From: peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Quality of Life:  L___ vs. S___ (Was Re: Lynch's Spoiler)
Date: 22 Nov 1992 20:18:48 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: rio.crhc.uiuc.edu
Keywords: TNG, Data, machine life?

tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch) writes:

Spoilers:
| 
| --A discussion Lisa and I got into was whether they wanted evidence of 
| *life*, or of *intelligence*.  My eventual conclusion was that they already 
| had evidence it was intelligent; if the exocomp was alive to boot, then it's 
| clearly not in a position to be exploited.  Thoughts?

The simple fact that this issue was not brought up in the writing
precluded my enjoying the show.

I don't think the issue is life vs. intelligence, but rather life vs.
sentience.  (The issue of MoaM.)  Nonetheless, it was not investigated
on either of these grounds.  If I remember correctly, the word 'life'
was qualified by 'intelligent' only once all episode.

In all their activities and tests, the exocomps did not distinguish
themselves from sheepdogs.  A sheepdog is a life form.  A sheepdog
is intelligent.  A sheepdog exhibits self-preservation.  A sheepdog
learns.  A sheepdog will give up its life for its shepherd or a
sufficient number of sheep.  And, as we all know, a sheepdog is a
tool.  Human beings use sheepdogs as laborers, and none of us would
consider sacrificing a human being for a sheepdog.

So, my distaste for this episode stems from my distaste for whichever
of the following alternatives is the case:

(1) in the 24th century, they _would_ sacrifice a human being for a
    sheepdog;
(2) the writing was terribly sloppy in failing to distinguish the
    exocomps from sheepdogs, in failing to distinguish sentient life
    from life.

As I remember "Evolution", the writers did provide sufficient proof
so that I thought there was reasonable cause to believe the nanites
were sentient.  Same with MoaM (although I may be biased there as I
was cheering for Data).  But in "Quality" they did not even attempt
to establish sentience, much less succeed.

In fact, by cheapening the conditions of protected life, I think this
episode did more to call into question the sentience of Data than it
did to support the "aliveness" of the exocomps.  If being a sheepdog
is all it takes to be a protected life form, maybe the writers have
given me false cause for admiration in Data and the effort of Picard
in MoaM.

One final thought.  Did anyone else make the analogies I did of
exocomp is to inventor as fetus is to mother, and crew of Enterprise
is to inventor as Pat Robertson is to mother?  Because of the failure
to establish sentience in the exocomps yet treat them as alive with
full rights, this episode sounded like a 100% pro-life tract.  It even
went so far as to distinguish between Data and the exocomps on the
basis of "Data was intended to be a life form; the exocomps weren't."

I have no problem with it being a pro-life tract.  But if this isn't
how it was intended, it's even more evidence of sloppy, unprincipled
writing.  Someone applying the 24th century principles inherent in
this episode to the 20th century abortion debate would find that a
fetus exhibits qualities of life, whether wanted or not, and that
therefore it must be accorded the same rights as the mother.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu