StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I got to thinking about this earlier and couldn't find a suitable post anywhere, but I was thinking... the Borg are, in essence, a virus.

The characteristics of a virus are such:
1) Reproduction occurs via a host
2) Viruses affect only specific targets
3) Adaptation and evolution do occur

So let's break it down. Reproduction via a host is easy, since the Borg have not been shown on any show as reproducing using the traditional male/female reproductive method. Instead, the Borg capture many individuals and assimilate them, increasing their ranks and numbers. They introduce nanites into the assimilated individual (similar to the virus delivering it's RNA to a target cell) and then hi-jack the target for their own use.

Viruses effect only specific targets. The Borg have consistantly ignored the Kazon and other species because they were deemed unsuitable for assimilation. And when they encountered Species 8472, they were unable to assimilate it. This means that there are certain groups that are outside the host range of the Borg. And when the Borg encounter resistance, it's like the body's own immune system attacking an outside invader.

Viruses evolve over several generations. As the RNA enters a cell, subtle mutations can and do occur. This leads the virus to change, either becoming more dangerous or benign, depending on the mutation. During First Contact, the Borg were shown to adapt to Starfleet phasers until almost every weapon was easily shrugged off. The defense against them was then turned into even more Borg, thus making the fight even more one-sided. The same is seen when the AIDs virus attacks the body's own immune system and uses it to further assault the body.

So I'll let you decide: Are the Borg just a very large virus? Or are they something else?

While the actions of the Borg culture in some aspects resemble a virus, down to naming their infection agents "nanovirus" (although every on-screen depiction shows them as having roughly the size of a red blood cell), they themselves are not a virus, they're cybernetic humanoid vertebrates. Also,

1) Reproduction occurs via a host
2) Viruses affect only specific targets
3) Adaptation and evolution do occur

on #2, a virus is usually bound to just one certain species, the Borg so far however were able to infect every (sentient) species bar one, the 8472s and #3 applies to all organisms that reproduce. That leaves #1, and even there we were shown Borg children in Q Who.

Metahive wrote:While the actions of the Borg in some aspects resemble a virus, down to naming their infection agents "nanovirus", they themselves are not a virus, they're cybernetic humanoid vertebrates.

I didn't say the Borg themselves were a virus, merely analogous to one.

Metahive wrote:a virus is usually bound to just one certain species, the Borg so far however were able to infect every (sentient) species bar one, the 8472s and #3 applies to all organisms that reproduce.

Rabies infects most animal species. If a cat gets bitten by a virus carrying racoon, they can get rabies.

Metahive wrote:we were shown Borg children in Q Who.

You're right I forgot about that.

Well, you called them a virus "in essence". No, in essence they're cybernetic humanoid vertebrate members of a culture that displays several parasitic traits, more similar to an extremistic cult based around a radical ideology really.
Reliance on hosts for replication also isn't something unique to a virus anyway. Several worms and fungi feature that trait as well.

Baffalo wrote:Rabies infects most animal species. If a cat gets bitten by a virus carrying racoon, they can get rabies.

Hence me using the qualifier "usually". Exceptions prove the rule.

Also, the Borg were originally meant to be an analogy for massive-faceless corporations

(since the Ferengi failed in that regard)

All civilizations do what the Borg do.

The Borg are a mirror to the Federation. The Federation will absorb you, your planet and your culture into it's ever expanding sphere of influence. Eventually you'll turn into a copy of the Federation.

So to, does the Borg. They just do it faster.

Solauren wrote:Also, the Borg were originally meant to be an analogy for massive-faceless corporations

(since the Ferengi failed in that regard)

What? How does that work? Corporations may not have a face per se but they do have a distinct hierarchy. The Borg were intended from the start to be a hive-mind - they were changed from insectoids to cyborg humanoids due to production limitations. They're very different from the Ferengi. You can bargain or negotiate with the Ferengi - in fact, with enough money/resources, they'll prefer it to a fight. You can't negotiate with the Borg, at all. No application of enlightened wisdom or values or reason will sway the Borg, and they have such a tremendous technological head start that even the vast knowledge and resources of the Federation can barely hope to devise new defenses against them.

Seriously if you've got a source saying the Borg were supposed to be the new ultragreed-corporate analog, share it with the rest of us already since this is the first I've heard of it.

dworkin wrote:All civilizations do what the Borg do.

The Borg are a mirror to the Federation. The Federation will absorb you, your planet and your culture into it's ever expanding sphere of influence. Eventually you'll turn into a copy of the Federation.

So to, does the Borg. They just do it faster.

Hey, cool, you watched the episode where Eddington went rogue, neat.

Two things:

- If "all civilizations do what the Borg do" then you could just replace the word "Federation" in your post with anything else, any other nation or society in either Star Trek or in history. But I don't think the Borg were intended (nor are they effective) as some kind of reflection on our own civilizations.

- Eddington's a bitter jackass, and he's also wrong. The Federation offers a choice and needs consent in order to move in; the Borg take you whether you like it or not.

Solauren wrote:Also, the Borg were originally meant to be an analogy for massive-faceless corporations

Actually, before First Contact scewed up and made them into slaves of a delusional sado-maso domina, the Borg were an analogy for extreme collectivism.

Hey Uraniun, why does the reason 'the borg were changed from insectoids to cybernetic humans for production costs' not sound convincing to me? I remember 'Conspiracy' and it was basically just dudes like Remmeck and those admiral dudes and Tryla Scott and the only way you could tell if they had been compromised is if they had a squiggly prosthetic tail thing sticking out of the back of their necks. Like holy shit how much could that possibly cost? And you only saw the bug things a handful of times moving about. Meanwhile the Borg are coated head to toe in 'borg' stuff, wires and tubes and prosthetic arms and shit, plus you have to build a Borg cube ship model (which, ok, probably is so simple a design it may not have cost a whole lot, but I guess the point is it was a new ship design) plus the cost of building the sets we see in 'QWho' and eventually 'Best of Both Worlds 1 & 2'.

I don't know dude, I don't find it all that convincing. I think I remember Roddenberry complaining though that 'Conspiracy' showed starfleet as the villains (all the bad guys were in the jumpsuits) and that probably had more to do with the bug things getting canceled. Supposedly a lot of fans didn't like 'Conspiracy' but I think that's either bullshit (I count it as one of the best episodes from season 1) or those fans that didn't like it are a bunch of fucking pussies and hated the 'gore' aspect to it. Even though it was awesome.

The Borg themselves were supposed to be insectoids creating those mind-control worms as agents to faciliate a later invasion, they were not supposed to be something like the Goa'uld. That information comes from the 1992 Star Trek TNG companion:

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek: ... _Companion

It was supposed to be more akin to that one bug-head arms dealer from Babylon 5. The problem was that they were afraid they wouldn't be able to make them look not completely terrible convincing enough. There's a callback to Conspiracy in Q Who when Worf describes the devastated planet in much the same way as the destroyed outposts were in The Neutral Zone (although that in itself doesn't make a huge amount of sense).

Eh, you could be right. Either way the Borg were still originally intended as a hive-mind.

All of this is very interesting. I knew there was a specific reason for the Borg but the only thing I knew was a mention in the History Channel's special about Star Trek that Rick Berman wanted to show technology as the enemy after many episodes showing technology as the friend of the crew. They wanted to show that technology had an evil side. Whether this was hind-sight or just Rick Berman pulling shit out of his ass again is unknown.

Metahive wrote:

Baffalo wrote:Rabies infects most animal species. If a cat gets bitten by a virus carrying racoon, they can get rabies.

Hence me using the qualifier "usually". Exceptions prove the rule.

The "prove" in that phrase means "test," not "confirm." Exceptions are always problems for general rules. Being able to infect a wide variety of organisms is an advantage for a virus, not a detriment.

Yes, this is a nitpick, because it bugs me.

Baffalo wrote:just Rick Berman pulling shit out of his ass again is unknown.

This is the proper a priori position.

There are many quite probable reasons why the Borg were downrated to humans in gimp suits, if they ever were meant to be more. Maybe they were originally meant to be insectoids, but then turned into humanoid cyborgs later on as their concept evolved from "a new force to kick the Enterprise's ass" to "a fully developed enemy with a unifying concept of why they should be lothed and feared."

The "prove" in that phrase means "test," not "confirm." Exceptions are always problems for general rules. Being able to infect a wide variety of organisms is an advantage for a virus, not a detriment.

Actually no, the meaning is that the presence of an exception establishes the existence of a general rule. "Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, The exception proves the rule in all cases not excepted". Bringing up viruses that can infect more than one species as special confirms that the general rule is that viruses normally only infect one species.

I also never said that the ability to infect several species is detrimental for a virus, just unusual, per the above explained saying.

Metahive wrote:

The "prove" in that phrase means "test," not "confirm." Exceptions are always problems for general rules. Being able to infect a wide variety of organisms is an advantage for a virus, not a detriment.

Actually no, the meaning is that the presence of an exception establishes the existence of a general rule. "Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, The exception proves the rule in all cases not excepted". Bringing up viruses that can infect more than one species as special confirms that the general rule is that viruses normally only infect one species.

That's incoherent. The reason that a rule is "general" is that it does apply to (almost) all cases. That there exists exceptions means that the rule is not general, and the more exceptions there are, the less general the rule.

While I conceed your explanation of the meaning of "exceptions prove the rule", it is not an empirically sound doctrine. If there is an unstated rule with a stated exception, like a sign "Parking prohibited on Sundays", then yes, we can deduce the general rule from the stated exception, but we deduced the rule from the fact that we know that Sunday is an exception specifically — because an exception without a rule is a stolen concept, an absurdity and a fallacy.

When you're deducing natural rules from empirical evidence, the 'exceptions' do not help but confound the search, because you don't know what the rules and exceptions are until you see the general behavior — you cannot distinguish the exceptions without knowing what the general rule is in the first place. We know that viruses in general infect only one species because that's what's directly observed, and observing the exceptions cannot support that general rule. If half of all viruses were observed to infect multiple species, can we deduce the existence of a general rule that viruses infect only one species? Of course not — the "rule" is not followed by a full one half of all viruses!

Metahive wrote:I also never said that the ability to infect several species is detrimental for a virus, just unusual, per the above explained saying.

It nevertheless happens. Also, the Borg replication into other beings would be quite useless if it didn't apply to other species.

I honestly don't see what your beef with me here is. Really. We know through observation that most viruses infect but one species, and it means that any virus infecting more than one species is outside the norm. Yeah. And? Did I dispute this anywhere? Isn't that exactly what I am saying? What's the point?

Metahive wrote:I honestly don't see what your beef with me here is. Really. We know through observation that most viruses infect but one species, and it means that any virus infecting more than one species is outside the norm. Yeah. And? Did I dispute this anywhere? Isn't that exactly what I am saying? What's the point?

It's because you and your kind stole his cookie when he accidentally dropped it on the floor.