From: Susan_Schnitger@amicol.UUCP (Susan Schnitger)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: TAII: Trouble with the ending
Distribution: world
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:18:48 EDT
Organization: Amiga Colony BBS

The "blow them all away" ending of TA2 is certainly a contrast to 
their usual style, but I really don't think Riker & Worf, et al, 
can reasonably be accused of attempting genocide.  *WE* know that 
the alien species are depending on the stolen life force for 
survival only because of what the female alien told Picard AFTER 
the others had already passed through the portal.  As far as the 
others could tell they were simply destroying a small base and a 
handful of beings that were preying on humanity.  You may 
consider that their decision was hasty (why were they in such a 
hurry anyway?) and wrong, but there certainly was no intention of 
wiping out an entire species.
   
I do have a problem with their actions being considered a 
"satisfactory solution" to the episode's problem, but for two 
different reasons.
    
First, why in the world should they think that blowing up one 
little outpost would be an effective way of ending the predation? 
Consider an analogy.  An African war party comes across a trading 
post where slaves are being bought and held for transport to 
America.  Incensed at the crime being committed they burn down 
the post and kill all the traders.  Would that have permanently 
ended the slave trade?  Hardly.
   
Riker and the others seem to be assuming that this base would be 
irreplaceble for some reason:  that it was the only possible 
location for it, or that the aliens have forgotten the technology 
required, or that the aliens now lack some needed material, or 
something of that nature.  If they had reason to believe that any 
of those were true, they didn't share the information with us.  
(Of course, the real reason that it would be a "final solution" 
is because the alien species would be dead, but remember that 
those making the decision had no way to even guess at that and so 
it couldn't have been a factor in their thinking.)
  
The second point that bothers me is the lack of concern Riker and 
the others showed for the possibility of changing the past by 
stopping the predation.  True, it appears that the aliens were 
only hastening the deaths of people who were dying anyway, thus 
having no impact on history.  But isn't it possible that the 
aliens would occasionally make a mistake?  By destroying the base 
they could be preventing a future mistake in the past.  (I know 
that sounds contradictory, but English wasn't designed for 
discussing the impact of time travel.)
  
An example might be clearer.  Consider two possible scenarios:

    A) Riker decides not to destroy the base at that 
    point.  Picard returns and decides to try to 
    communicate and negotiate with the aliens, as per 
    his normal pattern.  While these efforts are going 
    on the aliens make another foray to the past and 
    kill a few more sick people, including John Smith.

    B) Riker decides to destroy the base.  No further 
    raids occur and John Smith, who had appeared to be 
    at death's door, instead survives the crisis, 
    recovers, and lives for years longer, doing various 
    things.  (Killing someone, siring children, 
    inventing something, whatever.)
  
The point is, the two pasts are DIFFERENT, and should lead to 
different futures, in ways subtle or critical.  Which one led 
to the future that Riker was "currently" occupying?  How could he 
know?  Why wasn't that something to even consider?

-- Via DLG Pro v0.992