[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

There is a large difference between tricking the Romulans into the war, implementing a spy at the top of the main intelligence agency of your archenemy ... and planning the genocide of a ruthless enemy who is about to crush you.

And even if you consider it as OK, can your project the implications of killing all the Founders? How will the Vorta react? Will they become reclusive and mourn the death of their Gods or will they go berserk upon you or peaceful Gamma Quadrant species? Might you have saved yourself at the cost of the Gamma Quadrant?

Unintended implications and the lack of considerating them beforehand (as far as it is possible) is one of the main reasons for the Prime Directive and also a minor reason against genocide.

And then we return to the lives trade off you keep seeking to avoid but which keeps recurring.

Would you rather have the Alpha Quadrant fall, or the Gamma Quadrant fall? One of them has to. If the Dominion win, the fall of the Alpha is definite. And we know what the plans were next. One was the intentional eradication of all life on Earth (or attempted genocide really). If the Alpha Quadrant wins, then the other is possible. Perhaps more than just possible. But are you going to sacrifice your whole Quadrant for that?

One of them has to be defeated in the Dominion War, storywise it had gotten to a scale that without the leverage of the virus, was never going to be ended in peace and diplomacy.

By the way, this kinda feels like one of this torture debates which have emerged in the public sphere in the last few years. Some people say that we talk at least about torture and certainly torture far less people than Non-Western countries. I have a quite radical opinion. In a decent society there are certain taboos such that it wouldn't be possible to publically talk about the potential virtues of torture or genocide without becoming an "unperson" (uuhh, nasty Orwellian word but as a closet-communist I like it ).

Well, that is one way to look at it - of course, attempted censoring of people's thoughts and controlling what can be discussed publicly rarely goes over well with them.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Yes, Picard decided to explore another option.

That option also had effects that cost lives and which threatened the Federation. The Borg came back and attacked again. The Borg set loose attacked under Lore's leadership. The Borg in the Delta Quadrant continued to assimilate and tried to attack Earth again in 'EndGame'.

Picard's actions in 'I, Borg' stopped nothing. He tried another avenue. But it did not work.

Obviously the Borg threat was a shock for the Federation which, as the Defiant and the implied lack of warships shows, existed at this time in peace modus. In this shock atmosphere there was no clear agenda designed, no martial law or its Federation equivalent declared and that's why a captain and his Admiral could pursue different goals.

Independent of these actors and the political situation, is it wise to judge the question of genocide merely from an utilitarian point of view? I am generally a big fan of pragmatism but I prefer to think in different terms about what would be a gross violation of human as well as interplanetary (Prime Directive) ethics. First of all you have to determine whether it can be principally justified.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Obviously the Borg threat was a shock for the Federation which, as the Defiant and the implied lack of warships shows, existed at this time in peace modus. In this shock atmosphere there was no clear agenda designed, no martial law or its Federation equivalent declared and that's why a captain and his Admiral could pursue different goals.

Independent of these actors and the political situation, is it wise to judge the question of genocide merely from an utilitarian point of view? I am generally a big fan of pragmatism but I prefer to think in different terms about what would be a gross violation of human as well as interplanetary (Prime Directive) ethics. First of all you have to determine whether it can be principally justified.

One could argue that at that particular time, the Borg were not a severe threat to the Federation, nor an immediate one.

It could thus have been termed a pre-emptive assault by Starfleet on another power.

From that perspective, it may not be justified at that moment. Would it never be justified though? That may be different.

Which is why, I would have wondered how Picard thought about his choice in the years afterwards.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

9 out of 10 times I would agree with you on the question of Genocide, but not with the Borg. They are a unique situation.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

And then we return to the lives trade off you keep seeking to avoid but which keeps recurring.

Would you rather have the Alpha Quadrant fall, or the Gamma Quadrant fall? One of them has to. If the Dominion win, the fall of the Alpha is definite. And we know what the plans were next. One was the intentional eradication of all life on Earth (or attempted genocide really). If the Alpha Quadrant wins, then the other is possible. Perhaps more than just possible. But are you going to sacrifice your whole Quadrant for that?

One of them has to be defeated in the Dominion War, storywise it had gotten to a scale that without the leverage of the virus, was never going to be ended in peace and diplomacy.

The point is that there is nothing definitive so can you justify to slaughter another species if you might have defeated them with conventional terms? And what about the long term, don't you think that the Founders might feel humiliated by the virus and that this attempt to annihilate them might have emphasized their distrust of "solids"? They might come back one day with a vengeance ...

Well, that is one way to look at it - of course, attempted censoring of people's thoughts and controlling what can be discussed publicly rarely goes over well with them.

That was more tongue-in-cheek, I am a hardcore liberal but I also think that a society needs metarules which have to be provided by something else than the constitution, e.g. religion, and that these metarules include certain taboos.
Or to say it differently, when a taboo like "don't talk about the potential virtues of torture" breaks away the ideological foundation for the use of torture is about to be laid.
Let me make an extreme example, liberal logic suggests that a person who doesn't care about what happens to his body when he dies can sell it in advance to a necrophiliac. He does it freely, trade occurs and both parties are better off than before the trade. Nothing wrong with this from a liberal point of view but I hope that nobody denies the merits of a necrophilia taboo.
If you wanna screw corpses you can get medical and psychological help, if you advocate that people do it you become an unperson. Open the gulags for the "wrongthinkers".

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

One could argue that at that particular time, the Borg were not a severe threat to the Federation, nor an immediate one.

It could thus have been termed a pre-emptive assault by Starfleet on another power.

From that perspective, it may not be justified at that moment. Would it never be justified though? That may be different.

Which is why, I would have wondered how Picard thought about his choice in the years afterwards.

If the Federation had reacted with the necessary haste and determination to Q's revelation of the Borg in "Q, Who?" they might have defended against the first Borg attack wave more easily.
Federation complacency and what I imagine (yep, it's just a crazy idea of mine) as fear of the "dark years", i.e. the Earth-Romulan war with its fascist horrors, were a big problem when dealing with the Borg. As usual the Federation resorts to drastic measures, they wanna be Mr. Nice Guy and do the dirty work secretly, distancing themselves from it by labeling this integral part of them Section 31. Or they wanna be so unmilitaristic that the chain of command is fairly lose during an emergency situation and then on the other extreme at once resort to genocide.

Does such a flawed humanoid institution have the right to annihilate another species? I am not so sure ...

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

The point is that there is nothing definitive so can you justify to slaughter another species if you might have defeated them with conventional terms? And what about the long term, don't you think that the Founders might feel humiliated by the virus and that this attempt to annihilate them might have emphasized their distrust of "solids"? They might come back one day with a vengeance ...

What precisely was undefinitive in the DS9 story that militarily and in terms of firepower the Federation was going to win? What was not definitive about the Founders stated intention to fry Earth as a lesson after that victory? To enslave the Alpha Quadrant under the yolk of The Dominion and subjugate them?

The whole point of season 7 was that conventionally the Federation/Alliance was not going to win the War through ships/manpower etc style advantages.

Therefore, the Federation was going to fall.

Of course, then the Gamma Quadrant would have been just fine.

That was more tongue-in-cheek, I am a hardcore liberal but I also think that a society needs metarules which have to be provided by something else than the constitution, e.g. religion, and that these metarules include certain taboos.
Or to say it differently, when a taboo like "don't talk about the potential virtues of torture" breaks away the ideological foundation for the use of torture is about to be laid.
Let me make an extreme example, liberal logic suggests that a person who doesn't care about what happens to his body when he dies can sell it in advance to a necrophiliac. He does it freely, trade occurs and both parties are better off than before the trade. Nothing wrong with this from a liberal point of view but I hope that nobody denies the merits of a necrophilia taboo.
If you wanna screw corpses you can get medical and psychological help, if you advocate that people do it you become an unperson. Open the gulags for the "wrongthinkers".

Yes, but who said you (or I, or anyone) have the ability to determine for people what 'right-thinking' is?

Just sayin'

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

If the Federation had reacted with the necessary haste and determination to Q's revelation of the Borg in "Q, Who?" they might have defended against the first Borg attack wave more easily.
Federation complacency and what I imagine (yep, it's just a crazy idea of mine) as fear of the "dark years", i.e. the Earth-Romulan war with its fascist horrors, were a big problem when dealing with the Borg. As usual the Federation resorts to drastic measures, they wanna be Mr. Nice Guy and do the dirty work secretly, distancing themselves from it by labeling this integral part of them Section 31. Or they wanna be so unmilitaristic that the chain of command is fairly lose during an emergency situation and then on the other extreme at once resort to genocide.

Does such a flawed humanoid institution have the right to annihilate another species? I am not so sure ...

Maybe not. Should it then let itself be destroyed by another species through a kind of Darwinism because it's flawed?

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

But that is kind of my point, you can defeat a human enemy by toppeling it's government and reasoning with it's people. You can't reason with Borg, they aren't individuals. You can't bargain with them, you can't negotiate with them.

Yes, that's indeed a problem and while I argued strongly against genocide it should of course be an option.
The key idea is to get them from the inside, by it via a virus which shuts them down via a logical paradox, via an infinite loop that crushes them like it makes our computers crush from time to time or be it via an 'individuality virus' which might liberate parts of their drone population which is clearly the more risky option, after all you also have to intercept the liberated cube and provide these lost drone guidance before someone like Lore comes along and misuses them for his purpose.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

Yes, that's indeed a problem and while I argued strongly against genocide it should of course be an option.
The key idea is to get them from the inside, by it via a virus which shuts them down via a logical paradox, via an infinite loop that crushes them like it makes our computers crush from time to time or be it via an 'individuality virus' which might liberate parts of their drone population which is clearly the more risky option, after all you also have to intercept the liberated cube and provide these lost drone guidance before someone like Lore comes along and misuses them for his purpose.

Well, that is indeed another part of the problem.

If you are going to introduce a virus, what does it say if you don't monitor the effects and provide guidance afterwards if it shows signs of working.

Picard did not consent to genocide. But he also did not do anything to monitor the after-effects of his decision (we could say he 'never bothered to check on our progress' if you like) and instead just left Hugh with them clueless.

Of course, it's maybe then not unfair that it came back to bite him a bit when Lore found them.