditative trance is introduced; in the Tuvok pon farr episode, the idea of mating with a hologram is also presented as an option, though it wasn't considered with Vorik and I'm going to make a leap and say that it's because of Tuvok's age that it was an option at that time. In "Blood Fever" Tuvok states that the meditation is very difficult and seems to imply that it's by no means a guarantee that a Vulcan can manage it. So we're looking at a condition which, if a structure for mating is not maintained, can lead to a high probability of death (either through ritual combat or the Vulcan dying themselves). Of course it becomes logical for divorce to be taboo or even illegal, without the ritual combat which provides an alternate outlet for the pon farr tensions. Since men and women are both affected by the pon farr, any monogamous structure will have some kind of problems, since presumably there will in general always be people losing and gaining mates as a result of death and the population will not be 100% one-to-one in size. Perhaps there is some degree of polyamory on Vulcan or some sort of prostitution we're unaware of. Or, of course, things become simpler once Vulcan makes contact with other species who are not bound by the pon farr cycle but can still bond with the Vulcans to some degree (presumably Sarek's wives, Vork's attempt with B'Elanna).

    So the reason for the lack of option of divorce, AND the reason for the early arrangement of marriage, makes sense. If adults can die from not having a mate during the pon farr, then there is no reason to leave this to chance; Vulcan parents assign their children a mate of the same age so that their cycles overlap, so that both will not face the risk of death in the event that they are left without a mate. But this means that Vulcans have very little actual choice in who they marry, except perhaps later in life after a spouse dies or except through ritual-combat divorce. Perhaps men have more rights to divorce than women (as implied by the implication that Spock can free T'Pring), though there maybe it still requires the ritual.

    It's hard to emphasize how much of a violation of what Federation tenets seem to be this is. What happens if a Vulcan doesn't *want* to be married to the person they've been assigned at childhood? What happens if they do not *want* to have sex with their partner? The Western humanist in me (which is the dominant part) certainly hopes that there are options available to Vulcans who do not want to mate with their assigned partners, that they have some sort of recourse if they do not consent to the pairing. But the cultural relativist now speaks up and says, well, arranged marriages do often work out in human life, and even if they didn't, Vulcans really are quite different from humans in this respect. Vulcan marriages do obviously have some degree of affection and love (c.f. Tuvok's love for his wife, Sarek's for his human wives), and we see that T'Pring prefers Stonn to Spock and so Vulcans do have some way of "measuring" who they prefer among people. But as an unemotional people, it may be that marriage means a different thing to most Vulcans than it does to humans. With a lesser emotional component, perhaps personality compatibility is not as important as it is for us. Perhaps a Vulcan couple could recognize each other's primary function as to be their sexual partner and the parent of their children, and other bonds and differences between them are not so relevant. Presumably parents are able to take into account projections of personality and career desire compatibility when they match them up with each other, and Vulcans' logic means that they may be able to smooth over the personality conflicts which break out in human marriages and lead to divorce. Their marriages may be something more of a partnership.

    The other thing the cultural relativist says is this: the thing we know about Vulcans is that the vast majority of the time, they avoid emotion and base their decisions and values on logic; and then on the pon farr, logic goes out of the window. The ritual in "Amok Time" is violent and what many of us would consider barbaric. However, the "barbarism" of the ritual is a counterbalance to the extreme peaceful sophistication that the Vulcans have the rest of the time. As a society, they have found a balance that "works" for them. McCoy suggests, and I think we're meant to assume, that the excess emotionalism and violence and primal urges of the pon farr ritual are directly related to the deep emotional control that Vulcans have the rest of the time. Humans attempt to find a balance between our biological and emotional selves, and our rational selves; in general, we try to be something like the same person most of the time, combining both elements. Vulcans pay for their choice to be logical and peaceful most of the time with an excessively violent ceremony. I think it's fair to say that Vulcans are very likely less violent overall than humans are, even 23rd/4th century humans, and so perhaps this balance is worthwhile, even if it means what seem to be backward marriage practices which go against general Federation/humanist values of the importance of individual choice and peaceful resolution of conflicts, in the micro.

    It may be that Vulcans have the option of refraining from sex with their partners, of having legal bodily autonomy which is important in our world. It may be, then, that most Vulcans still consent to pon farr sex because their cycles are always in tune with their partners; or that they recognize, as Saavik does in The Search for Spock, the pragmatic importance of satisfying a biological urge and regarding it as a rational response. It may also be that Vulcans who are not undergoing the pon farr may not feel the same intense emotional/physical effects that sex has on humans, and which makes rape in particular and grudgingly-consented-to-sex in general so traumatic for humans, and so the connotations of the central importance of sexual consent, which is justifiably very important to most human societies (though it takes on different forms), are perhaps not as relevant to Vulcan society. I don't know.

    What's interesting is that "Amok Time," one of my favourite TOS episodes, sort of plays in both frames -- both in presenting the Vulcans as a totally alien species, and in commenting very specifically about humans. And in the human case, the story is largely about how humans, even very rational and logical ones, have a hard time dealing with their biological urges, and feel intense emotions when it comes to love, sexual attraction, jealousy, sexual rivalry, etc. In this frame, the story is best read as a huge exaggeration of human traits. Taken too literally, the story is, to use a common social justice cultural criticism word, Problematic, bigtime, in its suggestion that being horny is SUCH an intense experience for people, especially (?) men, that they basically can't control themselves and can only marginally be held responsible for their actions. That is a really damaging argument to make, and I don't ultimately think the episode is making that, though it can be read that way. I do think that the intense emotions surrounding sex drive can be powerful and it does happen often that people are overwhelmed by them, but it's important to recognize that there are emotional tools to cope with this without sexual assault or violence. However, in the frame where we're meant to see Vulcan society as genuinely alien, this criticism sort of takes on a new meaning. Maybe for Vulcans they really can't control themselves, or it's so absurdly difficult that they need an entire deeply regimented social structure specifically to allow these biological urges to be channeled relatively peacefully without destroying the rest of their society in the process.

    So, while I don't know how much this applies to the situation in "Cogenitor," I think how we evaluate, and how the Federation evaluates, the details of Vulcan mating ritual (which we know about) tells us something about what our, and the Federation's, values are.

    I should add:

    I think that part of the reason that the pon farr is as powerful as it is in Vulcan is the recognition that, without powerful drives, it may not be logical to procreate at all. Many Vulcans might believe that their talents are better served without raising children, or might not particularly feel the need to create new life in general. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspectives that Vulcans who *do* have an overwhelming, insatiable procreative drive which survives the transition to logic would tend to procreate more and thus become dominant. Vulcans who want to have lots of children can of course have them outside the pon farr confines, but the pon farr and the attendant rituals ensures that the (non-rational) urge to continue the species does not fade away.

    OK, another point:

    I still am not certain because I haven't seen this episode, but I believe that one thing which distinguishes the Vulcan situation from what seems to be the Vissian situation is that, for the most part, it seems as if all Vulcans are in the same boat as each other: they have arranged marriages which maybe can't end in divorce, but it's not that a small 3% of Vulcans are denied the same legal status of the other 97% of Vulcans.

    As I said, there may be a gender asymmetry in terms of legal allowances for divorce based on T'Pring's statement. However, in addition to the possibility that in general divorce can only happen as a result of ritual combat but Spock could divorce T'Pring for asking him to do it, it may also be that divorce is just impossible unless both parties consent; in this scenario T'Pring would obviously consent to a divorce with Spock, but she doesn't trust Spock's willingness to grant her a divorce. I like this interpretation, because I think that Vulcan seems to be generally egalitarian in terms of gender. That being the case, Vulcans are at least all treated equally, even if aspects of their mating rituals seem to go against some of the personal freedom/bodily autonomy values of the Federation. Even here, I can't say with certainty that it violates Federation convictions, because they are not entirely spelled out.

    "It's hard to emphasize how much of a violation of what Federation tenets seem to be this is. What happens if a Vulcan doesn't *want* to be married to the person they've been assigned at childhood? What happens if they do not *want* to have sex with their partner?"

    I do agree with you but I will refer you to my above comment (which you sort of mentioned anyway)

    "in the beginning Archer was likely bending over backwards to lick the Andorian's and Vulcan's boots to get the first few guys into the Federation, but once you have HUNDREDS of worlds you can be pickier"

    I really believe, as you said, "I think there is some implication somewhere that Vulcans got special leeway as a founding member of the Federation." And I will also say I find the situation to be less bad than the Vissian one because, as you said, they are all in the same boat. But women seem to get a raw deal and I'd assume that this is one of those instances where the rules were bent to get a member to join (as in Andy's Friends EU examples).

    I'll start of by apologizing if this has already been answered. I'm floored at how much discussion is taking place and haven't had time to read it all yet :-)

    @ Elliott - Tue, Nov 18, 2014 - 1:49pm (USA Central)
    "What Trip goes through is the absolutely typical response of anyone not understanding and not liking what he is experiencing in a sufficiently alien culture. He then jumps to conclusions."

    Maybe. But as Robert has pointed out a couple of times, the episode itself supports the idea that Trip's conclusion was correct. Maybe he stumbled onto this conclusion because the TV format doesn't allow for him to come to this conclusion in careful, considered ways (and the episode is mindful of the fact that this is true), but that does not discredit his, shall we say, "accidental" revelation.
    ==========================

    This episode does not support the idea that Trip's conclusion was right. The very opposite is true. His actions directly resulted in "it's" death for goodness sake. Archer was right not to grant asylum because he was smart enough not to judge them as he didn't know enough. Trip's at fault here because he assumed he knew enough.

    @ Andy's Friend,

    I've been thinking about your analogies regarding humans and what-ifs such as the males were 3% of the population etc. I'm not sure that's a fair analogy as the Vissians have 3 parts required for reproduction.

    Robert,

    "I won't weigh in on either side of the argument, but that is not what Elliott said. At best he said the EU is the beginning of an eventual evolution of better ideals."

    I would say that NATO is better comparison to what the Federation is trying to represent.

    William B, a great take, as usual.

    There's another Federation member that could be an interesting study in this respect: Trills.

    We know that there is a great difference between Trills who aren't joined and those who are. The first are essentially humans with spots; we can safely assume that everything that applies to your typical specimen of Homo sapiens, applies to them as well. The latter, however, differ greatly. They are a symbiosis of humanoid and non-humanoid life, each of which contributes to the new gestalt personality. Even more than that, the symbiont serves as some kind repository for personalities, memories, and experiences of all previous hosts. The longer the symbiont survives, going from host to host, the more intricate, more complex does the new gestalt personality become. Jadzia Dax, has 7--strike that--8--wait, is it 9?--"personalities" to juggle inside that body of hers, and Dax only goes back some 300 years. There are probably joined Trills out there that reach back much futher than that. It's almost a form of immortality (while it lasts). I mean, Curzon is not really dead, right? He informs what Jadzia is today. And if we are to argue that he truly died, wouldn't it then mean that Jadzia, such as she was before her joining, in a manner of speaking also died? By most accounts, she's not the same person anymore, nor can her body survive the extraction of the symbiont.

    Yet, there are few symbionts available for joining. I forgot the numbers provided, but they're low. Hence, Trills who want to become joined must pass through a rigorous process to determine the best, most intelligent and emotionally stable candidates that will then undergo the joining.

    And here the Trill society, viewed with the discussion on this thread in mind, starts to encounter problems: the joined Trills are likely to become a caste of their own. Not necessarily as an institutionalized measure, but as a virtue of their, well, superiority in almost every quantifiable way. On the average, they'll be much more intelligent and rational, in better control of their emotions, with a broader perspective and several lifetimes of experiences to draw on. They'll be more desirable as potential sexual partners, they'll probably always have advantage when applying for jobs because, let's face it, they'll usually be better at them.

    It's almost akin to genetic engineering, which we know is forbidden in the Federation (or is it Earth only?) Imagine a whole subrace of humans... or don't; there's Khan for you. Something like this is bound to create a potential for deep rifts in any society, which would then have to come up with measures to counteract or diminish these devastating effects.

    There will be "practical applications" of this divide. What if two Trills, one of them joined, suffered life-threatening injuries in a car crash and there isn't enough time to treat both of them? In human society, medical professionals would generally treat the one with greater chances of survival. But would that hold in the Trill example? Does the life of one Trill hold the same weight as the life of a joined host-symbiont, especially if he/she/it has, say, a thousand years of experiences and personalities inside. I can easily imagine such venerable Trills achieving special status in their society, reserved for the rarest of treasures. They may become institutions in their own right, the living bonds that tie those that came before and generations that will follow. Their continued existence and well-being may become one of the society's paramount concerns.

    But when all is said and done, is such treatment really fair towards "the ordinary masses"? Why does this one have to die so that "the important one" might live? I can easily imagine such scenarios asserting themselves in different walks of life on Trill every day.

    William B.,

    First of all, thank you for your excellent comment.

    Second, I'm sorry that you should have read so much about the episode. But you should definitely try and watch it when you have the chance, even if you now have read how the story goes.

    Anyway, thank you for mentioning the Vulcans in your excellent example. I've had some of the same thoughts about them myself (it's hard not to), and they are indeed the prime example of what I mean: room must be made for certain cultural idiosyncrasies in Federation member worlds; we can’t expect every alien culture to be just like us. And here we see that the Federation respects native customs and practices very different from the Federation Earth's, as long as the species overall can be said to adhere to the main guiding principles. The only question is of course: how much idiosyncrasy is to be tolerated?

    Unfortunately, the reason the Vulcans are the best example of what I mean is because they are perhaps also the only example, or one of very few ones. This is what I meant with:

    "This is because the TNG Federation has failed, abysmally, in depicting true alienness within its member planets. How are the Bolians different from humans? They're blue! [...] it is Star Trek's fault that we were never presented such true, cultural diversity"

    And importantly:

    “I can't recall a single episode of TNG that deals with serious ethical problems arising from the native customs of a member planet.”

    The Bolians may have customs that are even more outlandish than the Vulcans: but unfortunately, we simply don't know. So might the Benzite. And, and... But we just have never seen them, or heard of them.

    So a fundamentalist might argue that Bolians are essentially just like humans, except that they're blue. A fundamentalist might argue that Benzites are essentially just like humans, except for breathing another atmosphere and having two thumbs on each hand. And so on and so forth. And I cannot truly argue against it: Star Trek has never given me the means to do so. But I can do more than point at the extreme improbability of that scenario: I can point at how petty, and how sad it is to only accept that which is exactly like oneself.

    WILLIAM B. ― "That said, I do think Andy's Friend and Paul M have a point about the ethnocentrism of the Federation as we see it. I agree that it's not a very convincing depiction of alien life, though like Elliott I don't really think this was ever the function of alien races in Trek anyway, so I'm not too concerned. However, at least on some level, Humanity really *is* The West, in a sort of overwhelming way."

    Two comments: Star Trek is of course mostly social commentary, and deals with the human condition. I understand perfectly that both for that reason and for budgetary reasons, almost all aliens on Star Trek are humanoids, often incredibly so. And in the vast majority of cases, I too, like you, am not concerned: I not only don't mind, but wouldn't have it otherwise. We need these humanoid characters to be able to tell stories about ourselves. But having said that, I believe that the third gender in "Cogenitor" transforms this episode from social commentary to Strange New Worlds. The cogenitors are New Life, akin to the Trill symbionts, or the Kriosian empathic metamorphs: they represent something alien, something we may only ever vaguely understand.

    And finally, we must remember that Star Trek, and Roddenberry's vision, betrays itself. Because Star Trek clearly isn't always about a humanity that cares for Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Star Trek often isn't even about humanity. Star Trek is clearly all too often about what you call a "Humanity [which] really *is* The West".

    Consider this: you have discussed the pon farr, and Vulcan arranged marriages. There are many countries in the world today where arranged marriages are still practiced at every level of society. One of them is no small country, and is one in which I have lived: India.

    There is very little to suggest that by the 24th century, Indians won't still be practicing arranged marriages. It is perhaps surprising that so many well-educated Indians continue this practice in our day and age, but there you are: they do. I myself, as a European of a suitable family, was offered a considerable number of suitable girls in marriage while in India. Often, an arranged marriage is the solution even for well-off Indians abroad: and it is so overwhelmingly domestically. Why? In a few cases because people are forced to. In the vast majority because they want to: because of a very different mentality.

    Where is *this* human diversity in Star Trek?

    Why have we never seen, on TNG, a 24th century Indian arranged marriage?

    It's funny: I read people who want to see gays on the bridge. I read people who want to see blacks in the captain's chair. But no one here asks to see two Indians professing their undying mutual respect and affection in an arranged marriage.

    Lem was right: "We don't need other worlds. We need mirrors. We don't know what to do with other worlds."

    Paul M.

    “And here the Trill society, viewed with the discussion on this thread in mind, starts to encounter problems: the joined Trills are likely to become a caste of their own.”

    Very good point, this and the following. There can be no doubt whatsoever, for instance, that the joined Trills would always receive preferential treatment in your accident scenario ― other Trills be damned.

    One might argue that this would be to save two lives rather than just one ― in a way similar to that of a pregnant woman. Or one might go further, and say that in a way, saving a joined Trill would be saving the lives of all previous hosts also, who in a way can be said to live on in the joined Trill.

    But one might also just say it plainly as it is, and is shown on Star Trek: a joined Trill is simply considered more valuable in Trill society than an ordinary Trill. That much seems obvious. Whether that is because of some reverence for a certain embodiment of history they represent, or sheer recognition of their rarity, or excellence is irrelevant: the joined Trill are, to use your word, superior.

    The truth is that the very fact that joined Trills exist *IS* preferential treatment, as you hint at: the joined Trill will have every advantage in virtually any situation, with vastly superior knowledge and experience being the most obvious. Add to that the fact that only the best and the brightest are allowed to join, and given enough time, you have your caste, institutionalized or not, as you point out.

    All this may seem at odds with our Western, human thought. But again, these are not humans, and certainly belong to the more exotic types on Star Trek. Can we understand the joined Trill at all?

    On a purely personal note, I have no problem whatsoever in recognizing all sorts of preferential treatment imaginable (well, almost) to joined Trills. As I tend to see everything as abstractions, I could not care less whether the Trill are blue, have spots, or pointed years. But they have one extraordinary feature: they can be two beings in one, one of which is itself, in a way, many beings.

    The true nature of the joined Trill of course exceeds my power of abstraction: I am like a child who is told about lovemaking: I have only the vaguest possible understanding of reality.

    But even that vaguest possible understanding tells me that the joined Trill are something more. Much more. This is valuable, and precious, and deserves preferential treatment.

    But it all boils down to lovemaking. In the literal sense, William B. wrote of the Vulcans, and pon farr. In a more abstract sense, we have the symbionts, and the cogenitors, and the likes. All these are strange, alien concepts we can only hope to understand as the child understands lovemaking. Unless you’re a fundamentalist who only sees what’s on screen, that is. The fundamentalists are like little boys who mostly care whether the aliens are blue or have spots. They think everything you need to know is on screen; they can tell you precisely how many spots Jadzia Dax has, will believe they fully understand the joined Trill, and will get terribly excited about it and share their profound understanding with anyone who will listen.

    As for me, I am the curious child, wanting to know more about lovemaking. I seek out naughty pictures. Perhaps even see a wicked film. But I know that I'll never understand it, never truly know it until I've tried it. And I guess that in Star Trek, there are some things that we humans just can't try.

    So this is quite simply the way Trill society has evolved. And in the end, it is either this, or they stop joining and witness the extinction of the symbionts ― and a part of exactly what makes them Trills.

    And such are the cultural idiosyncrasies we must accept.

    I will (surprise) play Devil's Advocate on the Trill issue. Although it's a great point, I don't know that it's valid.

    To put quite simply, we're discussing self-determination and equality as universal requirements to Federation membership. Being able to have your divorce denied is a serious (IMHO) violation of #1. Vulcans fail here (although again, it very well could have been the only way to get those first 4 to the table that Earth had to make concessions to them).

    I actually don't see Trills failing in the way you suggest.

    All Trills CAN be joined. If everyone has an equal chance at a symbiont, but not everyone will get one this is no difference than the aristocracy of being a Starfleet cadet or a starship captain. There are not enough spots/ships/slugs for everyone. But as long as everyone has an equal shot I will argue that equality is achieved.

    "Add to that the fact that only the best and the brightest are allowed to join, and given enough time, you have your caste, institutionalized or not, as you point out."

    This could quite literally be used as an argument against any of those things (Starfleet academy membership, being a captain, etc.). When something is a rare commodity there needs to be criteria for doling it out. Look at the (very excellent) episode of Enterprise where they look at who was going to get the first space flight/first captain's seat. They were all deserving/qualified/whatever. There was only one NX ship and now Jonathan Archer is the most important person in Starfleet.

    If there was actually a caste system where you could inherit a slug or whatever, I could see your point... here I think you are seeing inequality between a Joined Trill and a Trill, but all Trills are born equal (minus their genetic makeup of course).

    I see it may trouble you that joining imparts a sort of immortality, but it doesn't bother me. A rare commodity can't be given to everyone.

    What troubles me more (and I wished they had touched on it), is who is Dax? What if Dax hates Jadzia? Could it? Could Dax have failed to "serve" Yedrin because he murdered Jadzia? Trills seem to be equal (all have the same shot at a symbiont) and they have self determination (they choose to be joined or not joined... although Ezri's example is troubling there too), but what of the symbionts? Are they willing participants? Controllers? Slaves? Something else?

    Whoops! That last bit makes no sense. I meant to say Verad, not Yedrin!!

    "This episode does not support the idea that Trip's conclusion was right. The very opposite is true. His actions directly resulted in "it's" death for goodness sake."

    @Yanks - Surely you can concede that one can come to a correct conclusion and still take the wrong course of action.

    That's my take on the episode. Trip's findings were correct, his actions were wrong. And I think the episode supports it.

    Robert, and William B.,

    ROBERT ― "I actually don't see Trills failing in the way you suggest.

    All Trills CAN be joined. If everyone has an equal chance at a symbiont [...] as long as everyone has an equal shot I will argue that equality is achieved."

    I never said otherwise. But you seem to miss the point: being joined is far, far more than being admitted to Starfleet Academy. You are actually tranformed. You become some sort of superior being(s). A Starfleet officer, even an Admiral, only has authority with the framework of Starfleet. Out on the street, he is your average Joe. A joined Trill is a joined Trill everywhere.

    I actually had a very interesting discussion once about this, trying to describe the differences between what is a Viceroy, and what is a titled noble: ranks, privileges, and such. It boils down to this: a Viceroy represents the Monarch, and rules in his stead. But his power is confined, in space, and in time. Outside his Viceroyalty, he enjoys lesser privileges. After his term has ended, he is what he was before.

    A Duke is a Duke, whether he is 8 years old or 88. He enjoys all the privileges of his rank at any time, anywhere within the realm and the empire, and in the good old days in other kingdoms and empires as well. Until a few years ago when Spain joined the European Union, for example, every Spanish Duke held a diplomatic passport as default. He was seen as an old lineage, an embodiment of history, and a representative of the Kingdom of Spain. He was more than a man.

    And our good Spanish Duke doesn't even begin to compare with what a joined Trill is. And as I said, only the best and the brightest get to be a joined Trill. So the best and brightest get joined, and have babies. If you cannot see the long-term consequences of this...

    ROBERT ― "What troubles me more (and I wished they had touched on it), is who is Dax? What if Dax hates Jadzia? Could it?" etc.

    Good question. It really hasn’t been too well described to us, has it? I guess your guess is as good as mine.

    Other than that, a few comments on cultural diversity, ever my main topic:

    ROBERT ― ”we're discussing self-determination and equality as universal requirements to Federation membership. Being able to have your divorce denied is a serious (IMHO) violation of #1.”

    Not really. It depends. A billion and a half Catholics and Orthodox on Earth today can’t get a Church divorce. We will much, much sooner see married priests in the Catholic Church again ― just like in the early Church, something which the Orthodox churches have maintained to this day ― than see Rome abandon the principle of “usque ad mortem”. I see no problem in this whatsoever: it is coherent. If you believe in a god, and promise him in a holy sacrament to stand by your spouse till death does you part, it is the only thing to do. If you take your god or gods seriously, you must also take your promise to him or her or them seriously.

    Most Protestant churches have subverted the sacrament of marriage. And they do so because they maintain the “usque ad mortem” ritual, while abandoning it in practice: the far majority of Protestants ― take the Lutherans ― promise unto God “till death does us part” at the altar, and half of them get a divorce within a decade, and then promise it again to enother. There is a name for this practice, and that name is hypocrysy. Where Catholic and Orthodox marriages are events of the utmost solemnity ― a forever binding promise to a spouse and a god ―, many, perhaps even most, Protestant ones are not.

    There are many Lutheran priests (about a third) who are against this, just like there are many Lutheran priests who are against women as priests; I happen to know personally a woman priest who, paradoxically, would vote for denying herself and her sex the option, for instance. But historically, all Lutheran churches have been state churches of the northern European states, unlike the independent Roman Catholic Church. So when these states became more democratic and egalitarian a hundred years ago, they simply forced their churches to be the same.

    I’ll give you an example: the present government Minister of the Church in Denmark, Manu Sareem, is a Muslim. He’s a kind and well-intentioned young man, but he knows precious little of Christianity. But it doesn’t matter, because the Church of Denmark is a state church run by an elected governnment minister and his bureaucrats, who then appoint clerics to the positions. The Church of Denmark can just as well be run by a Muslim as by a Satanist.

    What I am saying is, that in spite of William B.’s thourough analyses of minor details in the Vulcan marriage and divorce rituals, we still know next to nothing about them. The single act of matrimony is a huge question, even contemplating only Christian churches. When you start considering all the fringe movements ― Adventists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and so on and so forth, in an amazing list ― you realise Christian matrimony is quite the complicated thing.

    And keeping with the theme of alien cultures in this thread: how can we be sure that Vulcan matrimony isn’t as complicated a thing? Are we to believe that there is just one simple set of rules and vows and rituals that is used throughout Vulcan? Or are there not quite possibly many regional variants, with certain philosophical differences between them? Are we fundamentalists, and believe only and everything that is explained on screen as the Absolute Truth? Or do we understand that we are most likely only being shown a part of that truth?

    It is a huge problem on Star Trek that nearly all worlds are treated in such a simplistic way. We see most worlds treated as a single, uniform culture, and end up treating most aliens as caricatures: the Vulcans are thus, the Cardassians are thus. This can be excellent, and indeed quite necessary, when dealing with stories that require archetypes. But it is also dangerously close to saying that the yellow man is silent and diligent, and the negro isn’t very bright, but he can sing and dance.

    We don’t want to say such things, do we? This is why I normally dislike very strongly too much focus on specific details, unless it is to answer specific questions. Otherwise, we end up focusing too much on those details. William B. did a great job of going through many minor details of Vulcan ritual; but to me, much less is needed to tell me what I need to know: the Vulcans are qualitatively different.

    The details aren’t really important: trying to analyse them makes as much sense as trying to define some remote, exotic community in a mountain valley in India or China by the six days I spent in their company: it’s best avoided. I am content to know of their existence, and to have a vague notion of who they are.

    But when this remote, exotic community doesn’t occupy an idyllic mountain valley in the Himalayas, but a whole planet, I *must* presume that they are not only different from us: they must also be different from each other. Why would the Vulcans ever have developed the philosophy of IDIC in the first place if they were a uniform culture?

    It is ironic, isn’t it? I’m guessing that most people on this forum have only the vaguest of notions about true Earth diversity. It puzzles me, for instance, to build on my previous comment to William B., as a Western European, to see the Federation so often described here by commenters as “the West”, and not as what it is truly is, “the USA”. Certain subject matters aside, the very earthlings I see in Star Trek aren’t really my West, and how I predict it will develop. A more Eurocentric 24th century Earth would emphasize the IDIC to a much higher degree than Star Trek does, because it is also our nature: we are, in fact, diverse in Europe. The Earth of Star Trek worships the complete opposite, the traditional “melting pot” philosophy of America.

    Who, but Keiko Ishikawa and the Token Indian who is far from the bones of his people, shows any sign of an individual cultural heritage? Picard did, in the very beginning; he even said "Merde!" once, such a beautiful word if you know how to pronounce it, in all its nuances. But Picard's Frenchness was never fully developed, and sadly all too soon abandoned. And all the others are absolutely anonymous: they have no culture.

    If I didn't love Star Trek so much I'd be insulted: it depicts my native southern European culture(s) as indistinguishable from the northern European culture(s) I now live in, which is preposterous, and will be three hundred years from now. If anything, people in the future will emphasize old, local rituals and traditions in order to affirm their cultural identity. We already see this happening in the European Union today.

    But Star Trek has to resort to Keiko the Japanese and the extremes of the Far East in order to show that vestiges of culture still exist. All other characters are virtually cultural blank slates. Now, there may be little culture in the US, but there is plenty of it, and very diverse, in Europe ― not to mention the rest of the world. And I'm guessing that there will be too in 24th century outer space. The writing of Star Trek, and its vision of the future, merely reflects where it was created.

    This is at the heart of the matter of "Cogenitor".

    ROBERT ― “It would be fascinating to live in another country for a time though. I'm sure I'd get a whole new perspective on many things I take for granted. So perhaps neither of us is right and both of us see it through the lens of our own experiences.”

    Amen, my friend.

    "And our good Spanish Duke doesn't even begin to compare with what a joined Trill is. And as I said, only the best and the brightest get to be a joined Trill. So the best and brightest get joined, and have babies. If you cannot see the long-term consequences of this..."

    I can see the consequences, but a Duke doesn't earn their title the same way a Trill earns their symbiont. People (for better or worse) think less unkindly of earned privileges than inherited ones.

    "Not really. It depends. A billion and a half Catholics and Orthodox on Earth today can’t get a Church divorce."

    Ok, but the Catholic Church is a private institution. It's not quite the same as the government saying you cannot separate from someone you are married to!

    "What I am saying is, that in spite of William B.’s thourough analyses of minor details in the Vulcan marriage and divorce rituals, we still know next to nothing about them."

    In Amok Time "For you would be gone, and I would have your name and your property, and Stonn would still be there." these laws seem to dictate a lot more than "in the eyes of the church".

    "Now, there may be little culture in the US"

    I think perhaps that too, is in the eye of the beholder :)

    Robert,

    ROBERT ― “I can see the consequences, but a Duke doesn't earn their title the same way a Trill earns”

    Allow me ask: can you see the *long-term* consequences?

    Think of what I wrote of selective breeding. Don’t you believe that the children of joined Trills, whose parents were already in the very top percentile of society, will have childhoods with possibilities of learning far above the average children? Don’t you think that when they have reached adulthood, they will have higher probabilities of passing the necessary tests or requirements to join? In time, will their greater ease at passing the tests not raise the bar?

    Should the Trills pass laws prohibiting descendants of joined Trills in a number of generations to join themselves?

    If not, how many generations will it take before only the children of joined Trills will be able to pass the necessary requirements?

    ROBERT ― “these [Vulcan] laws seem to dictate a lot more than "in the eyes of the [Catholic] church".

    To you, perhaps. To a Vulcan, most probably. But to a Catholic?

    What is more? “your name and your property”? Is this more? To a Vulcan, perhaps. But what if you believe in God?

    Is it possible that laws which are of a very different nature and of seemlingly very different importance can feel equally important to very different people?

    I’m just giving you food for thought. But this last question is directly related to "Cogenitor".

    ROBERT ― “I think perhaps that too, is in the eye of the beholder :)”

    Undoubtedly ;)

    "Think of what I wrote of selective breeding. Don’t you believe that the children of joined Trills, whose parents were already in the very top percentile of society, will have childhoods with possibilities of learning far above the average children? "

    I do see your point to some extent. But do all the best and the brightest want a worm? I mean, Ezri's family seemed to slightly disdain the idea of joined Trills. Jadzia and Arjin were incredibly bright and both failed out.

    Since having a symbiont put in changes you, I'd hope that some of the best of the best don't want them and still have kids. And regardless our leaders now who earn (instead of inherit) those leadership positions still get the advantage you speak of (like Chelsea Clinton for instance). Not even to mention that Wesley gets to serve on a Galaxy class starship because Captain Picard has the hots for his mommy.... how did THAT look on his resume :)

    I just think it makes a difference to me that anybody CAN earn the symbiont, even if they are less likely to.

    "What is more? “your name and your property”? Is this more? To a Vulcan, perhaps. But what if you believe in God? "

    While I understand your point that losing property is not akin to being shunned in the eyes of your God, unless the planet is a theocracy (like maybe Bajor), one cannot really blame the world government for the actions of individual religions. We'll have to judge the world on the basis of it's laws I'd think.

    But yes, to a Bajoran not being allowed to remarry in the eyes of God might be a great deal worse than losing some property.

    Paul M., and Robert, and everyone,

    Paul, I really would like to thank you for your truly excellent point about the Trills. I had never really given the Trills this much thought, but the more I think about, the more I think you’re right.

    From Memory Alpha ― “Common belief in Trill society holds that only one in a thousand Trills make acceptable hosts. In fact, this figure is vastly understated, and nearly half of the Trill population is capable of being joined. The myth is perpetuated very carefully, though, in order to avoid the widespread chaos which would arise if the information were made public, since the symbionts would become, essentially, objects to be fought over, as people fought to gain the few prized symbionts. (DS9: "Equilibrium")”

    Nevertheless, we are still told that “Because there are many more humanoid Trills than symbionts, prospective hosts are weeded out by a demanding selection procedure, overseen by the Symbiosis Commission. (DS9: "Equilibrium") The competition for the few symbionts is fierce and attracts the brightest and most highly motivated of Trill society.”

    First, this corrects Robert’s assertion that “All Trills CAN be joined.” They cannot; but what Robert probably meant was that all Trills that CAN be joined MAY do so. This means that it is only partially true that “everyone has an equal chance at a symbiont”. But it is still partially true.

    Second, it shows that the Trill state quite simply lies to its population. Not about top secret treaty negociation clauses with an alien species, which might be quite understandable, but about the very nature of the Trills themselves. This is powerfull stuff.

    Third, it shows that Trills are, quite simply, divided in an A Team and a B Team. Half the Trills can never join. When you consider the enormous consequences of being joined, you must also consider the full implications of this fact. In time, it is virtually impossible to avoid, for instance, that the symbionts are joined to a host who is the descendant of a previous host, thus granting half the Trill population not only access to many former memories, but also to the memories of their own ancestors. This is immensely powerful stuff.

    And the “common belief in Trill society” of who makes “acceptable hosts” is hugely important, because it is symptomatic.

    I had mentioned the very top percentile previously, but now I see that it is actually even fewer who are commonly believed to make acceptable hosts. As you all know, I seldomly make literal readings; and I can’t really take the “one in a thousand” seriously, because it’s so clearly a convention of speech. So I’ll be very generous, and allow it to be ― maybe ― just my original top percentile.

    This is still a mere 0.1-1% of Trills that is generally believed by the population to be able to join. What does this really mean? Who are those very few who are entitled to believe themselves, and are generally believed to be by society, the only ones capable of joining?

    Are they in fact an oligarchy of sorts? An elite of ultra-gifted, of whom the vast majority must be presumed to be born to the upper echelons of Trill society?

    If it is not an oligarchy of sorts, how on Trill could an ordinary citizen ever get the idea that he or she might be in that percentile and make an acceptable host, and compete for the selection procedure?

    Let’s consider what Paul suggested, and I briefly commented on. We know that some joined Trills have children ― half the Daxes had, and more would have if it were not for a couple of premature deaths, including Jadzia’s. Imagine what it must be like growing up the child of a joined Trill. You would grow up with the history of not only your lineage, but also that of others, and would thus grow up intertwined with Trill history. And you would have a rather unique insight into what it means being a joined Trill ― as close as possible without actually being joined. All other things being equal, would that not make you much more qualified in the selection procedure?

    On Earth, children quite often follow in the footsteps of their parents. We cannot know that Trills feel the same way; but in DS9’s “Prodigal Daughter”, Ezri’s mother had her sons working for the family mining business, and their family patterns seem somewhat to resemble human ones. It would perhaps not be unreasonable to presume that some children might seek to emulate their parents. Yes, Ezri’s family didn’t seem too enthusiastic about her being joined. Was that because they had lived off-Trill for too long, perhaps? Or could it be that they simply belonged to a lower tier of society ― following the same line of thought that makes many factory workers on Earth dislike the idea of one of their children going to university?

    Would joined Trills perhaps be more suppportive of their children wanting to join? And would children of joined Trills not have a considerably higher probabily of being accepted than others?

    This is all of course purely speculative. I can only compare directly with human equivalents. But based on human elites, I do believe that we are looking at a caste here, at least in an embryonic state. Certainly one very important aspect of true aristocracy is present: history, and memories. So is excellency. Given enough time, wouldn’t virtually only children of joined Trills, and a few true geniuses, be considered acceptable hosts?

    The only way to avoid this would be, as I wrote, to pass legislation prohibiting children or grandchildren (in any number of generations) of joined Trills of becoming joined Trills themselves. Without such measures, I quite honestly can’t see how the descendants of this ultra-elite would not, in time, virtually monopolize the symbionts.

    Please note that this does not conflict with the one known provision regarding hosts:

    From Memory Alpha ― “Trill law forbids reassociation between subsequent hosts of joined persons, whose symbionts were romantically involved in their previous hosts, and the people who the previous hosts were romantically involved with. This is because the main purpose of the transfer of symbionts is to experience new things in life.”

    If the Trills developed a true symbiont caste, this would inevitably mean that at one point in future, a symbiont would join a host who would be perhaps the great-great-grandchild of a previous host of the same symbiont. For the symbiont, this new generation would still lead to “experience new things in life”. But the host would thus gain access to the memories of their ancestor(s), and would become the most stunning example of an aristocracy I have ever had the pleasure to consider. This is truly powerful stuff.

    I doubt the writers who created the Trill symbionts had considered the likely consequences of their creation. To them, it was probably just a neat idea; but the likely consequence of it is that unless specific law is passed to reduce the rights of individuals, the Trills will at one point in time be ruled by a virtually hereditary caste of superior joined Trills.

    Much the same way, the writers who created the cyclical Vulcan pon farr, probably didn't consider the full consequences of their creation: you can only marry 14% of the opposite sex, because your pon farr cycles must be aligned. Correct that for the previous generations who are bethrothed to each other at a very young age, and your options become very, very limited indeed. By introducing the pon farr, the writers introduced an element of biological determinism, savagely reducing the options of choice, to a whole species.

    Much the same way, the writers who created the Vissian cogenitors introduced an element of biological determinism to another whole species, which savagely reduces the options of choice of a small minority of that species is the species is to be able to survive. The cogenitors quite simply cannot be given free choice, as it would disrupt Vissian society beyond belief. They are an extreme case of biology and sociology for whom ignorance truly is bliss, for all parts involved.

    As we are increasingly beginning to understand on our own planet right now, biology matters. But I doubt that most writers of Star Trek episodes fully consider the consequences of their writing. As such, certain of their creations are akin to Dr Frankenstein's.

    The Trill society is possibly the most elitist, least egalitarian society of any major Star Trek society we've seen; and it is so by force of pure biology.

    The Vulcan society is surely the most deterministic of any major society we've seen; and again, it is so by force of pure biology.

    And the Vissian society is perhaps the most deterministic when it comes to a small minority of the population. But again, it is so by force of pure biology.

    Biology also matters in another way: if the Vissians were sentient jellyfish, and the cogenitor a different type of sentient jellyfish, I believe very few people would have a problem with their situation. And I repeat: if the cogenitor in this episode were all Colgate smiles, telling Trip how delighted it was to be able to help one family after another, we wouldn't have this discussion at all. But the writers understandably wanted something more dramatic, more controversial. So they gave us this, just to provoke discussions such as these we're having. I call it outstanding writing. But I also call it manipulative writing, of the sort I don't take too literally.

    Are the Trill, the Vulcans, and the Vissians neat ideas with unthought-of consequences? Are these three species cases of Frankenstein's creature? I don't know, but I know that two of them are members of the Federation. And I know that Frankenstein's creature, in spite of its flaws, is kind at heart. How we treat it says more about us that it says about it.

    "First, this corrects Robert’s assertion that “All Trills CAN be joined.” They cannot; but what Robert probably meant was that all Trills that CAN be joined MAY do so. This means that it is only partially true that “everyone has an equal chance at a symbiont”. But it is still partially true."

    Agreed. All Trills can be joined the way all humans can procreate, even though some of us can't. Legally we all have the opportunity to do so (even if some are biologically prevented).

    "Second, it shows that the Trill state quite simply lies to its population. Not about top secret treaty negotiation clauses with an alien species, which might be quite understandable, but about the very nature of the Trills themselves. This is powerful stuff."

    Agreed, although they lied to the Federation too (and I don't think Sisko blew the whistle, given that episode I think he may have left a lot of it out of the report). I wonder what the Federation would do if they learned of it?

    "Third, it shows that Trills are, quite simply, divided in an A Team and a B Team. Half the Trills can never join. When you consider the enormous consequences of being joined, you must also consider the full implications of this fact. In time, it is virtually impossible to avoid, for instance, that the symbionts are joined to a host who is the descendant of a previous host, thus granting half the Trill population not only access to many former memories, but also to the memories of their own ancestors. This is immensely powerful stuff."

    I do agree. I don't know that it's enough to rule out the possibility that all Trills have equal right and self determination though.

    I often wonder if the symbionts are regarded in a god-like way given the DS9 writing crew's penchant for dealing with spirituality.

    I mean, why else would Ezri agreed to be joined? If I was dying, and you could save me by "merging" with me... would you do it? (I doubt it)

    After such heavy discussion, I'd advise taking a break. Go back to the episode and freeze the shot of the monitor where Trip is trying to choose a movie. The list of titles is a hoot!

    You know, both this episode and 'dear doctor' were some of my favorites in enterprise.

    Do I agree with the message the episodes try to 'send'. Not necessarily or maybe not at all. What the message is, is even for debate.

    What I like about these episodes is that I remember them, so many episodes from so many series pass unremembered. If I dislike the message of the episode I have to think about what my issues are, imagine counterfactuals and so on.

    The attitude that "this episode is not in line with my morals standards and is thus revolting" just seems so limited. It made you evaluate it and justify your moral standards.

    It made you think and at the end nobody had to die for your reflection (unlike poor trip).

    Even though I might not have agreed with the 'moral' of this story, I still found the story worthwhile.

    Agree with limey's assessment of this episode. Sure it tugs at the heartstrings in all the right places but Trip's overzealous involvement seem to come out of nowhere. Something about it felt more than a little contrived.

    But for the first time in this series I will say Bakula's acting (and lines)in the last few scenes were right on the nose.

    The cowboy diplomacy he's demonstrated throughout these past two seasons has suddenly backfired and he now finds himself on the receiving end. And from one of his own line officers to boot. He said Trip was responsible for the tragedy, and while technically that may be the case he also knew Trip only acted as he thought the captain himself would have. That alone was enough to make him question how his own crew perceived him - as a self righteous man who projected his human values onto other beings as he saw fit. Small wonder he looked both disappointed and remorseful.

    Why couldn't they have been more like this? An episode with real drama and consequences that are not neatly tied up at the end. Trip finally gets served for being impulsive, and Bakula delivers the goods perfectly in the final scene. To top it all off we have Andreas Katsulas as a guest star. This could have been a terribly pedestrian episode played for cheap laughs, but instead became the best episode of season two.

    I've liked this season more than most, although the stock action scripts ('we bought em, we gotta use em') are utter fill. This was the titan of the season, without a doubt. It surprises you with its sincerity and depth, reaches in all gently and rips your heart right out. Amongst other things, it's a fair illustration of the immense suicide rate of transsexuals - whom until very recently, society shunned horrendously.
    I was waiting for Archer to demote Trip (I thought it would be prudent) but he knows Trip has gotten a far worse punishment. It is a terrible thing to show the pariah the spoils of the opulent; and intolerable to rub it in their face every day.
    As far as story goes, it's high time Trip grew up. His 'jes folks' charm has worn thin. If he cannot behave as a useful officer, he should be let off at the next stop.

    Trip had a good heart but the way went about it was dangerous. The aliens were obviously superior in capability and could destory humanity completely if they wished. While intervention to prevent the aliens' treatment of their third gender would be ideal if possible, Trip could have triggered a war that Starfleet couldn't fight.

    The species' treatment of their third gender was indefensible and I do not agree that it would be unethical for another civilization to interfere if that civilization was capable of doing so. The concept of 'human rights' is not exclusive to humans and should more accurately be called 'sentient rights', and while it may be impossible to define 'sentient rights' perfectly, I think 'the right to not be enslaved for sex' is well enough within even poorly-defined boundaries to be upheld.

    The problem with the Prime Directive is that it places rights around cultures as a whole, while it should be placed around individual rights.

    For those of you who believe that it is more important to accept cultural differences even if those cultures are messed up (in other words, those who think that Archer was right to mouth-off to Trip), I have this to say to you:

    What if there was a race of aliens who gathered young children at random, kept them in small cages as sex slaves, fed them dog food, and then killed them when they became adults?

    I bet you would not stop them even if you could. You would say some bullcrap like 'I know, it seems wrong, but it's not out business to interfere with their culture.'

    If I was Trip, I would have resigned from Starfleet over this matter. If Starfleet/The Federation/Prime Directive is more concerned about non-interference with other cultures than about justice, than I would be a dissident if I lived in that universe. Some of our concepts are unique to humans, but there are also some things that I belive are naturally universal, and it is those things which I believe are okay to force onto other cultures if they don't comply to those standards.

    I found this episode to be infuriating, disgusting, and immoral, and I frankly don't know if I will ever watch Star Trek again.

    @Anti - For what it's worth I don't think this episode and "Dear Doctor" intended to disagree with you. I feel this episode is Tripp's "Dear Doctor." The point is not that Starfleet should not interfere. The point is that an individual starship does not have the right, means or perspective to do so. In my head canon Starfleet reviews the "Dear Doctor" case and establishes relations with these aliens and uses their influence to affect slow change.

    In Deep Space Nine Eddington compared Starfleet to the Borg, attempting to assimilate other cultures into Federation morals. I think Enterprise just does the best job of any series explaining that the Prime Directive is needed for starships, but in my head canon Starfleet can make more interesting decisions.

    "The point is not that Starfleet should not interfere. The point is that an individual starship does not have the right, means or perspective to do so."

    I suppose I can agree with that. Sometimes, however, I get the impression that the writers are suggesting that interference is never the right option, even for larger bodies of power, such as United Earth/UFP.

    I can see why so-called 'cowboy diplomacy' can be dangerous, but I would at least hope that the United Earth/UFP as a whole would at least consider some way of influencing the species' treatment of their cogenitor for the better, if they can safely do so.

    On another note, I had just finished watching the episode when I said that I wouldn't watch Star Trek again. While I do have a couple major issues with the series (including the Prime-Directive), I still love it too much.

    Yay, you are not lost to us!

    I do agree with you though, some prime directive stuff is hard to follow.

    Let a prewarp civilization develop naturally? That's good, I get that. Almost all other prime directive applications are too rigid though.

    @Anti-Prime Directive

    “The concept of 'human rights' is not exclusive to humans [...]”

    But of course it is, Anti-Prime Directive. But of course it is. And in fact, even a great many humans, and even well-educated and tolerant humans at that, would argue that they don’t even apply to humans. Try figuring out for yourself who I’m thinking of.

    “...and should more accurately be called 'sentient rights', [...]”

    This is a rather silly suggestion, one that can only stem from the fact that you are unable to imagine sentience in such exotic forms that most human concepts become meaningless.

    Try imagining such scenarios, Anti. That is what the very best science-fiction is about. Not the fables that Star Trek does so very well, that remind us of the human condition; but the exploration of other possibilities, that show us the limitations of our own.

    “For those of you who believe that it is more important to accept cultural differences [...]”

    First: we are not accepting “cultural differences”, we are accepting exotic alienness. It is not a difference of degree, it is a difference of nature.

    Second: the example you chose, of “children”, and “cages”, and “dog food”, shows just how far from understanding the point above you seem to be.

    Try reading Paul M’s comments on the Trills above, and William B’s on the Vulcans, and my further treatment of especially the Trills. Here’s a summary [Nov 22, 2014]:

    “If the Trills developed a true symbiont caste, this would inevitably mean that at one point in future, a symbiont would join a host who would be perhaps the great-great-grandchild of a previous host of the same symbiont. For the symbiont, this new generation would still lead to “experience new things in life”. But the host would thus gain access to the memories of their ancestor(s), and would become the most stunning example of an aristocracy I have ever had the pleasure to consider. This is truly powerful stuff.

    I doubt the writers who created the Trill symbionts had considered the likely consequences of their creation. To them, it was probably just a neat idea; but the likely consequence of it is that unless specific law is passed to reduce the rights of individuals, the Trills will at one point in time be ruled by a virtually hereditary caste of superior joined Trills.

    Much the same way, the writers who created the cyclical Vulcan pon farr probably didn't consider the full consequences of their creation: you can only marry 14% of the opposite sex, because your pon farr cycles must be aligned. Correct that for the previous generations who are betrothed to each other at a very young age, and your options become very, very limited indeed. By introducing the pon farr, the writers introduced an element of biological determinism, savagely reducing the options of choice, to a whole species.

    Much the same way, the writers who created the Vissian cogenitors introduced an element of biological determinism to another whole species, which savagely reduces the options of choice of a small minority of that species if the species is to be able to survive. The cogenitors quite simply cannot be given free choice, as it would disrupt Vissian society beyond belief. They are an extreme case of biology and sociology for whom ignorance truly is bliss, for all parts involved. [...]”

    These are all wonderfully, incredibly anthropomorphic species, Anti, far from the true, exotic alienness I speak of. And yet, all it takes are small things such as symbionts, the pon farr, or cogenitors, and look how very far from human they become. Now try imagining something truly alien...

    “The problem with the Prime Directive is that it places rights around cultures as a whole, while it should be placed around individual rights.”

    ...and just how would you do that with say, The Great Link, Anti? Can’t you see how what you propose doesn't make any sense when applied to any sufficiently alien species?

    Another thing: where in the Alpha Quadrant do you get the notion that the cogenitors are sex slaves? Allow me to quote Yanks [Nov 13, 2014]:

    “Again, you make assumptions based on "human" values. Exactly what we need a prime directive to protect ourselves from.

    What did Picard say?

    "You see, the Prime Directive has many different functions, not the least of which is to protect us. To prevent us from allowing our emotions to overwhelm our judgment."

    We don't know what (or how) the cogenitor participates in the reproductive process, hell - we don't even know its lifespan. The only real thing we can draw from this is that whatever they provide can't be synthesized.

    [...]

    The Vissians are not cavemen. They are 100's of years ahead of humanity. Why does everyone just jump to the "sex slave" / equal rights side? Because it's the "human" thing to do.

    Could that be true? Sure, but we can't judge here because we don't know what we don't know.

    This is not an equal rights episode, it's Enterprise's best "prime directive" episode.”

    @Anti-Prime Directive:

    Finally, consider this that you say:

    "Sometimes, however, I get the impression that the writers are suggesting that interference is never the right option, even for larger bodies of power, such as United Earth/UFP.

    I can see why so-called 'cowboy diplomacy' can be dangerous, but I would at least hope that the United Earth/UFP as a whole would at least consider some way of influencing the species' treatment of their cogenitor for the better, if they can safely do so.”

    What is wonderfully arrogant about this is that you intrinsically assume that the United Federation of Planets is among the most powerful organizations around.

    It is most probably unconscious, but yours is the point of view of someone used to being in the more powerful position. Yours is the point of view of someone used to seeing his country, or continent, and culture, interfering, and telling everyone else what is right and proper. Much like the West has been doing for the past few centuries on Earth.

    Yours is thus an extremely ethnocentric point of view: you think what you think because you are what you are. And you see only *your* point of view.

    Now imagine that the UFP was *nothing* next to our neighbours, the mighty Klingulans and the extraordinarily advanced Romlons. Would you still think that the Prime Directive was a bad thing? Or would you not, in fact, hope and pray every day that the Klingulans and the Romlons strictly adhered to their own versions of it? Would you not, in fact, be grateful that thanks to their Prime Directives, they let the Federation alone, instead of using their power and influence to change our outlandish and intolerable ways, and in fact, the very essence of our culture(s)?

    Is the reason we fear the Borg not, in fact, that unlike any other civilization, they completely lack any sort of Prime Directive?


    Welcome to “Cogenitor”, possibly the best thread on all of Jammer’s, Anti-Prime Directive ;)

    Well... I think that *on practical grounds*, what Trip did was wrong. He was morally in the right, but the way he went about it was careless and dangerous.

    But once the deed was done and the cogenitor asked for asylum, what Archer did was unfrogivable. Especially since the Vissians didn't threaten the Enterprise in any way. Denying asylum just because you're "afraid to antagonize potential allies" is a really dispicable thing to do.

    The irony is that Archer himself summed up the situation perfectly when he argued with the Vissians - less then 5 minutes before the end of the episode. The way he changed his mind so quickly is both disturbing and out-of-character.

    Oh... and regarding the "we shouldn't judge them with human ethics because they are too alien" reasoning: I strongly disagree. Alienness should not be an excuse for bankrupt morality.

    Yes, we should certainly be *careful* before making a moral stand when dealing with aliens. Yes, we should not jump to conclusions about things we do not understand.

    But one should also be careful not to turn this principle into an excuse to be morally blind. And unfortunately, this is exactly what happens in this episode in the end.

    Andy's Friend,

    Thanks.

    OmicronThetaDeltaPhi,

    "But once the deed was done and the cogenitor asked for asylum, what Archer did was unfrogivable. Especially since the Vissians didn't threaten the Enterprise in any way. Denying asylum just because you're "afraid to antagonize potential allies" is a really dispicable thing to do."

    So if the Vissian's could and threatened to blow up NX-01 then Archer's decision was right?

    I couldn't disagree more with this conclusion.

    Archer's decision was 100% correct.

    Andy's Friend,

    Thanks.

    OmicronThetaDeltaPhi,

    "But once the deed was done and the cogenitor asked for asylum, what Archer did was unfrogivable. Especially since the Vissians didn't threaten the Enterprise in any way. Denying asylum just because you're "afraid to antagonize potential allies" is a really dispicable thing to do."

    So if the Vissian's could and threatened to blow up NX-01 then Archer's decision was right?

    I couldn't disagree more with this conclusion.

    Archer's decision was 100% correct.

    I really don't understand why everyone is on archers side with this one. Trip did the right thing in this episode and I hated hearing at the end him saying "it was my fault". That's such BS. They treated the cogenitor like a slave and tell it that it can't have dreams or aspirations, that's what drove it to suicide, not trip. The focus should be on the actions of the vissians. Archer was dead wrong. He should have granted asylum to a sentient being who was being treated like a slave and not allowed it's own freedom. This episode really frustrated me, and the response from fans here baffle me as well. Perhaps trip didn't go about it the right way, but he had the most moral intentions of all and should be the hero in this story.

    "So if the Vissian's could and threatened to blow up NX-01 then Archer's decision was right?"

    Maybe not. But it would - it least - make some sense. Especially since the cogenitor was on Enterprise at the time. There seems to be little point in sacrificing your ship and crew for the rights of a person who would go down with your ship when you do.

    BTW I'm actually in favor of the general principle of the Prime Directive. Interfering with other cultures tends to create a mess of unforseen (and undesired) consequences - a fact which is demonstated very effectively in this episode. But since Trip already interefered, I fail to see how this has any relevance to Archer's own decision.

    It should have been obvious to Archer, that once Trip tought the cogenitor about personal rights and freedom, you couldn't just turn back the clock and pertend it never happened. He/she/it was already "spoiled" so-to-speak, so granting asylum was the only sensible choice.

    "They treated the cogenitor like a slave and tell it that it can't have dreams or aspirations, that's what drove it to suicide, not trip. The focus should be on the actions of the vissians. Archer was dead wrong."

    The suicide was mostly Archer's fault.

    I really can't blame the Vissians for the suicide, because the cogenitor never shown any hint of being suicidal or depressed or even discontent. It seemed to accept its place in Vissian society without question. This may not be a healthy thing, but we should remember that - for the Vissians - this kind of complancency is considered "normal".

    So I wouldn't expect the Vissians to understand the situation that arose after Trip "spoiled" the cogenitor with his big and exciting ideas about freedom and dreams and climbing mountains.

    But Archer had no such excuse. He should have known that sending the cogenitor back to the Vissians would be a *very* bad idea.

    OmicronThetaDeltaPhi ,

    "Maybe not. But it would - it least - make some sense. Especially since the cogenitor was on Enterprise at the time. There seems to be little point in sacrificing your ship and crew for the rights of a person who would go down with your ship when you do."

    Blink....blink....

    It would make no sense what-so-ever. Archer can't put his ship and crew at risk because a Vissian that is onboard all of a sudden feels bad.

    Archer was supposed to know that suicide was a predetermined outcome here? Good lord... how the hell is he supposed to know that?

    Archer had no right to keep the "it". None. He acted appropriately here. Trip is the one that screwed the pooch and is the only one that should feel bad.

    Mark me down as being in the "This is outright the best story in the whole ST franchise" camp.

    A fantastic episode on every level. It put me through every emotion I knew and more.

    How anybody can prefer TNG and especially Space Mall 9 to ENT will forever remain a mystery to me.

    Stupid Trip, stupid humans. Projecting humans right values onto other species who are at difference stages of development. We've had slaves for the vast vast majority of human history, why would we expect others to be any different, or think we can impose our values on them?

    This was a decent story but I couldn't accept the premise. I found it hard to buy that a society this well adjusted and advanced would still tolerate this. A simple neural scan from Phlox revealed that the cogenitor had equivalent intellect to the other genders...any Vissian doctor could have long ago determined this too. I would think that either cogenitors would have risen to resist being third class citizens, or that sympathetic Vissians of the other two genders would have long since championed them, akin to the abolititonsts of America's mid-19th century, or more likely, a combination of both.

    Probably the episode that makes me despise trip the most. What a worthless douche.

    I'm kind of on the fence about this one. Maybe it wasn't right for Trip to have interfered in the first place. But once the damage was done, what point was there for denying the cogeniter asylum? Unless the Vissians had threatened them in some way. (which didn't seem to be the case) Perhaps there should have been a throwaway line about Archer being ordered by top brass to it.

    If the cogeniter was only needed for an enzyme, they could have asked the cogeniter* if they were willing to donate it to the couple and then granted them asylum. Perhaps Phlox could have come up with a procedure if the Vissians said it wouldn't work.

    *It seems weird to have to say the cogeniter each time. But they are considered other than male or female, but saying "it" seems disrespectful.

    Wonderful episode. From the moment we actually find some friendly aliens - hallelujah! - this builds into a nuanced and subtle hour that plays on our preconceptions and doesn't fear the shades of grey from the complex issues at work.

    Having Trip take the lead is a fine choice because he is the everyman - he sees something that seems wrong and tries to help. He doesn't consider the consequences, and this time the consequences reach out and smack him in the face. And it's because bad things happen even with good intentions that this is different to so much of Trek. I think the very effective final tirade from Archer is all the more pertinent because he knows he hasn't set a good example. As another precursor to the Prime Directive this is a revelatory moment.

    In many ways this doesn't tread new ground - the issues have been debated in similar terms in the past, and there are hints of The Offspring for instance in the scenes with the cogenitor - but it does it with a freshness and a verve that are engrossing. It helps that we get some standout performances from both regular and guest cast alike.

    Great stuff, and proof that Enterprise can up its game to the very best. 4 stars.

    What I don't like about this episode is there's a lot of ambiguous stuff going on, but the writers seem to send us off with a very clear verdict in the end, and it isn't a very satisfying one. You can try to read into it more deeply but frankly I just don't think the show's trying to be that subtle.

    Throughout the episode, Trip's blatantly overstepping by some really cringe-inducing amounts. I had to feel like he was in the wrong during this, both because of the obvious repercussions, and because they're dealing with an apparently civilized and more advanced race, and it isn't unreasonable to assume that we just don't fully understand the context of the Cogenitor in their culture. Their captain even hints at this, when he misconstrues the people serving them food to be their slaves.

    This is all left unexplored though so the intended take-away seems to be that the Cogenitors truly are being abused. So I guess Trip is the good guy then? And then it seems a massive departure from Archer's character for him to be so disinterested in the Cogenitor or its apparent abuse.

    It's just a confusing episode overall... Everyone comes out looking awful in the end, and it's a total out of character episode for everyone.

    I feel this could have been done better. Archer should have been more concerned. We could have gotten some answers about the Cogenitors, perhaps the aliens are at least partially validated in their treatment. Then Archer might have come off as less hypocritical in his treatment of Trip at the end, and the message would have been about not being so hasty to make assumptions about cultures they don't understand. Instead, the final message is that they straight up shouldn't interfere with other races at all, contradictory to like every other episode.

    Here's how I think the other captains would have handled this.

    Kirk would have found a way to seduce the Cogenitor and somehow convince them to Treat the Cogenitors like equals.
    Picard would have accepted her request for asylum and given a speech about sentient rights.
    The Sisko would have let her on board and dared them to try and get the Cogenitor back from him and the Defiant.
    Based on the episode "unforgettable" theirs a chance Janeway would have done the same thing as Archer with the Doctor taking the place of Trip.

    The cognitive was obviously unhappy. Her/ it's intelligence obviously exceeds human capacity but somehow an equally intellectually advanced segment of that society come to "dehumanize" them to the point of not even allowing them an individual designation; a name. All this being as it may, some how Archer comes to the conclusion that asylum should not be granted. Unless we believe in some kind of intellectual/moral spooky action at a distance reasoning on Archer's part I can't help thinking the both Archer and the writers of this episode are full of shit.

    4 stars? I'll admit it was one of the more engaging of the season, but 4 stars seems a bit lofty.

    As many have noted, Archer to this point has done much worse on many occasions without any reprimand, save the typical condescension from T'Pol. And you can argue as to whether other Captains would have acted the same in this situation, or argue that Archer was really being harsher on himself, but this is a really unique and understandable "mistake" (depending on your view) that Trip made. Not only does he dress him down for the issues of concealing his actions and subverting orders and botching the first contact, but he lays the guilt on far too thick for someone who has made mistakes and understands the position Trip must be in. Archer has, for all his weirdness, been at least a very empathetic character to this point. Very strange ending.

    Also, I found the episode more dissatisfying than even other ENT episodes because of the way they handled the last 10 minutes from a narrative-crafting standpoint. It jumps around a lot and tells you about what happens, but doesn't show you. If the point of the episode is to show the fault of Trip's logic, then it should have spent some time allowing that to play out on screen. I don't mean showing the suicide, but you can't just not show Charles' thinking leading up to suicide. Just before the scene with Archer and Trip at the end, there's a brief scene on the bridge that gets cut off with an incoming call we don't get to see as well. That's what initially made me think "man, skipping around a bit here..." There was plenty of time to fit this kind of scene in as well; why not just cut the Malcolm romantic thing that makes no sense and had no resolution?

    The handling of various metaphors, which was somewhat welcomed on my part at first, became very much heavy-handed by the end. Lots of useless scenes. T'Pol, as usual, couldn't break out enough logic to handle the situation. Archer went all hard-line Prime Directive all of a sudden. Music was too heavy-handed for what could/should have been a quiet, dialogue-heavy episode, and eventually became transparent in its attempts to heighten suspense. Effects work was boring. Ship designs for the aliens were weak and trope-y. Internal design on the ships was worse.

    2/5 for me, which is decently strong for an episode for this season. But it could have been 7-8 range if they had actually, like, made a good episode. Even with the subpar writing, I expected better from LeVar and the production crew.

    After seeing this episode and "The Breach", all I can say is: Finally!

    Finally this show is tapping into it's Trekkian potential after a season that has been largely shallow and mediocre, even when compared to the below average first season.

    It's been hard for me to sit through an entire episode this season, largely because my interest wanes when the writers always turn interesting plots into standard "action hour" episodes or fill it up with lackluster twists and turns. That didn't happen with "Cogenitor", which is surprising because it is a Braga and Berman episode... the same people who wrote "A Night in Sickbay" gave us this?

    I was also happy to see Andreas Katsulas back on Trek one last time. And the "Dixon Hill" and "Bride of Chaotica" appearances on the film list were a great touch.

    Great episode, I'm hoping it's something of a turning point for the series (probably thought the same thing after seeing "Dear Doctor" and "Shuttlepod One"...), because I have often found my first watch of this season to be tedious.

    I thought this was really close to a great episode of Enterprise, but I had some misgivings. The final act almost makes up for the rest of the flaws though.

    It was amazingly refreshing to see such a reasonable and understanding alien species.

    Even after all the nonsense, the Captains still seem to have a cordial and friendly rapport as they say goodbye. The aliens don't threaten to go to war over Archer considering the cogenetor's request for asylum. They just give him time to consider it and hope he will "see the right decision". This is refreshing and sadly rare.

    I also went through most of the episode with what I would say was predictability in my mind. I know Jammer's review tries to distinguish it from predictability by calling it logic, but if it's so logically predictable, it's because we've seen this kind of things before - As Jammer mentioned - 'Dear Doctor', or TNG's 'The Outcast' for example.

    The final act with the serious consequence and the discussion Archer and Trip have makes it worthwhile - totally unexpected for Trek to have such a serious ending.

    All that said, I really disliked watching Trip's role in the episode. Sometimes I watch things that embarrass me. Like when a show I like has a tacky musical moment that's really lame and horribly performed. I'm embarassed to be watching it.

    In my opinion, far beyond the "slick and subtle" approach Jammer found here, as soon as Trip says he's going to teach the cogenetor to read, I immediately (and for the rest of the episode) got the knot-in-my-stomach embarrassment to be watching this like "I literally don't want to watch this is so painful." I frankly expected the results of Trip's actions (in terms of the diplomacy) to be far more serious, frankly. But all I could think is "you're giving her a device to learn to read? Do you really expect they won't find her with that? Do you expect they won't learn what you did?

    But more notably, I kept thinking "they know you're different; why don't you just talk to them like people". "Hey, I can't help but notice that the cogenetors don't get names or to do what they want. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm curious how that came to be and how you justify that". A simply discussion would have been the logical solution. Not hiding in the engineer's quarters and teaching the cogenetor to revolt. It was painful waiting for the ball of discovery to drop.


    The biggest problem

    "I'm kind of on the fence about this one. Maybe it wasn't right for Trip to have interfered in the first place. But once the damage was done, what point was there for denying the cogeniter asylum? Unless the Vissians had threatened them in some way. (which didn't seem to be the case) Perhaps there should have been a throwaway line about Archer being ordered by top brass to it."

    I am with you on this. denying the asylum was baffling.

    here's maybe an even better way: have archer chew trip out, saying that archer should never have been in the position of making the decision like that, but have him phrase it more of a 'look what we did' kind of way where we realize archer realizes he made the wrong call and that despite the chew out he actually blames himself for what happens more than tucker.

    suddenly archer would become a sympathetic character because, yeah, he -shouldn't- have had to make that decision then. trip shouldn't have been sneaking around, lying, and hiding things from both his crew and the aliens- in fact in the long run they could have done more for the cogenitors by establishing positive diplomatic relations- and it's believable that archer could mess up even with the best of intentions as no human has ever been in his situation before.

    I kind of think this may have been what the authors were going for, but after Dear Doctor I needed it to be a little more hamfisted in showing me that archer isn't just okay with people dying.

    Not sure if I should blame the writers or Trinneer's line delivery, but Trip's prying had a bit of a stalker vibe that eclipsed the rest of what the episode was trying to do.

    I also find this episode objectionable. A person was being treated as a sex slave. S/he was being denied the basics of proper treatment for a person. THAT should have been the focus of the episode. How to handle a First Contact situation when you realize the society is doing something immoral (slavery, child abuse, subjugation of one portion of society, using poor people as medical parts to save the rich, whatever).

    Then, how to proceed? Ignore it? Step in? This dilemma would have made a good story and again pointed to the need for the Prime Directive. Trip handles it his way (forging ahead in a way that can have negative consequences), but then as others become aware, they have to decide what to do as well.

    And 100% Captain Archer should have granted asylum when asked--heck, Picard tried to FORCE asylum on a human adopted by another alien species at one point.

    It was not Trip's fault that the cogenitor dies--it was Archer's and the Vissians'. Trip's interference was a bad idea, and it's fine to show that, but Archer, T'Pol, and Plox ignoring the issue was equally bad (which was not addressed as it should have been).

    Look at Picard dealing with the aliens who kept the neighboring planet addicted to a drug...he followed the Prime Directive and was frustrated by having to do so when what was happening was clearly wrong and exploitative...then he found a way to use the Prime Directive to actually do something to end the exploitation...not the easy way, but still the issue of how to address a corrupt/immoral society without improper interference was dealt with. Someone was passionately advocating for the oppressed without being shut down, and yet the tricky issues of how to address the problem while not interfering was also addressed. Much more depth and insight than this shallow, one-sided episode.

    Even with this episode as presented, I could like it and give it a good rating IF Captain Archer told Trip he shouldn't have interfered but also struggled with how to address the Vissians' oppression of the cogenitors. If he said "you shouldn't have interfered but I don't know what action would have been right in this situation." That I might have respected...a "no easy answers" episode that left us with questions to ponder.

    The way this was wrapped up was just dumb and shallow and one-sided. We are left with "all interference is wrong" and no nuance or wrestling with the moral issues presented.

    Big missed opportunity. 2 stars.

    The years-long review / judgment of Tripp and/or the Cogenitor's Rights argument aside, I was turned off by another issue altogether.

    This whole tri-sexual argument, together with the "downplay" of the third party (the cogenitor in this case) has already been done before. Once again, Star Trek has used its own legacy to get away with lifting shit out of other TV shows, hijacking it, with almost no real homage to the original.

    One need go no further than the "Alien Nation" series of mid-1990s to find this exact concept, even down to the Binnaum (the Tenktonese version of the cogenitor) who was also saddled with what appeared to be an under-educated or under-appreciated image. The only real difference between the cogenitor of ENT vs. the Binnaum of AN fame was that the Binnaum, while relatively "dumb" in appearance (Albert was at a menial job with the police department) was in fact a revered figure in the religious rites of the Tenktonese.

    Our Vulcan ambassador buddy, Gary Graham was in fact an alumnus of Alien Nation the Series (not the movie...). Me almost wonders if this story line was affected by his presence in some way....

    I think the reason that this episode has resulted in such divisive (not to mention lengthy) commentary is because not one, but two officers can be seen as dropping the ball in the way that they relate to the Vissians.

    Although I empathize with Trip's desire to help the Cogenitor (Charles from now on), I can also understand how many commenters here believe he was wrong to interfere. After all, considering the likely practical consequences of Trip's actions, he wasn't ultimately doing a very good job of advancing the cause of the Cogenitors. The establishing of normalized diplomatic and cultural relations would have gone a long way towards allowing the two species to understand and influence one another. And that relationship would have allowed for the human concept of individual rights – for all – to permeate the Vissian society and hopefully help to liberate the three percent of their race being currently oppressed. But Trip severely damaged what could have been an otherwise successful first contact through duplicitous meddling (including lying about where he was and visiting the quarters of the chief engineer without permission). As a result, the Vissians, fearing and mistrusting the influence of humanity, may go to great lengths to avoid them in the future. And since Charles is dead, it's not as though they – I think that's the best pronoun to refer to the Cogenitor sex – will be able to inspire any revolutions at home. So if Trip really wanted to help these people, he's not done so in a very effective way, and he probably should have just kept his nose out of their business. It also wasn't as though anyone had come to him asking for help. Not to mention, rushing off to play the White Knight can often be dangerous. Oftentimes a person can become emotionally invested in a cause about which he knows just enough to be dangerous.

    However, once Trip had interfered and had opened Charles' eyes to the possibilities of life, Archer absolutely had an obligation to honor their request for asylum, whether it was politically inconvenient or not. I understand his confusion about what was “right” at this point. He's enjoyed his time with the Vissian captain. He wants to try to salvage what he can of a first contact which, up unto this point, had been one of the shining stars of their mission. He's hearing T'Pol argue strongly for Charles' return. But all of that is made irrelevant by the very clear path which millennia of human international law and tradition have laid out for him regarding asylum. As far back as ancient Greece, slaves had the acknowledged right to flee abusive masters and, reaching a temple or altar, demand to be transferred to a more benevolent person. And our own twentieth and twenty-first century law lays out the framework for asylum quite distinctly: refugees fleeing persecution have the right to be granted asylum. That Charles' predicament constitutes persecution is quite clear, given its definition within, for example, the United States' court system, which lists numerous types of harm that apply here: forced labor (and possibly sexual abuse), slavery, unlawful detention, intimidation, interference with privacy, deliberate deprivation of employment and other life essentials, and restrictions on access to education. The United Nations definition of a refugee (from the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees amended by the 1967 Protocol) specifically mentions membership in a caste or social group as one of the protected grounds – and Charles' Cogenitor status obviously qualifies. Finally, what completes the UN definition of a refugee is that he is outside the country of his nationality. Once Charles is on board Enterprise (a ship flying the flag of Earth, so to speak), they are no longer in Vissian territory. Archer can ream out Trip all he wants for getting him into this predicament, but his failure to accept the asylum claim flies in the face of every legal and moral human tradition he claims to uphold. In fact, returning Charles is a violation of the central doctrine of refugee protection: non-refoulement.

    Archer seems stuck in the sort of emotionally-based logic common to borderline personality, rather than dealing with the situation as it is now. He wishes Trip had never interfered. Sending back Charles is an attempt to make it as though Trip had never interfered. Ergo he sends them back. But that's not the reality. Charles is a different person now. Charles is asking for his help now. And in my opinion, it's far more wrong for him to deny Charles their right to self-determination than it ever was for Trip to stick his nose in where it didn't belong. What matters here is that Charles is a person with desires and rights – and seeing not only their own culture willing to trample on them but also this new alien one would be more than many people could take: it might just seem like the whole universe was unjust.

    I don't think Picard would have answered the question this way. In “The Outcast,” although he can't officially sanction Riker's rescue of Soren, he doesn't stop him from acting independently, and it's hard to believe that Riker would have made the attempt if he didn't believe that, once Soren was liberated from detention, her request for asylum from the Federation would have been granted.

    Don't agree Real Human Robot.

    On a couple fronts...

    #1, this isn't a US asylumn issue.

    #2. None of these exist buy any information we know other than "I can read now" from "it".

    "refugees fleeing persecution have the right to be granted asylum. That Charles' predicament constitutes persecution is quite clear, given its definition within, for example, the United States' court system, which lists numerous types of harm that apply here: forced labor (and possibly sexual abuse), slavery, unlawful detention, intimidation, interference with privacy, deliberate deprivation of employment and other life essentials, and restrictions on access to education."

    You, as so many do, are making HUMAN assumptions based on human values learn from human experiences on Earth.

    You can't do that. You have no evidence that this "it" was abused or persecuted at all.

    Chuck,

    "One need go no further than the "Alien Nation" series of mid-1990s to find this exact concept, even down to the Binnaum (the Tenktonese version of the cogenitor) who was also saddled with what appeared to be an under-educated or under-appreciated image. The only real difference between the cogenitor of ENT vs. the Binnaum of AN fame was that the Binnaum, while relatively "dumb" in appearance (Albert was at a menial job with the police department) was in fact a revered figure in the religious rites of the Tenktonese."

    I wasn't aware. I keep tellng myself to watch that series.

    That said, nothing is new on TV. Nothing. Just wrapped differently.

    I think something a lot of people are missing is that it was Archer, not Trip, who violated protocol and led to the cogenitor dying. There were no rules governing what Trip did, unless it's not allowed to enter someone's quarters without their permission (though that's a minor violation at best). And whilst what he did was rash, it's a morally debatable question and a very understandable response - if I saw a muslim who had a bunch of child sex slaves and he told me it was his "culture" I'd tell him to shove it. Of course this is different - this is a matter of international diplomacy. There's a balance between whether you want to do the clearly morally right thing, or whether you want to engender good relations between your species and theirs and which would in the long term be more beneficial (lobbying for them may be more effective than just freeing a single one). But, as I said, there were no clear guidelines.

    That being said, Trip did what he did, and then the girl asked for asylum. Now Archer specified that he was REQUIRED to give serious consideration to the request - and I see no way that it could possibly have been legitimately denied. It's undeniable that if she were sent back she would be subject to harsh oppression. Everyone knew that, Archer knew that. He took a decision that was a clear miscarriage of justice, counter to the rules of his own society, in order to have better relations. Again, perhaps a legitimate choice from a moral standpoint, but clearly in the wrong from a legal standpoint. The asylum rules are in place specifically to prevent people from either facing unjust execution, or persecution (for example to the point where they want to kill themselves). So her death is entirely upon Archer's shoulders, by all rights he could and should have prevented it. It also makes his speech about how she didn't ASK him for help ring a little bit hollow - in this case she DID ask for help and he retained the same hardline stance, despite having helped plenty of individuals (including fugitives) before, to the risk of his own life and ship. Hell, it was only a couple of episodes prior that he helped some fugitives from the Klingons escape. But I guess it was morally OK in that case because the Klingons are mean to him hmm?

    Overall though, this was certainly one of the more enjoyable episodes of ENT to watch.

    I thought it was the worst episode, in that it was so unlike Tucker's character. He kept sneaking around, and acted like a pedophile.

    Trip was just an annoying meddler here. T he engineer from the alien ship was pompous, Trip was an interloper, much worse imo.

    While the episode in general was good, can anyone comment on the horrible and simplistic game of go they were playing?

    It was well below 25 kyu. White even had much more stones than black. That game would never had even started.

    It was so far from a real game it took me away from the show to the reality that everything is scripted and fake.

    The chess-like game they were playing is called "Wei Qi" the Chinese board game that is not chess.

    This is certainly an effective and strong episode that gets people thinking and debating. Just look at all the comments through the years! And here on this forum thread, we can see human behaviour doing what so many of us do, fight, disagree and impose our beliefs on others, each thinking they are right and others are wrong. And in some cases above, belittling others simply for voicing their thoughts. The source of so many of human conflicts are lack of respect for other's free will (and thoughts in this case!) lack of respect and empathy.

    The ONLY thing I can surmise is that this episode is quite thought-provoking, so many issues and so many possibilities and implications are addressed.

    I have read the comments, and really everyone of them are RIGHT in their own ways and have completely valid points, even if others feel they are missing some points! It is true, every single one of them are right. It is true no-one on this is Earth is the same, everyone is different and everyone sees things differently, the only thing I would impose, is that I prefer harmony, and prefer to focus on the positive.

    Just look at the comments and debate going on, this is not an official debate in which someone will win a prize or money in proving whose opinion is best and or superior, or whose is wrong. People have forgotten that this is just a place to comment regarding a review.

    Now I shall voice my opinions regarding this episode.

    ARCHER: Hypocritical captain, f*cked up and caused many deaths before on a few worlds. Very harsh on Tripp, for wrong reason of causing a death, would be more correct if, "We can't offend them because they are technologically advanced so many times more than us, what if they fubar us and blow us out to space!"

    Maybe was hinting Archer saw himself in Tripp and couldn't take it.

    TRIPP: Good heart. Sees sex slave Cogenitor being deprived and decides to do something about it. But risked offending technologically advanced god-like race, stupid brain. Good heart but stupid brain. Excellent and kind humanitarian, but incompetent and unbelievably stupid Starfleet officer. Genuinely could have offended them and had all of Enterprise killed off.

    VISSIAN SPECIES: Friendly, sophisticated, polite, but morally ambiguous (by human standards). Feels slavery is socially acceptable. This is hinted by Vissian Engineer being pissed asking Archer to be empathetic "how would you feel if one of your stewards who was forced to provide your meals was taken by us?" Meaning in Vissian society it could be possible not only Cogenitor third sex are slaves with no rights. Could have other Vissians with certain roles in their society, possibly like the Ancient Indian Caste system.

    "They are not forced to do anything." Forced the Vissian to shuttup and sit down, hinting they are surprised that in Terran/Human society slavery is unacceptable.

    However. Cannot be denied they have double standards, Engineer and Wife claim to have distressed feelings over this matter. Why are they unconcerned with the Cogenitor's feelings? Unless the Engineer and Wife and Vissian captain can honestly say if one fine day they were forced to be slaves and they are fine about it then oh then that's fair.

    Maybe, this double-standard is acceptable to them, maybe Vissians with a higher position in their society and culture are top priority to those lower. (Vissian Caste System maybe.) Or maybe they are just very amicable by nature, anything is fine, but I doubt it looking at their behaviour on this episode of StarTrek.

    Personally, if I am Captain Archer I would write to Earth Starfleet we wish to be good terms with the Vissians however their alien culture of acceptable and legal slavery means it would be unwise to be too close to them and allow them to live with us on Earth where they can take advantage of our laws and maybe even do the same to us asking for "the rights to having slaves on our Earth as part of their religion/culture" whatever-the-f*ck their reason.

    They can be alien and disgusting on their planet (again via human standards), as long as they don't impose their acceptable slavery concept on us,- humanity will be gold. If they can enslave one of their own which is akin to moral cannibalism, imagine what other acts of cruelty (again via human standards) they are capable of.

    Another issue is that I wonder how would the Vissian engineer and wife react if their longed for child or children were one or both Congenitor "its." If they feel it is perfectly all right and gladly give up their sorely wished for Cogenitor children to Vissian society to be breeding whore machines then I have nothing to comment.

    Yet another possibility is, THIS Cogenitor featured on this episode is an extreme minority even of the 3%, in which "it" has exceptional intelligence and feelings and emotions. For all we know "normal" Vissian Cogenitors have the IQ and EQ of an ant and thus it is why Vissian society has been treating them this way for millenia. (But I doubt it because Vissian Captain and selfish unempathetic Engineer and Wife don't seem to care for its feelings nor are amazed at its intelligence.)

    "We are here to meet alien species, not to tell them what to do."
    Yes it is very true. We technically have no right to tell them what to do, nor impose our opinions on them. BUT. We have every right to bitch about our opinions about them amongst ourselves, like what we are doing now. But Archer was being a serious douche to Tripp and ineffective in explaining his logic regarding one death and a birth being prevented. More sensible was "they could have destroyed us" or, "I know what they're doing is cruel but we have to respect them"

    ALIENESS: Yes they are. So drastically different from us. StarTrek has portrayed this excellently. All we can do is understand them, remember that understanding does not mean accepting. People get pissed and defensive because they misunderstand people are just commenting or talking, not trying to change your views or change your beliefs.

    UNIVERSAL MORAL GOODNESS: Yes, I believe in this too. But unfortunately, Alien or human, true "good" beings are very rare, whether via what human beliefs morals and goodness are, whether these words are constructs of the human mind and LIMITED to human intelligence etc, I believe there is a universality, and it cannot be denied, no single individual will enjoy being enslaved and forced. Regardless of being a human, or alien, that one individual will suffer, regardless of whether their society feels it is acceptable or not.

    Those that can impose suffering on another, and feel it is all right, is someone to avoid, they might do the same to you.

    STARFLEET: Eventually, they would not allow Vissians to join StarFleet due to acceptable slavery. Unlikely. However, they did allow the Ferengi, or more like just one to join despite their "slavery" of their Ferengi women. However, the women themselves, most of them enjoyed abiding by their rules of not being allowed to wear clothes etc. Very unlike this particular Cogenitor known as "Charles" who wanted to be free. Who wanted to lead a life of "its" choosing.

    The terrible failure and tragedy that Charles had to be returned to the Vissians, to be enslaved once more, and the effect heightened by Charles committing suicide at the realisation that the universe has so much more to offer than just being a birthing whore, was the finale of the episode. Charles would rather die than lead the rest of his life f*cking strangers.

    If all this were real. I'd say we'd better be careful of Vissians, they don't even feel sorry nor empathetic for Charles' extreme suffering. How would they value them, or decide for humans what is an acceptable way to treat us? It may be an assumption.

    But aren't all these other comments in this long, long thread, assumptions and interpretations?

    I really don't see what all the debate is about. Trip shouldn't have interfered in the first place and the cogenitor should have been sent back after he did. They had known these people a couple hours, knowing almost nothing of their values, culture, religion, society, etc. Obviously we would have no right to tell them how to act.

    And who's to say that this small group represents the entire planet? The whole group may have all been insane criminals. Or who knows what. Maybe the cogenitors turn into giant bat monsters that eat people if they don't have sex regularly and must be forced to participate in sex or everyone gets devoured. Noone knew anything about them.

    Let them do their thing and don't interfere.

    I thought Trip was acting out of character, but otherwise a good episode. 3 stars from me.

    No language barrier at all apparently for the universal translator. They hail them and immediately starting speaking English back and forth...

    The Vissians must have never joined the Federation, because if they had, their technology to get close to stars would have made events in Redemption, Suspicions, and Descent go a bit differently.

    I was so upset watching this episode that I had to come here to Jammer's Review to see how other people responded. At first, I was horrified by the number of people who agreed with the outcome and the way it was handled. Then I began to calm down after reading some dissenters.

    As a Star Trek fan, I'm very familiar with the Prime Directive. Not sure I agree with it, but I understand it.

    Truth be told I was completely engrossed in the episode, right up to the last scene. I even understood why the captain made the decision to send Charles back, although I vehemently disagreed it. The episode did what good science fiction is supposed to do--cause us to question the basic tenets of our society, examine our consciences, think, ask questions and have thoughtful and intense discussions. It looks at alien cultures, but really the questions are always directed back at ourselves. What would YOU do in this situation?

    What sent me over the edge was the tirade at the end where Captain Archer completely ignores that there is any keeping-you-up-at-night moral issue to be faced here, pretends that there could be only one way of addressing Charles' situation, and refuses to take any responsibility for his part in Charles' death. And pouring salt on the wound, the writers decided to have Chip be silent and shoulder the full weight of responsibility instead of pushing back and making the captain think a little harder about whether the prime directive gives you the right to ignore issues of basic rights, instead of dismissing it as an easy decision that a junior officer could have made. Chip's viewpoint should have been articulated. Then it would have been clearer that each person was right in his own eyes, and that would have been a much more provocative, instead of insulting, ending.

    Even in a prior episode when T'Pol told a story about Vulcans visiting earth, they found a way to be compassionate and alleviate human suffering without disrupting history. I'm sure people will disagree with me, but in my view some things are worse than death and subjecting someone to continual sexual abuse and slavery falls in that category. Trip's actions may been impulsive and undisciplined, but his moral compass was spot on, and for his captain to expect him to ignore it was gross and disgusting. Archer should have been guiding Trip to come to him in the future and discuss such issues as soon as he becomes aware of them so that they could decide how to handle it together.

    As for our discussion on this board, if we cannot agree that slavery under any name anywhere any time by any species is wrong and is not subject to "cultural" dissonance, then we have a much bigger problem than whether or not we like the writing on this show.

    This episode starts as excellent portrayal of race/gender discrimination (btw, to the main questions on the review: yes, you can brainwash women/indian/black slaves into believing they ARE inferior, it actually used to happen centuries ago, and it's unfair and it's the first main point of the story).

    The first part displays beautifully the joy of bringing a life to its full potential, the sorrow and injustice of a society that doesn't allow it, and the loneliness of the few ones who try to help (i.e. Trip).
    Besides it displays bravely how stupid discrimination is: what harm would do if you allow reading/movies instead of just sleep, at the spare time of cogenitors? (or university for women/black people of XIX century, which is the subtext? And yet it was forbidden).

    But then comes the second point: this society believes in slavery for all jobs/genders, not just cogenitors.
    Even Archer tries to help the cogenitor on a meeting, until he gets the question about forced workers (i.e. waiters) and becomes overhelmed. He can't change the mind of an entire society on a simple meeting, and he surrenders. Visians are not ready to join the human alliance yet, due to their views about slavery.

    I can see why Trip tried: it was like freeing all those Suliban prisoners on season 1, after all.
    The difference is, Visians seem open to learn and understand, given the chance. They might change with time. They're just not ready yet.

    So this time Archer doesn't confront them, probably for the sake of future cogenitors/slaves to be freed in future alliance negotiations. Even if this means abandoning this cogenitor now. The needs of the many. Here starts the understandable but dark change of Archer towards the Xindi war.

    Then comes the tragedy, and yet I feel, like Trip and Charles, that one day standing in full life is brighter than one lifetime on your knees.

    I just wish an "intermediate agreement" had been done, i.e. return the cogenitor to Visians to her former sex job, but enabling her all rights to intellectual leisure: read,movies,music, and a chance to retire to Earth when her fertile years are over.
    Charles' suicide is not Trip's fault: it's the fault of a society that forbids unnecessarily all that intellectual life.

    And Archer's sorrow at the end doesn't necessarily mean he's right. In fact, his sorrow suggests to me that he thinks exactly the opposite he says: he sees the injustice too, he can't just say it aloud because it would involve no more future deals with Visians. And those deals wil be needed, in order to remove slavery from them someday.
    The needs of the many.

    I fully sympathize with the Cogenitor and Trip. I just missed the intermediate agreement.

    @Person012345
    Tue, May 30, 2017, 11:12pm (UTC -5)

    That being said, Trip did what he did, and then the girl asked for asylum. Now Archer specified that he was REQUIRED to give serious consideration to the request - and I see no way that it could possibly have been legitimately denied. It's undeniable that if she were sent back she would be subject to harsh oppression. Everyone knew that, Archer knew that. He took a decision that was a clear miscarriage of justice, counter to the rules of his own society, in order to have better relations.
    =====================================================

    Read my posts above. "It" wasn't a girl.

    You nor Archer have no indication that any harsh treatment/oppression would take place.

    The asylum request couldn't legitimately be granted. No "injustice" committed.

    Well, let's admite that refusing even to consider allowing intellectual pleasures to the Cogenitor, at least now that this one enjoyed them, was injustice. Let's note that this was the main point and it would't have interferred with the job, it would have meant just spending free time reading/watching movies instead of sleeping.
    In fact, the cogenitor never complained too much about the job, neither Trip: the point was intellectual leisure instead. The visians could have at least considered that. The injustice is, they didn't.

    Having just rewatched this episode, I continue to be blown away by it. It comes close to justifying the whole first two seasons of Enterprise. For once, it acknowledges the pitfalls of Archer & Co.'s approach to space exploration and meeting other cultures in a way that feels believable and non-contrived, all in the context of a fascinating issue.

    The way the Vissians treat the cogenitors seems unequivocally awful and unacceptable; yet, the episode doesn't fall into the pitfall of blind cultural relativism in indicting Trip's decision to enforce his own values onto them while knowing very little about them. Archer's admission that his own bad example had a role in inspiring Trip to act the way he did - setting in motion the events that led to the cogenitor's suicide - is as close as Enterprise gets to acknowledging how the writers had written Archer as excessively foolish and simplistic in his handling of exploration up to this point in the show. And the subplot with Reed and the Vissian female was funny and added some light-hearted texture to the story.

    I'd even put it on my all-time Top 10 episodes list which, off the top of my head, would be:
    1. In the Pale Moonlight (DS9)
    2. Duet (DS9)
    3. Scorpion (VOY)
    4. The Enterprise Incident (TOS)
    5. Mirror, Mirror (TOS)
    6. Tapestry (TNG)
    7. Cogenitor (ENT)
    8. Q Who (TNG)
    9. The Thaw (VOY)
    10. All Good Things...(TNG)

    2 stars

    A dull plot featuring Archer and the alien captain and a woefully explored meaty issue featuring the cogenitor that didn’t go deep enough or do so in a compelling manner—“The measure of a man” this is NOT

    Trip is Enterprise’s horndog, and the whole episode can be understood as him trying to get with the 3rd gender ladyboy/David Bowie, but wanting to make sure it was grown-up enough to have sex with. Like a pedo grooming his target. Very creepy.

    Archer’s rant to Trip was rich. He should record it and have it played back to himself after the end of each episode.

    While I am as critical of the episode's ending as everyone else, I found it interesting that Trip's last words to Archer - "It's not your fault Captain" - sounded as much a question as a statement. Whether or not the writers intended Archer's spiel to be a final condemnation of Trip's actions, I think the actors played it more subtly to introduce some shades of grey into the matter - and rightly so.

    Very nice episode.
    The ending was perfect. The premise that Star Trek is about self-righteous sentimentalists with black and white teenager mentality is worse than wrong., Its stupid.

    Imagine some alien race visits earth tomorrow. They steal all living animals from us because they're living beings and we're killing, breeding and torturing them just to eat and for pleasure.

    So most people on earth will die of hunger, even the people who already were vegans, just because there's no way of getting enough vegan food for everyone in such short amount of time.

    Then aliens will start sending the surviving people to their prisons, for killing and torturing living beings.

    At the end one alien will say "ethics are universal".

    ...

    That's why T'pol is right.

    I do like the interpretation that archers dressing down of trip at the end was as much directed at himself. Archer has done much, much worse and with less cause, frankly he has set a extremely poor example for his crew and deserved a good bit of self loathing.

    Only 3 percent of their population are cogenitors - and that is apparently not enough, as that couple had to wait years to get one. If you give them all education, at least half of them probably would not want to be handed around to help procreate - and I assume that there is no technological way to replace them - which in turn means the species is at a serious risk of dying out. In the end, the cogenitors could be forced to lend their services again - only under harder conditions, being real slaves this time. In the end, it would only worsen their situation. This is another case of "We don't know enough to cast judgement or propose solutions."

    This episode is also a good example of something I like to call "empathy desease": You see someone apparently in distress, and without a single consideration for the consequences, you rush in to help them. All too human.

    I loved this episode. 5 stars out of 4. But not for the reviewer's reasons at all.

    It might well be possible that the objective of the episode was simply to rationalize the Prime Directive. However, the episode is so good that it can be read under a truly human perspective.

    As far as Star Trek is concerned, the best human contribution for the quadrant, the galaxy, the universe, is its own humanity, not its "quaint" technology.

    This Enterprise reminds me of childhood when I played with my mom's pressure pan lid make believing it was my TOS USS Enterprise.

    "Culture contamination" is inevitable and part of human exploration. By the way, wouldn't the Prime Directive the result of cultural contamination from aliens as well, particularly the Vulcans?

    The tragedy on the episode was inevitable, but circunstantial. There is no perfect society but clearly the cogenitals are slaves.

    The seed was unintentionally planted, maybe the dead congenital will be forgotten, maybe won't. How many lives were lost until slavery was abolished and outcast?

    The beauty of this episode is that you can read it differently and still get something positive out of it.

    On the other hand, Dear Doctor, the way it ended, is just dead wrong under the human perspective.

    And just to be clear, Star Trek is about humans exploring the deep space; not about superior Aliens who find humans exploring the deep space. We do have one or two things to teach them.

    Damn, the automatic corrector on my mobile phone changed "congenitor" to "congenital", my bad. LOL

    Oh my god. The only thing that stops me from tearing my hair out by the roots after reading this and a lot of the comments is that "some" people are sane and are utterly disgusted by the review, the episode, Archer and the writers.

    First off, I want to address an insane post I just read suggesting that the cogenitors deserve their fate because "maybe they are unstable, maybe they were a majority at one point and were horrible" to paraphrase... WHAT? That is the kind of racism, vile thinking that justified slavery. The idea that blacks are dangerous and violent and need a white hand to keep them in line.

    What many have said is absolutely correct, this is moral-relativism to a psychotic degree. The cogenitors are treated even worse than many (not all) animals in our society. Hell, they are not even given a name. And pray-tell, at 3% of the population, how the hell are they supposed to revolt or do anything? The kind of treatment they receive from a species far superior than Earth at that future development is terrifying. Imagine trying to do anything with today's level of surveillance! You cannot get away with anything like that, without years of effort, money, etc. According to the ep. they have no money, no ID, no contact with others of their kind (even Handmaid's Tale is a Garden of Eden compared to this). And no, Archer did not give asylum to the cogenitor. Charles committed suicide because they realized how wretched and hopeless their life truly was. Trip was the last person responsible for the suicide, with Archer having a much larger share of the blame ( but he was romanced by their captain so he sided with them).

    Now, let's take a look at Archer. What about the ep. in which he frees a camp full of Suliban. First off, why isn't peaceful contact with the occupying species important? Why does Archer refuse to hand over details of a mutual enemy (the cabal) to them? Obviously, this is how their culture has dealt with the terrorism of the Cabal. In fact, this is very similar to the situation in Israel, something we have yet to overcome as a species (unlike slavery, which the Cogenitor ep. seems most similar to). Does Archer consider the repercussions of his actions? What if it was Trip that was in his shoes and decided to break the Suliban out? Would they have been returned to their jailers like the progenitor was.

    Now, just because we weren't told of them, doesn't mean nothing bad resulted from Archer's action's. Perhaps a quarter of the freed Suliban joined the Cabal, and they went on to bomb and kill a thousand innocent people. Isn't that far worse, despite there being more steps in between cause and effect? What about the people escaping from the Klingon Empire because they were forgotten and were dying... perhaps they really were rebels plotting the downfall of the Klingon Empire, because I didn't see Archer put much effort into validating the rebels story. What about when Archer killed an entire species of advanced beings that were desperately trying to survive a failing ship. He sent an entire alien species into extinction, but because they were not humanoid and we can't relate, it was ok and perfectly moral. Maybe there could have been a way to help? Maybe FIX THE SHIP PERHAPS? But, no, Archer makes massive, sweeping choices with little regard to the hundreds or thousands of lives potentially lost, and he has the stones to put Trip down?!

    So, in closing. How is picking and choosing which race is allowed to be abusive to a minority, and then punishing a suboridinate officer for trying to save one persecuted, enslaved entity right in any rational or logical way?? Archer, is at best, a massive hypocrite and at worst, a war criminal.

    I'm currently watching Enterprise for the first time, and so far it's one of the worst episode I've seen, if not THE worst.


    First of all, the relationships between characters seem kinda rushed. Trip, Reed, T'Pol and Archer are monodimentional. Reed is easily seduced. Trip is obsessed by the congenitor. Archer is happy. T'Pol is reluctant.

    Secondly, why it's debatable whether humans have the right to intervene in this case, it's utterly stupid to consider that Trip - and Trip alone - is responsible for the suicide of the cogenitor. If something as simple as discovering one's potentiel is enough for triggering a suicide, then yeah, there's obviously something wrong the one's culture/society. If anything, it just proves that Trip was right.
    And even if he was truly responsible, just for the same reasons Archer believes it's wrong to interfere, he should know that he has no way to determine that. Suicide is also part of culture. On earth, people will suicide for reasons that seem absurd to people of other cultures. There's no way for Archer to determine who's responsible for the cogenitor's suicide.

    Finally, what's the lesson that is supposed to be taught here? When doing a first contact, don't try to find how an alien society works? Don't try to identify its problems and injustices? Just accept everything - including slavery, genocides, apartheid? Where is the line? Is it just "killing people"? That's completely in contradiction not only whith Star Fleet's values, but also with absolutely all Star Trek's captains behaviours, especially Archer's. If he's ready to free Suliban prisoners, disagree with the Klingons' judgment or literally everything else he's done in all other episode, then he should also agree with Trip on principle. He may disagree with the how, but he cannot blame Trip for the cogenitor's suicide. That's a big writing mistake.

    -----
    also, I find the comparison with how animals are treated on earth absurd. It's explicit in the episode that cogenitors are equals to the other genders. They have the exact same capacities, the only different is the gender. Same species, same everything.
    Animals are our inferiors in many ways.

    And after reading lots of comments there, I have toa dmit I'm disappointed both by the series AND its community. I expected this episode to be considered as one of the worst ever made. I can't understand how people can find it good or even interesting. The only interesting thing is that it shows good actions can have bad consequences... Which is not very original. And it's done in a terribly bad way. Probably gonna stop watching this show now.

    I just have to say my piece. Episode was great. Nice concept with three genders. I think it shouldn't have been Trip, but Hoshi as main character in this episode. But all that aside, I was so angry at the end. Lot of commenters already mentioned it, but Trip was just right to fight for the rights of the cogenitor. The speech of Archer was infuriating. Not worthy of a Starfleet captain at all. Picard would've granted the asylum. At that point the episode fell from 3,5 stars to 2 stars for me.

    I'm a big fan of Archer, his fairness and wisdom.
    This episode realy did a good job of questioning that.
    Not even by his descision to not lend asylum, but how brutally he slaughtered Trip in the end.

    It was unfair, Trip felt compassion for this creature, this is what makes us human and what the whole startrek fanchise is all about.
    Captain Archer sais to Trip that he shouldn't judge other cultures, but Trip doesn't do that, he only acts from his compassion. Then to be scolded like this from Archer has given me thoughts about how compassionate Archer actually is.

    Another element here is that Archer mentions that one more person had been alive when they didn't make first contact. But what does 'alive' mean when one doesn't have free choice?

    This episode released a lot of feelings within me and I guess that makes a 'good' episode, but at a pretty great cost, Archer Isn't the hero I wished he was.

    Just watched it now. There were some things not revealed I was curious about. They never really explained what providing that enzyme entailed as in how invasive an act it was. Was it something like taking a blood or marrow sample or more involved? Did it harm the Cogenitor? Maybe ruin their health or mental well-being over time?

    Would educating and giving the Cogenitors more independence affect the quality of this enzyme?

    Were Cogenitors able to have children of their own?

    And was their no way to synthesize this enzyme?

    Excellent episode, definitely thought-provoking, intelligent and one that is perfect for ENT where no PD has been established and the crew has to stumble and bumble its way through first contact. Really glad "Cogenitor" took risks and not the easy way out (happy ending), which it does all too often. I liked Archer's and T'Pol's role here in being the most senior staff and seeing the issue the Star Fleet way and also Trip for being his curious, compassionate but naive self.

    It was refreshing to come across another alien species that doesn't have devious intentions and we can get normal multi-level interactions. Archer and the Vissian captain doing their thing was OK -- it established a relationship and there was some interesting VFX. Reed and the Vissian female was a bit of a weak point. That might also be a slight drawback to the episode as things really got very interesting only in the last 15-20 mins. or so although we could guess where things were heading in the buildup -- we knew somehow Trip would get burned and it's very powerful how it all plays out.

    The captain ripping into one of his crew with profound arguments and really questioning their own leadership/failings is poignant stuff. Reminds me of "Prime Factors" -- and Archer does it extremely well here. I think if Trip had shed some tears at the end, that would have been even more powerful -- but the point was well made. Some excellent lines and acting here. Both feel they've failed.

    Thought it was interesting that the episode didn't show any histrionics from the cogenitor when Archer/T'Pol came to Trip's quarters for it to be sent back to the Vissian ship. But that made the news of the suicide that much more powerful. Nothing seemed farfetched here, which is a tribute to the story.

    Trip's character is one of the things I enjoy most on ENT. He's a gentleman, friendly, innocent but naive. He thought he was doing what Archer would -- he has a great deal of respect for the captain. But he doesn't really understand Archer that well (the maturity) -- this is pretty accurate for depicting what it really can be like between a subordinate and a superior officer.

    The whole idea of misunderstanding cultures should be a theme more frequently explored on Trek I would think as it is done so well here -- I guess the PD in the other Treks removes some of pitfalls Trip gets into here.

    It's of course natural for us to feel the cogenitor is being treated like a slave and but we need to think of it as part of an alien culture that we can't screw with. Great way of illustrating another purely Trekkian concept.

    3.5 stars for "Cogenitor" -- a slow building train wreck for Trip - someone who we don't want to see hurt, and that's what makes it a powerful show. Trip's curiosity about the cogenitor was maybe a bit excessive but it's also not farfetched for his personality as someone who seems to want to help the maligned. Wish ENT had more such cerebral episodes that didn't have the standard phaser fights and repetitive action scenes. ENT can be great Trek but it just didn't hit the high notes as frequently as the other Treks did.

    I found Archer's reaction a little hard to take. So far in this series, this crew has been all over the map and SO inconsistent with what they are doing with first contacts. Archer was right in saying "he has not set a good example," as it easily could have been Archer obsessed with righting the wrongs of another species, instead of joyriding through the atmosphere of a hypergiant star when this was all going down.

    All in all, I enjoyed it, Trip went a little overboard, especially when two lectures from the doctor and two from the science officer still did not seem to derail his intentions to muck about in this species' affairs. (pardon the pun) 4/4 is too high for me, 3.5 would be closer to what i am feeling.

    This is yet another demonstration of why this show failed. It isn't the only completely wrongheaded episode in the series, but that anyone could write it in this day of, for example, international condemnation of women's oppression in certain parts of tlhe world lends it an air of something darker than moral incompetence.

    Its authors basically steal the premise of Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale", with big dollops of the Star Trek:TNG episode "The Outcast" and even "Angel One." Only in this case, it uses the as u st unformulated Prime Directive to effectively sanction slavery, the trafficking against their will of sentient beings, and forced reproduction involving an oppressed class of fertile beings who are denied basic rights. It implies that "culture" trumps (ha) the inalienable rights that all sentient beings share, not least in the vision of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's philosophical world, exemplified by the early TNG episode "The Measure of a Man" and countless Star Trek episodes where the Federation denies entry to numerous candidate worlds based on their sentient-being rights violations.

    The Prime Directive is supposed to.be about noninterference in developing worlds, anyway, not respect for "culture" over rights. Yes, there are "consequences" to Trio's actions - just as there were "consequences" to Franklin and Jefferson papering the French countryside with copies of the US Declaration of Independence. That doesn't mean we wish they hadn't!

    I'm not generally big on prequels in general, so I was never big on Enterprise as an entire series. This episode seems to have been intended as sort of an origin story for the Prime Directive, and it doesn't work for me.

    I stopped reading the comments when I got halfway through 2014, amazed that over a period of several years, nobody had mentioned the TNG episode "The Perfect Mate," in which Picard is outraged by the limitations placed on a sentient being who has been raised all her life to be a diplomatic "gift" because she is, essentially, a rare other gender that the Federation had not been aware of among her species, and he insists on opening new vistas to her, radically transforming her view of herself and the universe.

    Picard's actions were clearly considered by the writers to be right and good, and so they wrote no dark ending with suicide and reprimands that would hold up a figurative billboard proclaiming to the viewer, "This is why we need a Prime Directive!" They gave us only a bittersweet resolution in which she will be forever the person she became by knowing him, and as a person of duty like him, she chooses to follow through with her assigned duty, while Picard keeps a stiff upper lip as he watches a woman he seems to have fallen in love with marry a man who cares more for trade agreements than for her.

    The Trek franchise has always been fond of grinding axes, and its writers have never been very subtle about it. It's generally pretty clear which side the viewer is "supposed" to be on by the end of an episode. No, it is not about accepting all possible approaches to morality; it's usually a pretty heavy-handed effort to impose the writers' morality (even if that morality is sometimes the oxymoron of imperative moral relativism). Apparently, a TNG viewer is supposed to think pretty much the opposite of an Enterprise viewer, even though they attempt to draw on the same fan base.

    Forgive me for not wanting to subject myself to moral whiplash.

    You know, Trish, you don't have to agree with the "billboarded" interpretation. As I said in 2013, I think Archer was wrong. I'm with Trip and Picard -- instinctively rejecting the chaining of minds.

    Attitudes to this episode seem to reflect one's own political opinion

    If you agree with Trip, you're probably a lefty. Your moral position is the correct one as far as you're concerned and you have little tolerance for those who disagree. You have great sympathy with those who are disadvantaged and believe they should rise up against those who are oppressing them. The most important thing for you is equality.

    If you agree with Archer, you're probably on the centre-right. You have your own beliefs and values, but you can accept that others have a different view and it is not your place to judge. You believe that good relations with others are a positive thing and you can overlook things that are unpalatable for the sake of the greater good. The most important things for you are freedom and protecting your own.

    Me?..... I'm Team Archer

    I'm old enough to remember when prioritizing everybody-getting-along and relative cultural values over individual freedom was derided as squishy-left.

    As someone who has praised this episode heavily twice here already and continues to see it as the best entry in the whole Enterprise series, I want to describe one element of it that I think several commenters from the last 6 months or so seem to be missing.

    As a backdrop, it's fair criticism that Archer's attitude here contradicts his earlier behavior. I like this episode precisely because Archer enforces ideas that he failed to live up to earlier, as, in my view, the way Archer acts here fits with how he should generally have been acting all along. If you want to hold that against this episode, go ahead, but I'd rather the series take actions to right its course than continuously present its crew as hotheads eager to jump into conflicts they doesn't understand.

    Anyway, the key problem within the episode doesn't really have to do with cultural relativism, but with Trip acting unilaterally with limited information. The episode cleverly provides no understandable moral justification for the oppressive treatment of the cogenitors by the Vissians, but that doesn't mean that no moral justification could possibly exist (though I can't come up with one), nor does it mean that Trip's actions are necessarily beneficial to the cogenitors (even if Archer had granted asylum to the cogenitor we meet in the episode). One of the Vissians states how the Enterprise crew knows nothing about their culture, and the point isn't that their culture is inherently deserving of unwaivering respect, but that the crew knows *almost* nothing about it and isn't yet qualified to make a judgment, much less act on that judgment.

    Even if it's true (which the evidence identified in the episode certainly supports) that the Vissians are oppressing the cogenitors, and even if it's also true that Starfleet has a right to try to end that oppression, doing so effectively requires immense research, resources, and time. Just look at interventionist regime change policies, social welfare programs, attempts at democratization through international aid, or any other number of similar efforts on Earth, among humans, motivated to at least some degree by a desire to remedy problems within a complex culture, to get an idea of how difficult it is to produce positive change through such efforts.

    There's plenty on Earth today that's just as appalling as what the Vissians are doing to the cogenitors, but that goes unacknowledged by its perpetrators who turn around and condemn other cultures. For example, the treatment of the animals in the factory farming industry (though I'm not interested in arguing the merits of animal rights or vegetarianism/veganism here), especially when adjusted for the scale of death and destruction that industry entails, is (or at least can reasonably be construed as being) a far worse moral crime than the Vissians' treatment of the cogenitors. Yet, I doubt many would be comfortable with an alien race interfering with our society to take action in response to that problem within days of making first contact with humans and while in possession of little information about us.

    As Archer describes it, "We're out here to meet new species, not to tell them what to do." I could imagine, after years of diplomatic overtures and the establishment of positive relationships, humans attempting to encourage reformation within Vissian culture so as to bring about equal rights and respect for the cogenitors. Someday, humans may even have a moral duty to attempt to combat the oppression within VIssian culture that they first encounter in this episode, and maybe action akin to what Trip did will at that point be justified. But such an effort should only be undertaken after thoroughly researching and understanding the problem, as well as the impact any such actions would have on Vissian culture.

    @ Baron Samedi

    Nice post.

    "As a backdrop, it's fair criticism that Archer's attitude here contradicts his earlier behavior. I like this episode precisely because Archer enforces ideas that he failed to live up to earlier, as, in my view, the way Archer acts here fits with how he should generally have been acting all along."

    I think it was appropriate for his attitidue to change because the situation changed. It went from painlessly removing some tissue and Sim living out a complete, albeit compressed, lifespan to having to murder him to get the needed tissue.

    "Anyway, the key problem within the episode doesn't really have to do with cultural relativism, but with Trip acting unilaterally with limited information."

    Exactly.

    "The episode cleverly provides no understandable moral justification for the oppressive treatment of the cogenitors by the Vissians"

    "Oppressive" in a human light.

    "nor does it mean that Trip's actions are necessarily beneficial to the cogenitors"

    They certainly weren't.

    "Even if it's true (which the evidence identified in the episode certainly supports) that the Vissians are oppressing the cogenitors, and even if it's also true that Starfleet has a right to try to end that oppression, "

    The episode certainly doesn't support it!! We don't know what we don't know.

    General Order #1 says Star Fleet doesn't have the right.

    "Someday, humans may even have a moral duty to attempt to combat the oppression within VIssian culture that they first encounter in this episode, and maybe action akin to what Trip did will at that point be justified."

    Someday we also might learn enough about Vissian society and their biology that we come to understand and accept their current cogenitor situation.

    It looks like a lot of commenters here would make the same mistake as Trip were they in this situation. The problem isn't that Trip is morally wrong, because he isn't, but that his actions were reckless and destructive and led pretty much directly to the Cogenitor's death. You can't change a culture by barging in single-handed like that - the way to do it would have been by prolonged cultural exchange between humans and Vissians.

    To those blaming Archer for not granting asylum, I think this is a case of Western viewers showing their entitlement when it comes to international relations. Americans and Europeans are accustomed to using their economic, diplomatic and military hegemony to bully whatever outcome they desire from other cultures. Earth in ENT is not Space America, it is more like Space Cuba. Small, undeveloped, and weak both militarily and diplomatically. Small, weak, non-powers do not have the luxury of picking fights with superpowers over such matters, even when they are morally in the right. Archer simply does not have the power to engage in gunboat diplomacy with massively superior civilisations like this. Of course, ENT as usual undermines itself by having him do exactly that with the Klingons in "Judgment" a few episodes previously.

    As for the Cogenitors, there is a problem of cultural values dissonance when regarding their role as sexual slavery. Nature has effectively dictated this role to them by making them only 3% of their species' population - each Cogenitor must be involved in reproduction with probably at least a dozen different couples to maintain their population. As a human, I can't even imagine the sexual mechanics of this (which the episode even lampshades for jokes with Phlox's "pictures"), so it's facile to assume that there aren't extremely complicated social dynamics involved and that the Cogenitor's role can merely be summarised from a human perspective of sexual subservience.

    Also, something doesn't sit right with the idea that Cogenitors have always been a managed resource that is 'assigned' to couples - this requires too much organisational effort for it to have evolved this way. I don't think 3-gendered species are plausible for a number of reasons, but in this specific case with a 3rd gender making up 3% of the population, I think historically the power would naturally have been in the hands of the Cogenitors and not the other two genders. The only way for this reproductive system to have worked in a primitive society would have been for Cogenitors to be the dominant gender, with each Cogenitor having a harem of males and females. Their rarity and importance should realistically given them disproportionate cultural power in a primitive setting.

    So, what if Cogenitors were, since prehistory, the oppressive ruling class of this society, but were later overthrown and reduced to their current status? It doesn't excuse their current subjugation, but it would put it in context and indicate that this situation is far too complicated for the simple resolution attempted by Trip and apparently advocated by many commenters here.

    Star Trek Enterprise Policy?

    It's okay to make friends and exchange ideas with the people in charge of a society.

    Just don't get involved with their permanently enslaved underclass.

    Only make FIrst Contact with the people that matter.

    One thing I never understood: why do the couple take the Cogenitor with them to Enterprise to begin with? Are they like the equivalent of people who bring their pets with them everywhere? Or was there a practical reason to do with their fertility?

    Watching it again I'm struck by how sneaky Trip is from early on. He takes surreptitious scans of the Vissians and sneaks around both his vessel and Enterprise. He knows that what he is doing is underhanded. He could try to leverage his new friendship with the Vissians to try to get more information about the lot of Cogenitors (maybe he could ask Reed's love interest to give a different perspective -- maybe some of them see the situation quite differently than the couple do) and perhaps state his concerns outright if he feels it necessary. They might get defensive and it might not help, but at least the outcome would have been no worse than what happened and probably wouldn't have fallen back on the Cogenitor personally.

    It's interesting how naive Trip comes off in this episode. He clearly knows he's doing something risky, hence the subterfuge, but consistently ducks the real consequences. Consider this exchange:

    COGENITOR: Would you be punished if they find out you've brought me here?
    TUCKER: Punished? No, but they might get a little angry.
    COGENITOR: I would be punished.
    TUCKER: Maybe I should take you back.
    COGENITOR: No, no, I want to see more.

    Trip should probably ask what such punishment might entail but he doesn't, even though it's clear that Charles's is risking more in their little adventure than he is.

    As others have noted, it seems like the episode is less about trans rights (it's a muddle on that front -- has Trip literally never heard of non-binary people on Earth?) than a cautionary example about the White Saviour Complex. And on that level, I think it's kind of clever. Trip has no way of knowing how people will react to the idea of "Cogenitor Liberation" but his own behaviour -- this pattern of sneakiness -- demonstrates that he knows it is at least risky. He feeds Charles liberal pieties like "Then you've got to convince them" because that's all he has in this situation; he knows they're only interacting with these people for a short time and have no real leverage for affecting social change.

    So I don't think the message is necessarily against intervention or human rights activism, so much as "Don't be an idiot"... or at least, don't make it all about yourself.

    I mean when they bring the Cogenitor to the mess hall with them early in the episode, where Trip first meets them. It triggers the rest of the narrative but it feels a bit contrived -- is this "take your Cogenitor to work day" or something?

    The Vissians seem more advanced than either humans or Vulcans (where are they in the 24th century?), so you'd think by now they would have been able to synthesize the Cogenitor enzyme and let the Cogenitors have lives of their own.

    I liked this one. I noticed how in the cabin in a scene near the end- there’s a book in the cabin book shelf by a “La Farge- A Pictorial History of the American Indian”. Interesting that in a story about a clash of cultures that has a book describing a people who’s culture was affected by the arrival of a new one. Also Gullivers travels which involves meddling in other cultures. THe gorilla hunters book in the shelf involves the complications around helping an escapee.

    O dear. I have tried to re watch this three times earlier but never succeeded. I find it so embarrassing that I could almost not view it. I decide now to force myself through it.

    Trips behaviour is so very annoying that it gets embarrassing. Yes he is right but when viewing this drama that goes towards a catastrophe I just want to take a pillow and hide behind it. I guess this is how my children feel when I make funny jokes with their friends. Trips nativity stresses me. He is so stupid that it seems impossible.

    By the way, the two middle aged men who when out with the sports car was also embarrassing.

    I accept and can understand why some people like it. I understand and appreciate a very important theme. But for me it disappears behind the pillow that I am holding in front of me.

    Is it a good episode? I do not really want to judge it but I am happy for those who like it. I hope I will change my mind.

    Start good. Malcom side plot was funny. The lines from T’Pol and Plox were relevant and the ending good. And ok, a plus for taking up a important theme.

    An think of this. It is not meant as an insult. As a white continental European I have no problem taking a drink with white American and British males although many of you treat non-white migrants as sh*t . But this does not mean that I myself are without prejudices.

    Asylum seekers are not new on StarTrek. On Voyager, Q sought asylum so he could kill himself. On TNG in the episode Half a Life, a character sought asylum to avoid being killed for their age. In all these instances, asylum was granted because in every instance it was "sentient creature believes they're being treated unfairly by their own society and currently finds themselves standing on a Federation Ship and therefore are subject to Federation Rules, which grant asylum when such is deemed accurate." Full stop. Trip was wrong to go seeking an asylum case. However, fact is, he found one, and it was now standing on Enterprise and therefore human rules applied.

    It is absolutely true that the cogenitor didn't know what they were asking for in asylum, Trip had no doubt sugar-coated it. Archer should have talked to the cogenitor for days, however long it takes, trying to convince them to go back. He should have brought the other captain to talk to them too. Decide on concessions to make the cogenitors life more acceptable going forward. In the end, after every avenue is followed, like in every other StarTrek series, Archer SHOULD have approved this asylum request if the cogenitor insisted on making it.

    Instead, he had the cogenitor forcibly removed from his ship to return to a life of slavery and oppression, ultimately resulting in suicide. This was 100% on Archer's head. Thankfully, historians no doubt agreed with me, as we see Asylum requests formally in the rules by the time of TNG, tying captain's hands. To paraphrase Picard, "I realize doing so will have a perhaps profound negative impact upon your society, but our laws leave me no choice but to grant them asylum."

    Knowing of the cogenitor's plight, he would have been wrong to force his way onto an alien ship to rescue them from slavery. Similarly, he is wrong to force them to leave his own ship. Just as Human rules cannot force the Vissans to stop engaging in slavery on their ship, neither can Vissan laws force Humans to engage in slavery on their ships, even if it is just a form of fugitive slave laws (returning already escaped Vissan slaves).

    I have seen some fantastic episodes of Enterprise where they tackled moral and ethical dilemmas with finesse. This is not one of them. Nor do its ethics stand up to closer scrutiny.

    It is posited by Archer in the episode, and supported by the article writer and several commentators, that Tucker has no right to interfere in another species culture. I challenge that assumption. The suggestion is also made that it is refreshing to see a story suggest that human values are not always the correct ones. This may well prove to be so - but there is no reason to accept that in this case.

    The idea of contaminating alien cultures, and the related but separate idea that Starfleet is not there to enforce human standards on others, are expounded regularly by the show, and it is suggested that we are witnessing the development of the Prime Directive, as that standard is being formed by the crew's experience.

    There are two fallacies at play in the way the show handles this here, and in how people have generally responded. The first fallacy is that the culture of the Vissians is being 'contaminated' or being 'interfered with'. They are not a pre-Warp civilisation (later to be the beneficiaries of the Prime Directive) - furthermore, they have sought out contact and welcomed interaction with an alien species (humanity). As fellow explorers, they have to be prepared for the possibility of meeting other species with different values, who will have a different perspective on their society.

    The second fallacy at play is the idea that cultural 'interference' (or, as I would categorise it, simply interaction) only occurs in one direction. As much as some Vissians might think Trip is interfering in their society's norms, they (and Archer) seem unaware that the Vissians are interfering in theirs. Humanity (in their time) abhors slavery: yet the Vissians bring an enslaved being on board a Starfleet vessel in violation of the laws enforced aboard, take them back to their vessel, breaking further laws on the trafficking of beings. They later demand that the laws of asylum be placed in abeyance. As LoneShark has written above recently, it is the Fugitive Slave Act in action, and - due to the choices of the writers - we see Captain Archer go along with it, then give Trip a patronising speech that it is his fault that an enslaved person, unable to deal with their captivity and denied refuge, chose to kill themselves. The way this is written, Archer not only completely abandons his own ethics and principles to please the Vissians, he tried to gaslight another officer into doing the same. One of the interesting aspects of this final scene is, however, that despite giving Trip a dressing down, he doesn't give any kind of disciplinary punishment - because Trip has indeed done absolutely nothing wrong, and has likely followed the legislation that exists on Earth (Archer cites several places to indicate this). Curiously, he does pressure Trip into absolving him of any responsibility... even though Archer is the one who violated asylum protocol and sent a being back to their death. That was perhaps Archer's prerogative as a captain making diplomatic decisions: but that has nothing to do with Trips ethics or duty to the law he has sworn to uphold. Right now even, in 2020, I have a legal obligation to personally report any suspicions of human trafficking or abduction to the authorities, immediately and without any consultation with superiors or deference to their wishes or orders. Failure to do so will result in my dismissal, arrest and prosecution. No-one can - or should - order me to disobey that duty, and if they tried to do so the order would be refused.

    It is telling that responses from 2020 should make this kind of point in contrast to those from earlier decades. World events have perhaps given a new urgency and relevancy to the ethical dilemmas posed in episodes such as this one. They have also guarded us against the spurious sophistry of moral equivalency behind which often hides venality, corruption and prejudice, and oppression of the powerful over their victims. This rationale is less and less convincing as time goes by, and is being challenged directly across the world right now. As for Archer's excuses - willing to not just overlook but to facilitate abuse in order to preserve relations and gain the benefits of technology from an abusive culture - the defence of 'Befehl ist Befehl' rang hollow in 1946.

    As it stands, it is a product of its times - before people were willing to call out inconsistencies and moral equivalency, and the 'safe' choice was to simply back off from making any kind of moral stand whatsoever. Were this episode written today rather than a decade ago, I imagine the conclusion would have had to take into account the reality of human society as it has progressed, if they were to represent our future more accurately, and with a sense of hope and progress. If this is the future represented, however, then I'm not sure it is worth striving for. Who wants to go backwards rather than progress? I don't want to, and nor should Star Trek.

    Ethdhelwen,

    You are basing your judgment of this episode solely on human values.

    First Contact was so hard, that Star Fleet would monitor planets for years in Picard's time in an attempt to get it right. To suggest Archer has anywhere close to enough information to grant asylum here is just naive.

    You do not have enough information about the Vissian's to come to the conclusions and pass judgment as you do. In fact, the Vissian captain literally put no pressure on Archer to return the cogenitor.

    Like “Doctor, Doctor,” another episode with an extremely dubious moral lesson. Yes, Tripp overstepped bounds by entering the cogenitor’s quarters and bringing it aboard the ship (initially). But once the cogenitor (Charles) becomes aware it is a slave - and there is no avoiding recognizing this fact - and requests asylum, Archer becomes morally culpable for dooming this person to be denied autonomy, choice, or even basic personhood. In “Doctor, Doctor,” Archer permitted an ENTIRE ALIEN RACE to face imminent extinction on the off-chance that the subordinate race MIGHT evolve into greater potential. In this episode, Archer forces a runaway slave back into captivity to avoid offending the slaver race. Only one episode prior, Archer DEMANDED Dr. Phlox administer treatment to an ill alien in violation of Phlox personal medical ethics.

    Of course, what Tripp should have done isn’t cut and dry and the degree to which Enterprise should have involved itself in mitigating sex-based slavery among these people is worthy of consideration. But the ultimate conclusion is yet one more example of Enterprise disturbing didactic episodes.

    Oh the sanctimonious arrogance.

    To be fair, one of the eternal failures of Trek has been its inability to engage with the idea of actual "aliens" as in beings from other worlds. We get Klingons and Bajorans with their crinkly foreheads but otherwise human biology and culture and we end up with allegories instead of aliens. Maybe I expect too much from Trek.

    That weakness is on full display in this episode so I can't be too hard on PicardisWesleysFather and others who seriously think that slamming aliens from another world with human morality/law is a fantastic idea.

    In 2020 I find myself loving these episodes and appreciating the wisdom of the Prime Directive more than ever.

    Jason R - Doesn't the "wisdom" of the Prime Directive rely on the notion that we humans know exactly the circumstances which decide whether we interfere with another species or not? The Prime Directive says we know what's best, and it is we who decide, in advance, for the universe. If that doesn't qualify as sanctimonious arrogance of the highest order, then I don't know what does.

    " Doesn't the "wisdom" of the Prime Directive rely on the notion that we humans know exactly the circumstances which decide whether we interfere with another species or not?"

    No that is literally the opposite of the Prime Directive.

    How so? Prohibitions, dozens of sub-orders, interpretation of those sub-orders and then exceptions to those orders. Captains aren't just sent out with the guidance to not interfere.

    I liked this episode, but I find weird that archer is so mad with tucker about "interfering" given that he himself did not show much restraint in the past in applying human ethics to alien affairs. I don't find his reaction in line with his character, which kind of affect the believability and coherence of both the scene and the captain. I am left again perplexed and unable to frame this mercurial captain in any way.

    It would have been probably more realistic if Archer showed some empathy with Tucker, while also recognizing his faults and punishing him. perhaps all of this while at the same showing that he learned something for the future. That there are nuances, and that sometimes one needs to consider cultural relativism.

    After a slump of “meh” episodes, here we get a good one. Can’t help but to think that at the end Archer is taking out anger he has towards himself on Tripp. He tells Tripp they got news that “Charles” killed herself yet there’s no reason to believe she wasn’t murdered. And THAT would be Archers fault not Tripps. Even if she did commit suicide it’s just as much Archers fault. He had the final say on her not being able to stay on Enterprise when she begged to.

    Andy's Friend wrote:

    "As long as you obey the Emperor ― or nowadays, the regime ―, the specifics are not important. Hong-Kong and Macao are prime examples of this: most people were expecting China not to respect the agreements with the UK and Portugal, but China has, in fact, respected the two-system models agreed upon, and kept Hong-Kong and Macao as different societies than neighbouring China."

    Without getting into the (fulfilling) debates inspired by this episode: perhaps you might want to re-think this statement you wrote a few years ago?

    I award this episode 4 stars, 3 of them for the episode itself and an extra one for provoking the most entertaining discussion I've yet read on this website. Andy's Friend is quite the character, and Eliot was on blistering form all those years ago.

    On the episode itself, count me among those who were let down by the ending. I'm a firm believer that the best Star Trek episodes are the ones where characters make controversial decisions that leave people on both sides of the debate dissatisfied, so I don't have a problem with Archer's decision. What strikes me as odd, both from a structural perspective and with balance in mind, is that the writers have Archer give Trip a *second* major dressing down when he hasn't done anything wrong since the last one.

    I do think the intention is to show that Archer is wracked with guilt and taking it out on Trip, but it doesn't quite come off for me. Nobody brings up the fact that it was Archer's decision that directly led to the death of the cogenitor, and that seems a very important element of the story.

    Once again, I do find myself marvelling at people reacting with disgust toward either Archer or Trip. The whole reason it's a good episode is because the moral conundrum it envisages is extremely difficult to resolve. It's not a simple case of respecting another culture's customs *or* standing up for what's 'right' - *both* of these are considerations that have to be given due weight. The problem with Trip going in half-cocked is that he didn't consider the repercussions. If someone is a slave, oppressed to the extent that the cogenitor was, of course it is going to be torturous to give them only the briefest a glimpse of a better life. Liberating a society from outside of it requires a plan, or else you can make things worse, as we should all have learned by now.

    On the other hand, the arguments some have made for a policy of total noninterference are unrealistic and strange. Morality as a concept simply doesn't exist unless you are applying it universally. If you regard your own system of ethics as merely parochial, then it isn't a system of ethics - it's just etiquette.

    When we encounter alien cultures - be they actual aliens or not - the reason why we try to show respect and to withhold judgement on matters of ethics is (a) because it helps to establish trust and conviviality, which is a practical necessity, and (b) because we concede that our own views of morality may, in some respects, be shortsighted, that we may yet have more to learn.

    And when I say 'we' here, I really mean any culture or species that has evolved any sense of morality at all, since I can't really see how any such culture or species would go about it a different way.

    Over 10 years of comments! That's what I call a successful episode. Not perfect, but successful.

    I'm not going to weigh in on what Archer or Tucker or the Vissians should have done, or even on possible failings in the script. I want to talk about a larger issue which doesn't seem to have been mentioned (though I've only read maybe half of the hundreds of comments).

    Remember how this show literally did not have "Star Trek" in its name for the first couple of seasons? And how many people said they hated it because "it wasn't really Star Trek"? I think those things are a result of a very ambitious, perhaps foolish choice the producers of this series made. They decided to make a show about how the Star Trek universe we learned to love came into being. Many of the commenters are forgetting the established parameters of the Enterprise time period: There is NO prime directive at this time. There is NO Federation at this time, only a rather weak Starfleet. The humans have ONE reliable ally, Vulcan, which basically considers them unpredictable children.

    Clearly the producers' intention was to show humanity's progress toward the Federation with its prime directive and dominant position in the quadrant. But that progress must begin with a human society that is essentially ours today, with all the vices and confusion that entails. Considering this, I don't think it's entirely fair to judge an individual episode by itself. In order for the progress to occur, there have to be situations where good intentions (but lack of experience and naivete) bring terribly bad consequences. The one thing we should clearly see is that each time this happens, the humans understand what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again.

    Of course, yes, the episode should be as good as possible on its own, but it's intended to fit into a larger arc. My question, as I watch this series for the first time, is whether that larger arc is successful. We know that at the end the Federation will be formed and a prime directive will be articulated, but will I be satisfied with the way the series gets me there? I have two more seasons to go, so I can't answer that yet, but so far I would say yes.

    There are major problems with the series in the writing and the acting (not to mention all the excessively human-looking aliens), but I think the biggest problem is the job it sets itself. Watching the first human explorers make mistake after mistake isn't inspiring. Choosing to tell a story like this required, IMHO, the highest quality writing, and that's far from what we get. Still, they clearly are trying, at least in general. Personally, I dislike almost all the characters except Phlox and Hoshi, but I can see slow character growth in Archer and T'pol. So far, all the others without exception have been presented one-dimensionally.

    All I'm trying to say is that I've enjoyed the series more than I expected so far, and understanding the difficulty of their vision has helped with that.

    Did no one else but me think that the way Katsulas said, "Consider what I've said" had a slightly menacing undertone? Even though it was not backed up by the script?

    4 stars seems a little high in my opinion, but your mileage will vary with a lot of these better episodes. I found the premise interesting, but Trip came off as mansplaining and condescending. Maybe that’s the point. Maybe the point to have him act like an idiot and possibly ruin a first contact is because sometimes humans can act like idiots and mess up first impressions. The final scene was powerful, though, and like some others, I feel it’s Archer lashing out at his own guilt of setting a bad example for this crew. Good stuff, 3.5/4

    People who don't really know what they're doing telling other people what they should be doing. Oops, didn't go to well.....slap me sideways!

    @Frake's Nightmare....

    Just curious, but are you being sarcastic or do you think that Trip was in the wrong here?

    Probably both. Reminds of every situation where someones tried to fix a problem without trying to find if there was a problem or even what the problem was.

    There seem to be a lot of idealists in the comments who think that Trip can be absolved of all responsibility for Charles' (cogenitor's) death, simply because they agree that he was doing "the right thing", according to the commenter's own morality. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's that simple. Furthermore, it's an absurd Strawman argument to claim that people who understand and agree with the non-interference message in this episode are somehow condoning oppression and sex slavery. No, we're not saying we *agree* with treating sentient beings as inanimate objects to be used and discarded. What we're saying is that in the short term, the alternative often has the potential to cause more harm than good. Cf. attempts at "regime change" in the real world, or attempts by Western governments to tell people what they can & cannot wear (in contravention of those people's beliefs), despite the fact that forcing someone not to wear something is just as bad as forcing them to. So the key point of the episode was, "how did you *really* think this amateur meddling was going to turn out, Trip???" Does this man have *any* capability to think ahead and read between the lines? Because if he had, then he would have realized that once contact with humans ceased, no one within that society would have supported or condoned the cogenitor's newfound freedom of thought and expression. Because these roles have been going on, and the oppression going on systemically for thousands of years. Even with the limited info Trip had about their culture, he should have realized that. He should have realized that it was immoral of him to give this being false hope of freedom to pursue interests and experience life as he does, knowing full well that he would returning it to a society that would crush those hopes, and give that being *no* outlet for its newfound ability to express itself. So the tragic outcome of his interaction with the cogenitor was sadly predictable, and he should have seen it coming. At the end of the day, it's neither the role of Enterprise, nor within the *capability* of Enterprise to effect change within this society overnight.

    One of the few episodes that spoke to the true essence of Star Trek. Trek is at its best when the "conflict" is learning about new and interesting cultures and reflecting on our own. Too many Enterprise cultures fall into the (a) Unreasonable Forehead Alien of the Week TM or (b) seemingly friendly alien with hidden evil agenda.

    It's great to have episodes with great battle scenes lke the Best of Both Worlds on occasion, but you also need to have more of the Inner Light and the Measure of a Man.

    It was delightful to see a friendly, reasonable, patient alien culture (ironically led by Commander Tomalak, no less) with interesting differences. The dilemma Trip faced hit close to home, as all of us would struggle with doing what we believed was right vs. the duty not to interfere. I actually felt nervous in scenes where he was sneaking behind everyone's backs. Bakula is exceptional here, and really dumps the "captain is your friend" persona in the last scenes.

    This episode is wonderful and I love the divisiveness it creates because in my mind it is representative of the ideological shift of mainstream progressivism (reflected by a similar shift in the ideology of Star Trek's creative team). Whereas Old Trek progressivism emphasizes self-determination and anti-imperialism, NuTrek progressivism abhorrs moral relativism and prioritizes the rights of the individual as perceived from the liberal Western mindset. It is my theory that the moral conclusion of this episode would be panned if it were aired today (as some of the debate on this forum seems to reinforce). The Prime Directive remains part of modern Star Trek because of canon, but it is my impresson that it is broadly opposed by those who create and consume NuTrek (or at least, it is opposed whenever it is shown meaningfully in action beyond "we won't invade you with guns"). I wish someone would write an academic paper on it.

    Trip did the right thing, and Archer killed the Cogenitor by sending them back into slavery and having experienced freedom for the first time. And yet he has the audacity to blame Trip for it.

    With that awful take of a conclusion the rating dropped from 4/5 to 1/5 for me.

    Part of the problem is really the sudden one-sidedness of the conclusion. Even if Archer's decision was the same as written Trip could've stood his ground and not bow down before Archer like T'Pol. Trip's switch there made no sense at all.

    On the other hand it was great to see Andreas Katsulas again, after having watched Babylon 5! He seems like a wise man. R.I.P.

    I love this episode. I wish so much that Enterprise had taken this tack sooner. I personally did not enjoy the Xindi arc. Other shows like Battlestar Galactica can pull off a serial plot because the initial premise is just so devastating and all-encompassing that it could be written about for several seasons. But Star Trek is about exploring the human condition, and I felt that the Xindi arc turned it into more of an action series than a philosophical one. Other Trek series took the first 1-3 seasons to get their legs, and then started doing a lot more competent story writing after that. "Cogenitor" was a sign that Enterprise was starting to realize its potential. But then the network wasn't satisfied with the slow build and the Xindi arc came into being. I always found the arc kind of unbelievable. It means that every other character in Star Trek knew that there was once a time when there was a galactic temporal cold war based on sabotage of the Federation, that the Federation has always known that it will exist until at least the 31st century, and that the Xindi were key to the temporal cold war. Yet in the other series, there is simply no mention of any of this, not even a single reference. We never even see a Xindi. It doesn't add up.

    Anyway.... back to this episode. I don't think it would be easy for the Cogenitors to revolt, and their repression makes sense. We're not just talking the past 1000 years of Vissian society but maybe millions of years of evolution. There are probably other species on their planet that reproduce this way. The males and females may have an in-born instinct to protect, shelter and oppress the Cogenitor and the Cogenitor benefited from this arrangement in evolution. I personally find it hard to believe that a species would survive evolution that reproduced in this way because natural selection that evolves a sex binary is not going to benefit from needing a third individual to make it work. On Earth, species can have complicated reproduction, but it's always a sexual binary or asexual (self-reproducing). Natural selection favours efficiency and fitness. There's no fitness to a third sex. But anyway...

    Perhaps there were past renaissances when Cogenitors tried to realize their potential, and then Vissian society had a steep decline in population. Indeed, on Earth when women got equal rights to education and career, the birth rate dropped. Cogenitors being just as sentient as the males and females only means that they share the same evolutionary branch, but socially they clearly have very different functions. Humanity is one race but our civilization has created ethnic hierarchies over the various centuries that have no basis in biological reality, and some were severely oppressed. But I don't think that's what's happening with the Vissians because it's about reproduction, not trivial appearances. Because it deals with reproduction, there would have to be strong, in-born instincts involved, somehow linked to the sexual drive itself. It's not just about social choices. The Cogenitor would have to have the urge to pair with a male and female. The male and female would have to have the urge to shelter the Cogenitors because they are rare. This is because the Cogenitors ALSO want to reproduce, and they need males and females to do it. There is also clearly a difference in how the instinct is divided, behaviourally. The males and females pair-bond, but they don't bond with the Cogenitor. The use it and then move on. So the instinct toward Cogenitors evolved differently from the instincts displayed between males and females.

    This episode portrays the Cogenitors as a passive accessory to the males and females. But we are only meeting one Cogenitor, we don't know what the others are like. Maybe many are content to be with the males and females because it could mean more Cogenitors get made. If they didn't do that in evolutionary history, their species would've went extinct.

    For all we know, in the past 1000 years of Vissian society, they already had entire eras where Cogenitors were equal, and it led to some kind of calamity on their home world. Maybe there was a Cogenitor uprising. Or maybe it's a simple matter of Cogenitors being rare and precious. Imagine if your entire species only had a 3% cohort capable of aiding reproduction? Would you just let them go out into the world and take all the same risks as the males and females? We just don't know the full story. Clearly they are a super intelligent and insightful people, so the fact that they treat Cogenitors this way may tell us what their society has concluded about this issue after thousands of years of dealing with it. This aspect of their society is just so different from humanity's that it would likely be really hard for us to understand their morals. And that's why the Prime Directive is a good thing. More than protecting aliens from humanity's bad intentions, it protects aliens from humanity's good intentions that have bad consequences. "The right thing" for humans, which we would all agree on, could destroy an alien society.

    My analysis of the Cogenitors is brief. You could probably write entire papers on it, given the inferences of just this single episode. Imagine humanity dealing with things this complex, every time they meet a new species? Our own instincts and morals, which evolved for us, are not equipped to judge the norms of other worlds. We simply don't have the biological and social preparation to recognize what is right for other societies. We only know what is right for other societies when they tell us in a cohesive way (i.e. all Vissians agree that Cogenitors should not have a major social role.).

    This episode is great. So many layers. Definitely a 4 star episode.

    Sorry, I have more ideas, lol.

    If anything, I think in Vissian history we would find there were wars between the males and females over who controlled the Cogenitors. The Cogenitors would be content to reproduce with any cohort of males and females. It's the males and females that have to decide who in their society is worthy to reproduce since the availability of Cogenitors is scarce and males and females have an in-born instinct to sequester and oppress Cogenitors. My pet theory is that the Vissians are a meritocracy and those with higher status get Cogenitors first. One important missing piece of information is that we don't know who carries the unborn child. Is it the female or the Cogenitor? If it's the female, then Cogenitors can be passed around fairly quickly. If it's the Cogenitor, then the gestation period renders them even more scarce.

    As an aside, I am very skeptical that the Vissians with all their advancements have not come up with a way to replicate the reproductive enzyme that Cogenitors provide. Look at what humans in the 21st century are capable of doing with fertility medicine.

    You know this is good writing because it generates an entire world of imagination in the viewer!

    Maybe next week Lt. Daniels will send Archer and the gang back in time to return Harriet Tubman to the plantation. It's their culture after all and who are we to judge?

    I didn't think it was possible to hate a Scott Bakula character, but they managed to do it with that last scene. This is an episode that, if I had watched it when it first aired, would make me actively root for the show to be cancelled.

    Didn’t Archer interfere much more than this in so many alien cultures!? For example when he freed the enslaved Suliban?! They also protested to the help until the end. For me it was a striking similarity! In this episode the same thing happened. The cogenitor objected but then asked for an asylum in the end! IMO. Archer caused the death and not Trip. I am also disgusted as I get the suicide was trivialized. Someone only comments suicide when they feel wronged in a big way. Why was Archer justified in altering 89 peoples lives in his mind and not Trip! I really feel that Trip was using his mind and human compassion that everyone else lacked in this episode! Very disappointed in this episode!!

    Coming late to the party....
    Something I don't think anyone has brought up....

    Everyone talks about the rights of a "sentient" being. But we only give full rights to sentient ADULTS.

    An 8 year old human is sentient. Should Trip sneak around their parent's back and try to teach the child ideas against the parent's wishes? If the 8 year old asks Archer for asylum from his parents, should Archer grant it?

    For that matter, an 8 month old fetus is (likely) sentient. Can it ask for asylum?

    We literally know next to NOTHING about the cogenitor. How do you know it's "mature" -- whatever that might mean in Vissian society?

    How do you know it's a "sex slave"? Maybe it's ritual job is to sit on the egg until it hatches? Would that make it a "sex slave"?
    How do you know it's "opressed"? Because it's not taught to read? I had no idea "reading" was a fundamental right of *all* sentient creatures. (If dolphins are sentient, are they "opressed" because they don't read?)
    Again, consider that the cogenitor *might* be an immature Vissian.

    For that matter (just to run with the "cogenitor as immature Vissian"), maybe the cogenitor will be taught to read -- when it reaches adulthood -- whatever that might mean in the Vissian society. Maybe a better term for the 3rd gender would be "child".

    Ever hear of *INFORMED* consent? How can Archer possibly evaluate whether the cogenitor is competent to even request asylum?

    Finally, with respect to the suicide.... we literally have *NO* idea. An earlier reviewer pointed out that maybe the cogenitors are psychologically incapable of dealing with truly abstract thought. Maybe they have a manic/compulsive nature, once introduced to the idea of "surfing" (to pick an absurd example), perhaps they obsess on surfing and become suicidal if they can't "surf". So, by encouraging the congenitor to "dream", Trip was essentially telling it "find something (surfing) you won't be able to do *RIGHT*NOW*, and drive yourself insane thinking about that".
    We simply don't know. And people who jump to conclusions, who analyze an alien as if they follow human behavioral norms, are likely to make mistakes.

    I'm a *FIRM* believer in an absolute morality. But it's application is not nearly so black-and-white when applied to a totally alien species as many seem to believe.

    Stunning to see a **Trek** comment group where most have an almost fundamentalist fervor that "we're right and we're competent to judge the rest of the universe".
    Torquemada would be proud....

    When we are children we generally get into trouble because we have done or said things that are objectively hurtful and idiotic. There may be exceptions....

    There is a category of trouble that I call "adult trouble."
    It consists of doing what one feels is the correct thing (and may in some sense truly be the correct thing) and have negative consequences result.

    Trip stumbled into that category quite deliberately.

    After seeing this episode tonight, the only thing I want to add to this discussion is that I don't think we have enough information about Vissian society to know what any of this means. We have seen one cogenitor on one ship with one male/female couple. Look at how advanced the Vissians are. They have a strata pod that can fly inside of a star. They are hundreds of years ahead of Earth in every way imaginable and they are an extremely peaceful, intelligent, thoughtful people. It's conceivable that there are very good reasons why a cogenitor lives the way it does. Just because we weren't shown those reasons doesn't mean the reasons don't exist.

    After meeting their people for just a few days, who would better understand the place of a cogenitor: humans or Vissians?

    In my opinion, this episode is about the importance of the Prime Directive, it's not about the Vissians or our judgments about them. If it was a Vissian episode, we would have been given way more information about the evolution of cogenitors and Vissian society.

    We don't know what the cogenitor's suicide means. We don't know anything. We only have Trip's interactions and biases to go on, which are ultimately superficial and human-based. The episode could've taken a different track. Trip could've been caught teaching the cogenitor to read and then we would've heard the Vissian's side of the story about why that's a bad idea.

    We are missing too much information to judge these people. Because the Vissians discovered warp drive 1000 years ago, I am inclined to think they are much more enlightened the humans of Enterprise and therefore they have good reasons for treating cogenitors the way they do.

    @Jason
    I agree. This episode is not really about whether Trip was right or not. Of course it's wrong to keep sentient humanoids as nameless, uneducated pets purely to act as a tool for conception. That's like asking if slavery is wrong. It's not a matter of "cultural differences". If two societies clash on such basic ethics then they aren't going to find much common ground.

    The episode was more about Trip making an impulsive judgement based on little information, when he's supposed to be a representative of an entire planet and can't afford to act so rashly. Additionally, Trips impulsiveness mirrors Archer's tendencies towards impulsive acts (proving that the writers are aware of the issue) This is pretty much pointed out when Archer gives him a lecture. Trip says he was just doing what he thought the captain would do (not realizing that it's not his decision to make) and the captain admits he's not even sure how he would have acted.

    To put everything in perspective, imagine if you were part of a group representing the U.N. in talks with some previously undiscovered country that just opened it's borders. Not only that, you're just an assistant in the group, not the head diplomat. You aren't there to make decisions. During the talks you become aware of some government sanctioned slave labor in this country, but you aren't able to get this information to your boss because they are deep in talks.

    Do you:

    A) wait for the opportunity to bring this information to your superiors so they can confer with the U.N. and likely halt talks with the country until this can be addressed

    B) Take actions into your own hands without conferring with anyone, creating an international incident, and likely destroying any political sway the U.N. might have had to resolve the issue in the long run

    The long and short of it is that Trip was playing with fire. He's not a diplomat, he's not even captain, and he has to realize that.

    Powerful episode! Archer is being quite hypocritical chewing out Trip after Archer’s history of repeated interference.
    The episode added depth to Trip’s character, he really cared about the cogenitor. This episode became much more complex and conflicted than I thought it would. Bravo!
    Did Malcolm ever get lucky with that other alien? That was never resolved. She was mad ripe!

    JonR explained the issue perfectly.

    There are appropriate diplomatic methods of noting your disagreement with an element of another society without creating an incident. In fact, diplomacy is the only way if you want to promote change.

    Umm, I depise Archer. Save this woman! I hated Trip. He's actually a good man. What the help was his reasoniing?

    Can people please stop saying "sentient" when they mean "sapient".
    Sentient means the being has senses. Relatively, it's a low bar. Toads are sentient.

    First review I've read at Jammer. You must be doing something right because 20 years later people are still finding your site and posting about this episode. Well done.
    My thought - I look forward to seeing if this has effects on Tripp's and Archer's character growth in the series.
    In The Rise of the Federation novels, Tripp will continue to struggle with the moral limits of interference and will experience painful growth. And Archer will eventually embrace a non-interference precursor to what became the prime directive.
    In the series so far, it seems to me that Hoshi, T'Pol, and Phlox have had moments of good character development. Travis and Malcolm have had some good stories but remain painful stereotypes and carved in stone. Perhaps this is a turning point for Tripp and Archer.

    She died because archer forced her to leave the ship. I guess we won’t have follow up episode in a couple of seasons where they’ve gone from pets to highly valued citizens. Ugh. the way they were treated was wrong. To treat an intelligent being like that, not even worthy of a name, is wrong.
    You saw its unhappiness at the first dinner. It’s oppressed with no ability to change anything and probably never the ability to meet another of its kind since they’re so rare and spend all their time in a room.
    Imagine being that intelligent and you are stuck in a room until the couple needs to make use of you. So gross.

    While I agree with the overall message of the episode, I hate the naive nature in which the Enterprise crew continues to promote their values.

    Values that I do agree with.....but...c'mon now....you can't just attack an entire society (no matter how immoral some aspects of it are) like a blunt instrument. Part of me really likes this show. The other part? Feels like I am watching children baby step both space and cultural exploration.


    Again...it isn't that Trip is 'wrong' but you can't approach this situation in such a blind, blunt, and naive way........

    It makes the crew look like idiots.

    Yeah, you can criticize a society that has obviously immoral values that violate basic *beings* rights (T-pols dig that these weren't "human" in response to trip's human rights argument was just plain stupid). This cultural relativism crap ends when people try to justify pure discrimination/victimization for no valid reason.

    Trip did absolutely nothing wrong. All he did was teach her basic experiences and skills that were being denied to them for no reason whatsoever. This alien race never explained why exactly they had no rights. Even if they needed their enzyme to have a kid (which forcing them to do just even that would still be wrong as it amounts to rape), why couldn't they also live "normal" lives. It was like slavery without any shred of logical purpose, even morality aside. Another example of an alien society advanced, 1000 years ahead of them, but doesn't have any basic morals, like the sphere-cult freaks who destroyed each others planets over whether it took 9 or 10 days to build them, or whatever that was. This just wouldn't happen. Even if the cogenitors didn't have equal intelligence that doesn't make it right, but since they did, obviously at some point they would have rebelled. With how unhappy they depicted "Charles" as, how could they ever not have been curious about trying new things, learning basic reading/math, doing things for fun..etc, in 1000 years? It's nonsense to assume that any intelligent species would function fine like that. Archer already made such a huge fool of himself in Dear Doctor and doubles down on his insanity again.

    1st of all just teaching someone skills is not interfering in the culture. 2nd, he had no right to force her to go back, that is literally turning someone over who escaped a kidnapper back to the kidnapper..what happened to the federations asylum rights? There wasn't even any prime directive at this point. And if your gonna pull the "oh all of this is subjective morality and you can't impose that on others" then..what if my subjective belief is that it is ok to interfere in other cultures to right obvious wrongs? What if that is the federations culture, who are other cultures to say that interference is wrong". Thats subjective in itself. So it is all a huge hypocrisy. That's why sometimes you just have to use common sense. Like the aliens had no reason to abuse that other gender when they could get their precious enzyme and still treat them well anyway. A species that advanced could probably find a way to replicate the enzyme without turning the actual people into sex slaves. How is it that all these species have advanced warp drives and craft that can fly into stars but seem to have stone age medicine and ethics? Lazy writing and horrible moral reasoning/hypocrisy. Trip should have prevented Archer from forcing her back into sex slavery and then put Archer in his place for being such a ignorant pompous fool. Archer whining about the couple not being able to have a kid...SERIOUSLY? Sure lets worry about a rapists rights when his victim has an abortion cause his future child doesnt exist now...i mean how low can you get??

    A side point, What the hell is the point in first contact if you aren't going to interact/share technology/try to enhance each other's culture? Star fleet is literally a huge waste of time. Go through the academy to explore space but let anyone who asks for help suffer, spend all this time with aliens, take turns flying their ships, but not gain any technology insight whatever, just put stuff in a computer log. It's beyond ridiculous. Archer was the one whining in Fight or Flight that they had "almost forgotten their human morality" and yet flips out at Trip for basically doing what the Abolitionist/suffrage movements did? He is out of his mind. Stealing a warp coil crippling someone else's ship to save yourselves is fine, but saving a victim who specifically asked for help and is being abused, is not? And before all the trolls start saying "oh this is some transgender propoganda", it is totally not the same thing as this was a different species who actually had 3 biological genders, unlike the human gender dysphoria mental illness today that's all psychological. Totally different thing. The comparison to a pet was ridiculous because we treat pets better (e.g Archer letting his dog run lose in "strange new world" and peeing on sacred trees..etc), so yeah of course Trip wasn't going to give a crap at their advanced quantum inverter whatever when they are abusing a helpless person, that's like a pedophile trying to impress you with his advanced computer to hide from police as you walk past a kid tied up under the table. NO SHIT Trip was more concerned with that. Especially as they called her "it" every other sentence. Surprised he didn't lose it and give a swing right there.


    Oh and the self-righteous Vulcan always judging humans for any tiny thing they do, lecturing Trip on non-interfence. The logic these writers use could not be any stupider. Yeah reprimand Trip for trying to give someone a life to live after YOU are the one who stormed into her quarters and forced her to go back even when SHE begged not to. Archer is basically a male Janeway. And even she respected right to protection if someone asked for it, even for Q!!! I was hoping at the end she would have escaped or something, but the suicide aspect was just sad. But yeah, blame Trip, Archer was the one who should have to live with turning the victim back over to her captors, and Trip should have read him the riot act at the end. He's not gonna confine his chief engineer to quarters, (although he did throw Malcom in the brig even in a battle so who knows). Star fleet ain't "enlightened" in the slightest. Negative 4 stars.

    I fully agree with the comments about "universal sentient being rights", that's the phrase I am looking for. Different culture is not an excuse for blatant violations of these rights. I see the trolls that viciously defended dear doctor are defending this as well, typical. And are completely missing the point. It's not a matter of what country, culture, or planet, it is about basic sentient being rights, which can be considered universal. Also are missing the point that the cogenitor *did* want to live a normal life. She only killed herself after being FORCED by Archer back into that miserable slave ship. The scene of Archer lecturing Trip (and even more, Trip taking it) was one of the most ridiculous lecture scenes I have seen in all of star trek, any series. Archers arguments were basically the equivalent of being angry that a pair of sex traffickers could have a baby with their victim, and blaming a suicide victim on the person who TRIED TO END THEIR SUFFERING. So many contradictions and universal sentient rights violations all the "philosphers" you people refer to could write a new book.

    Also just one tiny funny point about something:

    Archer not only learning but MASTERING how to control some alien navigation system in the pod after simply WATCHING the guy for a couple hours, was just absurd. Pilot skills take months/years to develops. You can't even master a car just by watching, let alone complex manuveres in an alien pod while dodging solar flares. That is just ridiculous. Data possibly couldn't do that.

    I just realized how Archer's reasoning in this episode and dear doctor are absurdly contradictory. In dear doctor Archer didn't want to cure the disease because he wanted to give the Menk a chance to evolve and eventually have more power. He didn't want to interfere in their natural evolution (I disagree with his decision in that episode but just using it for the argument here), yet here, when he forcibly sends back the sex slave, he could be preventing a natural change in their society. Buy granting her asslyum it could have sparked a natural improvement in their society. More cogenitors may have stood up for themselves, forced their society to change and give them basic rights...etc. He interfered by stopping a member of that society from potentially sparking change resulting from her escape and demand for rights. If anything, he hindered their society development, so he is a massive immoral hypocrite/psychopath (in both episodes). He should have forced the doctor down to the planet to give the cure in DD, while facilitating the "lower species" of this planet to evolve and gain basic sentient beings rights. He got it totally backwards.

    Also noticed some comments about "when we explore the cosmos...etc" I guarantee that so many absurdly backward and deranged societies would exist within 150 light years of Earth. The alien stupidity in star trek would 99.999% chance not exist in this galaxy. Even the reports of grey aliens abducting humans or whatever, seem to show humans more ethics and consideration than anyone in star trek does, (based on all the reported stories). There are even accounts that they may have meddled in our wars to mitigate/reduce the amount of destruction we did to ourselves.

    They said intelligent life in 1 in every 43,000 planets, I don't even know if there are 43,000 stars within 150 light years, let alone inhabitable, warp capable, planets with intelligent life. The "bigots of the week with warp drive" never cease to amaze me, but what amazes me more is the number of these similar technologically advanced worlds that there are so close to Earth, given that 1 in every 43,000 stat.

    Sorry for posting repeatedly in a row, but I like to submit stuff before I lose my train of thought(I get brainfog easily).

    I read more of the comments and some of them are just even more absurd. Like children don't have rights cause they aren't adults? That is blatantly false, kids have just as much a right not to be enslaved, denied education, and the right not to be confined in a room their entire life. That has got to be the worst comment of them all, not just justifying this type of slavery, but also promoting child neglect. "Needing" them for reproduction doesn't justify it either. You can't force people to help you have kids. You can't force anyone TO have kids. You can't medically experiment on people against their will either even if it will end up developing a cure to save a species. Everything isn't automatically justifiable for a "greater good". That's an even more ridiculous argument than the "not knowing enough to interfere".
    You people say we're being "too human" to judge an alien culture, I think it is that you people aren't being human enough. Once she asked for help it it would be equally interfering to not grant her safety on board the ship. You're INTERFERING in the personal decision of someone in another culture! I mean if she still refused what were they gonna do drag her kicking and screaming to the transporter pad? Would they be that scum? Archer seriously sacrificed her and possibly any future hope of rescuing the sex slaves just so he could play around inside stars with their pods some more? Sometimes I seriously think the writers of these horrid episodes are using reverse psychology on us, trying to get us pissed off at these episodes, cause there's no way any sane person can agree with the captain decisions made in Prey, Memorial, Homeward, 30 days, dear doctor..etc, they were just so a surely illogical, hypocritical, and disgusting on every level. What about their assylum laws? Do they not matter? They are back on THEIR OWN SHIP so it's their territory now. They have no trouble letting alien cultures meddle with them but refuse to ever return the favor.

    In fight or flight Archer turned the ship around to go back and retrieve a ship full of dead corpses, because he claimed he "didn't want to forget his human progress" or whatever, to return DEAD people to their families. Yet when it comes to actual living people suffering it doesn't matter to him. The prime directive was probably supposed to be a general guideline like not to choose sides in planetary wars (they do that all the time anyway lol), things like that. NOT just to let planets die when you can save them, risk a civil war so they don't discover some circuits in a communicator, deny a species which has asked for a help a cure cause it might give another species some disadvantage 1000 years down the line, all irrational, anti-common sense, sentient being rights violations over stupid principles. They almost act like the prime directive itself is some sentient entity that shouldn't ever be disrespected.

    Oh and those who think it's 30+ comments agreeing with Archer, it seems the ones who agree and making silly excuses/dumb arguments are mainly just replying back and forth agreeing with each other or compulsively trying to refute any differing viewpoint. Unfortunately the growing comment chain gives them validation that it's a "debatable" subject when it really isn't. And that's how trolls operate. "Getting attention so we must be right or it must be totally subjective!" Remember your whole "non-interference" defending is a subjective standard in itself. What if one planets culture is to put other whacky societies in their place? Who are you to say that's wrong. You can't just claim the interference is wrong when you disagree with it. With that logic you may as well side with the borg. And don't try to rationalize this with some nit picky ideas like "oh but one is actively doing something and the other isn't blah blah blah", inaction can be worse than action sometimes, that it 4th grade ethics. The fact that people here are vehemently trying to defend stone age and handmaid tale level victimization (maybe even genocide) with absurd rationalizations is more disturbing than the episode. At least maybe the writers were deliberately trying to pass us off to spread awareness or something, but to defend it is unfathomable. I mean come on.

    And back to Archers absolute recklessness in general, he hops on board a tiny pod to go flying into a star, and then after a whopping 45 minutes of WATCHING some alien using the controls, he not only figures out how it all works, but MASTERS dazzling stunts in and around solar flares. Yeah, RIGHT. That's like taking a crop duster up in an f18 for a ride along, and then letting him not only fly the plane but do corkscrews and dive under bridges cause he "watched" you enough to learn.

    I fully agree with the comments about "universal sentient being rights", that's the phrase I am looking for. Different culture is not an excuse for blatant violations of these rights. I see the trolls that viciously defended dear doctor are defending this as well, typical. And are completely missing the point. It's not a matter of what country, culture, or planet, it is about basic sentient being rights, which can be considered universal. Also are missing the point that the cogenitor *did* want to live a normal life. She only killed herself after being FORCED by Archer back into that miserable slave ship. The scene of Archer lecturing Trip (and even more, Trip taking it) was one of the most ridiculous lecture scenes I have seen in all of star trek, any series. Archers arguments were basically the equivalent of being angry that a pair of sex traffickers couldn't have a baby with their victim, and blaming a suicide victim on the person who TRIED TO END THEIR SUFFERING by improving their life! So many contradictions and universal sentient rights violations, that all the "philosphers" you people refer to, could write a new book.

    Also just one tiny funny point about something:

    Archer not only learning but MASTERING how to control some alien navigation system in the pod after simply WATCHING the guy for a couple hours, was just absurd. Pilot skills take months/years to develop. You can't even master a car just by watching, let alone complex manuveres in an alien pod while dodging solar flares. That is just ridiculous. Data may not have even been able to do that.

    Also noticed some comments about "when we explore the cosmos...etc" I guarantee that so many absurdly backward and deranged societies would not exist within 150 light years of Earth. The alien stupidity in star trek would 99.999% chance not exist in this galaxy. Even the reports of grey aliens abducting humans or whatever, seem to show humans more ethics and consideration than anyone in star trek does, (based on all the reported stories). There are even accounts that they may have meddled in our wars to mitigate/reduce the amount of destruction we did to ourselves lol.

    TUCKER: Look how much you've accomplished in a single day. And reading's just the tip of the iceberg. You could study all sorts of things. History, science. Engineering's not bad. You don't have to sit in this room all day."

    COGENITOR: "They would never let me learn those things."

    TUCKER: "Then you've got to convince them. It's not just learning. It's experiencing things. Music, swimming in the ocean. You do have oceans on your planet?"

    Trip's motive is unclear here. Is his objective to convince the cogenitor that it is an independent person? Or, is he considering that the congenitor's place in the reproductive cycle of the Vissians could be more fulfilling if it could study and/experience the topics it's reading about?

    COGENITOR: "Trip?"

    TUCKER: "Yeah?"

    COGENITOR: "I'd like my name to be Trip, just like yours."

    TUCKER: "Actually, my name's Charles."

    COGENITOR: "Then I would like my name to be Charles."

    TUCKER: "I'm flattered."

    I was troubled by this dialogue. If Trip is being truthful, and there's no reason to believe he isn't, the question of motive once again is on my mind. At this point, his ego has now come into the situation, and could have clouded his judgment.

    DRENNIK: "We're not on your world, and I doubt whether this person truly understood what your engineer was suggesting."

    ARCHER: "I've been told this person is just as capable of understanding as any of you are."

    Phlox performed, what I consider, a completely unethical scan on the congenitor. The scan indicated the congenitor's biology was very similar to Drennik and his wife. That's not conclusive proof that the congenitor is capable living the life of an independent person, much less understanding what an independent person is.

    Archer's statement was a weak one, but I am glad he made the decision not to give the cogenitor asylum. The reasons shown in the episode don't justify the means.

    "" I guarantee that so many absurdly backward and deranged societies would not exist within 150 light years of Earth."

    Lol.

    There's only 50,000 stars within 100 light years of Earth. So figure 100,000 within 150 light years, according to ENT own stats there's only 1 intelligent inhabited planed for every 43,000 star systems. Maybe there are 2 or 3 advanced societies within that range of Earth. The number of advanced and hostile civilizations encountered in ENT, that flight or fight species, the forengi, the xindi, the andorians, this supernova studying one, Vulcan, klingons, whoever made that automated repair station, no way all of this would just so happen to exist within 150 light years of Earth. That's absurd. And the odds are astronomically low that all of them would be at similar stages of technological development (starships, Universal translators, energy weapons, warp drive..etc) like all these planets all over just happened to evolve at the same time lol

    Here from the Randomizer! I never got around to post-s1 Enterprise, but it said to comment WITHOUT EXCEPTION, so:

    I think this is one I might someday try to watch. I know it is controversial but it seems to generate discussion and be attempting something unusual.

    This episode was on TV a few days ago and I just watched some of the astropod scenes in the beginning and then turned it off because the rest is too infuriating. Sometimes I am ashamed to enjoy a show with such abhorrent characters just because the sci-fi is cool. And then realize how many weirdos actually agree with the plots like in these threads. And then Archer of course always throws an absolute tantrum when other species refuse to help them. Trip should have locked out the command functions, beamed the victim back aboard, and then read Archer the riot act and resigned his commission. How any normal human
    being can put up with star fleet ideals is mind boggling. Archer, this is the guy that complained in one of the very first episodes that they "almost forgot their human morality progress", and then turns around and does this? I don't know how star fleet command puts up with Archers Antics, but then again they basically let him get away with stealing the NX-Beta because he was sooo damn impatient, and came that close to blowing up that ship too. And Phlox must have some serious bipolar personality disorder as he basically picks and chooses when he wants to care about anyone. Like smirking after "dear doctor" and saying what happened here isn't "wrong" but then in other episodes shows extreme effort in trying to treat patients, including Archer's dog. And T'pol, she should just be banned from star fleet already and hauled back to her planet. Her hypocrisy and contradictory behavior makes her the worst science officer imaginable. She constantly criticizes the slightest things the humans do, like not waiting an extra week to scan a planet, but she apparently doesn't believe in sentient beings rights, guess that concept is too illogical for her. "Keep your opinions to yourself" You first pompous Vulcan! "But she's not human.." she is the textbook example of psychological projection. This entire episode was basically a conspiracy against Trip, the only one who had a shred of common sense or basic "human" decency out of anyone. I'm surprised this episode was even able to air given how it could be considered promoting sex trafficking/slavery, especially with that lecture at the end.

    I really liked this episode, but it would have benefited greatly from a better explanation of Archer's motives. I assumed he did it because he was afraid of the Vissians, but that was just an assumption. His logic was not clear, especially in light of his reckless conduct in earlier episodes. If he were afraid of the Vissians (which is completely reasonable), he was right to give Trip a dressing-down, but not for reasons of 'non-interference'. Trip endangered the whole crew and got the cogenitor's hopes way up, without any reason to believe those hopes could be fulfilled. And that was unintentionally cruel.

    Now here's my context-rant / axe to grind.

    I was an anti-TTI advocate for years. I even did some case work (which has to be very minimal unless there is an adult family member who supports the kid and asks you to help). You do NOT make promises you cannot keep; it's cruel. "I'll make a public records request on the facility so we can show your parents how many abuse investigations there were," is pretty much the extent of what you can legally do for someone whose extrajudicial imprisonment is legally sanctioned. And it often doesn't even help, because our culture allows physical and sexual abuse as long as it is thinly disguised as health and safety procedures. That IS our culture in America; we trust quacks, so screw 'culture'. Parents and/or social workers breezily sign away the right to be consulted about day-to-day 'treatments' for troubled teens and surplus foster kids, so facilities do as they please. ...Yes, I said foster kids. The industry doesn't just prey on the rich. As a former foster kid, I know of what i speak.

    It is absolutely goddamn heartbreaking to deal with that kind of thing, so I understand why Trip just sat there looking shell-shocked when Archer was yelling at him.

    Michael Miller, you sound like a good man, but you are quite wrong about the rights of minors. They have no rights which they can practically defend in their own name, which is the same as having no rights at all. Legally, a seventeen-year-old and an infant are nearly identical, at least in my state.

    So yeah, I sympathize with Trip's intentions, but he was naive. To anyone who sympathizes with Trip without considering the practicals: Ask yourself, seriously, what you would do if a runaway troubled-teen/foster-kid showed up on your lawn begging you to hide them. Bless you if you think you would do it, but understand that you would be risking jail for a stranger about whom you know nothing. People generally call the cops ON teenagers who ask them for help, even if the kids say the cops will return them to a place where they are in fear for their lives. (True story. The facility in question (Lakeside) killed a kid shortly thereafter.)

    I liked this episode precisely because it was disgusting and uncomfortable. Real SJW-ing does not make you feel good, even if you don't completely botch it like Trip. If this episode was made today it would probably have a feel-good message that would be 100% fantasy and take an unjustified kick at anyone who isn't Hollywood-style left. I prefer my SJW-stories to have some realistic grit. (Yeah, I own 'SJW'. Hi, righties. I don't vilify you cuz I've known real villains. Peace. Hi, lefties. Please start caring about extrajudicial imprisonment of foster kids sometime this century, thank you.)


    One last thought: I don't buy that 'culture' or even 'alieness' is a reason to deny asylum to someone who has the intellectual capacity to ask for it persistently, especially given that the cogenitor is considered chattel, not family. Is 'chattel' a human interpretation? Yup. i don't care. Charlie asked for asylum, so Charlie clearly thinks there is a problem. This 'culture' is not one to which Charlie consents. The culture which requires Charlie to be oppressed is espoused entirely by Charlie's oppressors. If you deny Charlie asylum for reasons of 'non-interference', you are kidding yourself: 'Non-interference' ended days ago, now you are just choosing sides. Do you believe that the alien person who asks you for help really needs help? Or do you believe the higher-caste aliens, who imply the asylum-seeker is a moron whining over nothing? If so, why are the higher-caste aliens more credible to you? Why do you think their version of Vissian culture and species-needs is more authentic? Sure, they say it is. But they have incentive to lie, to themselves as well as you. We have no actual evidence that Charlie is the ultra-malleable, non-sapient being they claim. Pick your side, but it's not non-interference either way. And it's not like granting asylum to one person is the same as threatening the Vissian capital with military force if they don't change their whole culture overnight, Those are completely different scales of interference, and should not be equated.

    But yes, I do wish that Archer had pointed out to Trip that the Vissians could kick their asses six ways from Sunday. I get the feeling a lot of stuff was trimmed for time.

    Submit a comment

    ◄ Season Index