We Should Disagree

“We are the Borg, you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.” 

If you know where this line is from, you’re in good company, that is to say, a Star Trek fan.

If you are a Star Trek character on a Star Fleet vessel, hearing these words mean run away, and fast.

The Borg, perhaps the most fierce, terrifying and imaginative enemy of the Star Trek heroes, are a cybernetic collective, a fusion of flesh and machine that functions as a single hive mind driven by one purpose: the relentless pursuit of perfection through assimilation. They absorb the technology and biology of other species, erasing individuality in favor of total unity — a process they see not as conquest, but as evolution. Coldly logical and devoid of emotion, they embody the terror of pure efficiency: a civilization where freedom, creativity, and identity are sacrificed for collective order. Their chilling declaration, “We are the Borg. Resistance is futile,” encapsulates their philosophy — perfection without self, unity without choice.

This fantastic sci-fi writing provokes deep philosophical questions — mainly, is the idea of perfect unity between people utopian or dystopian?

The Borg in Star Trek are obviously presented as a dystopia that we should avoid at all costs, but paying close attention to dialogue lines coming from them chillingly reminds us that it is a dystopia we also strive for. To be one with everyone, to add to each  other’s knowledge and strength, to agree and to understand each other, are all things we in fact want.

In our Torah portion this week Noach, such utopia is actually achieved:
 

"וַיְהִ֥י כׇל־הָאָ֖רֶץ שָׂפָ֣ה אֶחָ֑ת וּדְבָרִ֖ים אֲחָדִֽים׃"

“Everyone on earth had the same language and the same words.”

This is the opening verse of chapter 11 which tells the famous story of the Tower of Babel. 
 

וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ הָ֣בָה ׀ נִבְנֶה־לָּ֣נוּ עִ֗יר וּמִגְדָּל֙ וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֖נוּ שֵׁ֑ם פֶּן־נָפ֖וּץ עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כׇל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

And they said, “Come, let us build us a city, and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be scattered all over the world.”
 

וַיֵּ֣רֶד יְהֹוָ֔ה לִרְאֹ֥ת אֶת־הָעִ֖יר וְאֶת־הַמִּגְדָּ֑ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּנ֖וּ בְּנֵ֥י הָאָדָֽם׃

יהוה came down to look at the city and tower that humanity had built,
 

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָ֗ה הֵ֣ן עַ֤ם אֶחָד֙ וְשָׂפָ֤ה אַחַת֙ לְכֻלָּ֔ם וְזֶ֖ה הַחִלָּ֣ם לַעֲשׂ֑וֹת וְעַתָּה֙ לֹֽא־יִבָּצֵ֣ר מֵהֶ֔ם כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָזְמ֖וּ לַֽעֲשֽׂוֹת׃

and יהוה said, “If, as one people with one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then nothing that they may propose to do will be out of their reach.’’

In this story, humans reach a perfect harmony and understanding of one another, so much so that they were able to engage in a massive collaborative effort to build a tower so high it reaches the heavens.

Perhaps a symbol of incredible cooperation, one which allows the development of technologies, which transcend human nature, giving it godlike abilities.

And what’s wrong with that?

Torah commentator Sforno explains that “same language and same word” doesn’t only mean that they understood each other’s words technically, but rather that they all agreed on fundamental truths in matters of philosophy and religion. 

When God descends and breaks this “utopia” by confusing their language,
 

"הָ֚בָה נֵֽרְדָ֔ה וְנָבְלָ֥ה שָׁ֖ם שְׂפָתָ֑ם אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹ֣א יִשְׁמְע֔וּ אִ֖ישׁ שְׂפַ֥ת רֵעֵֽהוּ׃"

‘‘Let us, then, go down and confound their speech there, so that they shall not understand one another’s speech.”

He doesn’t only do it because of petty concerns of humans ascending to his level. According to Sforno, the danger lies in people agreeing with each other.

In his tremendously important work “On Liberty” John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) the English philosopher who is called by some the father of modern Liberalism, writes:

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

When people think of Democracy and are asked to define it, the first thing which comes to mind is the principle of the rule of the majority. Democracy is simply the best representation of the prevalent idea in a given society by casting a vote on it.

However the rule of the majority should never be the whole democratic story and in fact, by itself, it is extremely dangerous and oppressive. True Democracy, and we have Mill to thank for laying it out for us, is the promise of the representation of minority voices, their consideration and their respectful treatment.

Mill claims, in the segment quoted above, that those voices are crucial to the development of just society and it is in fact more important that they be heard by those who disagree with them than by the ones who do.

When God confused the languages of the builders of the tower, he perhaps did so to prevent the "Tyranny of the majority” as Mill puts it. Cooperation and understanding could appear positive, but a healthy development of societies comes from disagreements. The entire Jewish tradition and thought is constructed upon accounts of disputes.

Mill, a 19th century thinker, could not have predicted the Social Media echo chambers, which perhaps are our most recent reminders of the danger of prejudiced thinking and sweeping blind agreements….

Star Trek’s Borg poses the nightmarish portrait of utopian oneness, an ideal which may produce tremendous achievements, but will exist at the price of crushing of the individual. 

Perhaps the takeaway from our portion is that we must dare to disagree, especially when it is least comfortable. Resistance is not futile.