STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION
BY STEPHEN SAFRAN, PH.D.
On the eve of the "Great American MeatOut," Star Trek: The Next Generation inadvertently ran an episode on March 20, 1993, bringing our animal rights and vegetarianism philosophy into the dawning conscious-ness of the population-at-large (or at least of the "Trekkies").
The story line went as follows: One of the research scientists aboard the Star Ship had constructed a robot-type called an "X-O-Comp." The robot was to be used to carry out dangerous tasks that might result in its own destruction. Commander Data, who is an android of unique sensitivity and intelligence, was questioning Dr. Crusher (medical officer) as to why he is considered to be alive. In the viewers' eyes, Data is most certainly a sentient creature of exceptional qualities, who seems incapable of deceit and who possesses a child-like innocence. He sees that Dr. X (the inventor) is trying to program the X-O-Comps to carry out a mission that could destroy them in the process, and he discovers that they behave in a manner that demonstrates they have an instinct for survival; that is, they can actually deactivate a program if they sense it is a danger to themselves and thus disobey the command. As such, Data advocates that they not be exploited (by humans), since it is unethical to sacrifice one life form for another. (This seems like an advanced construct of the idea of Speciesism.)
The inventor protests this as absurd, and insists they are only robots meant to serve humans. The story line proceeds in such a manner that Captain Picard and Geordi (the engineer) are trapped aboard a space station with dangerous levels of radiation, increasing gradually to a lethal dose. The only solution is to send three X-O-Comps to rescue the two by what might be viewed by humans as a suicide mission.
Data shuts down a control module and paralyzes this rescue mission because of his belief that they are "alive." It is not until the research scientist and Commander Riker agree to give the X-O-Comps the choice to go or not, that these robots arrive at their own solution, which is not simply self-destructive, as their programming might suggest. The three X-O-Comps are "beamed" aboard the space station and devise their own method of siphoning off the radiation (in other words, reprogram themselves) so that Captain Picard and Geordi can be safely beamed back on the ship by the transporter. In the rescue effort, two X-O-Comps are then beamed back safely, while the third chooses to remain on the station to absorb the lethal dose of radiation, and, thereby, sacrifices its life for the others.
This ethical lesson may go beyond the intention of the authors, who are dealing with the question of what life is in futuristic terms — whether we can create it and if we are responsible for it. We can simply extend this analogy to our human responsibility toward the animal kingdom: Do we have the right to sacrifice and kill other animals for our own needs? Are the animals we kill (e.g., for hamburgers or "Chicken Tonight") necessary for our survival?
Interestingly, there are numerous stories of our fellow creatures (animals) choosing to sacrifice or risk their lives to save us humans, much like the X-O-Comps did for Captain Picard and Geordi. Let us hope that our "next generation" will see their future in such ethical terms as our responsibility for the rights of all life-forms.
Dr. Safran lives in New York.
