There are too many parts in this movie, such as The Federation Council, artificial form of life, immortality of life, and etc. The most impressing moment to me in this movie to me is when Captain Picard asking the question to Dougherty, "How many people does it take before it becomes wrong?" Of course, the message here is no one should be sacrificed to the interest of the majority. This is not a matter of how many people can be removed from their planet. It is the matter that on one should be removed from their homeland.
Perhaps, this message is the reason that the movie is completely banned by the mainland Chinese government. There is neither dubbed version of this movie in Chinese nor Chinese subtitle available on the internet. Only a very short introduction is available, which general says this movie is one of the Star Trek series. I guess there is a reason behind this. During the past two decades, there were about one million people removed from the place they live when the Three Gorges Dam was under construction. The High-speed rail in China started at 1999, which relocated lots of people and their families. The urbanization progress also needs relocation. Well, of course this eastern super power has risen during the past two decades, from the contribution of the individuals' compromise, maybe even sufferings with tears. With the compromise from the minorities, the force and resources from every corner of that nation can be concentrated to do big things, but also maybe wrong things.
This is a dilemma to me. I completely understand why Captain Picard stands up and fight for the bu'ka people against Son'a. This shining moment of humanity is, perhaps, a wishful thinking. Think it this way, what if it was beneficial take the regenerative radiation to save everyone in the universe, including Captain Picard himself? To the Son'a people in this movie, this regenerative radiation is the only hope to them. I asked myself, what if I were a Son'a people, what can I do? I cannot draw a conclusion even I think it over and over for hours. There is simply no neutral solution to make everyone happy. After all, the only thing that comes into my mind is the brutal principle, the survival of the fittest. This is just like a leopard killing a antelope for living. I guess sometimes, that is still a part of the reality of our civilizations.
There was definitely a moral and ethical dilemma presented in this film, and I feel like you really captured that aspect of it well. It was a very utilitarian argument on the side of the Son'a, to maximize utility by sacrificing the lives of the Ba'ku - almost as if the ends justified their means. However, the movie shows that there is a loophole in this ethical outlook, and to what extent can one actually ignore the needs/desires of a strong minority? Is this not also ethically unsound? I also appreciated how you were able to tie this back with how frequently the film has been viewed in China, which is probably not often at all. Even if there was a clear right and wrong in this matter, the answer probably would not make everybody happy. The movie seemed to revolve around this ethical dilemma and I like how you presented it in your post!
ReplyDelete