Earth's Role

[The Stig]

Jeyl wrote:

---

Ordering a budweiser classic I can roll with, but the Beastie Boys and Nokia in the span of seconds? Come on, I want to escape this loud and commercialized world of ours.

That Beastie Boys song is indisputably awesome.

[Franklin]

Jeyl wrote:

---

Ordering a budweiser classic I can roll with, but the Beastie Boys and Nokia in the span of seconds? Come on, I want to escape this loud and commercialized world of ours.

I wouldn't mind Bud being around in the 2250s, but I'd have a hard time calling a world where people still listen to The Beastie Boys a utopia.

I always thought using The Beastie Boys (intended or not) was with the same tongue-in-cheek attitude of this exhange between Kirk and Spock in TVH:

Kirk: You mean the profanity? That's simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays attention to you if you don't swear every other word. You'll find it in all the literature of the period.
Spock: For example?
Kirk: Oh, the complete works of Jacqueline Susan, the novels of Harold Robbins.
Spock: Ah. The giants.

Spock's line got one of the biggest laughs of the movie in the theater where I saw it. I mean, what the heck.

[DarthTom]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

Human nature and humans actions have not really changed in 200 years. I don't find it hard to believe that in 200 more years the nature of people will not seem that unrecognizable to us (nor us to them).

Exactly. Which is one of my primary criticisms of TNG. If you believe the dialogue of the characters all of a sudden human nature dramatically changes with poof a few new gadgets and inventions like the holodeck and replicator technology.

It's preposterous to think that all of a sudden humans would abandon our selfish ways and as Picard said, "work to better humanity."

Abrams vision of the future is far more realistic than to a lesser degree Roddenberry's TNG was and/or Bermans.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Franklin wrote:

---

...I always thought using The Beastie Boys (intended or not) was with the same tongue-in-cheek attitude of this exhange between Kirk and Spock in TVH:

Kirk: You mean the profanity? That's simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays attention to you if you don't swear every other word. You'll find it in all the literature of the period.
Spock: For example?
Kirk: Oh, the complete works of Jacqueline Susan, the novels of Harold Robbins.
Spock: Ah. The giants.

Spock's line got one of the biggest laughs of the movie in the theater where I saw it. I mean, what the heck.

There's nothing wrong with a little tongue-in-cheek wink-and-a-nod playfulness from the filmmakers directed at the audience.

It's similar to that Easter egg/inside joke I posted in the Peter Weller thread regarding the Okudagram seen in the TNG episode "Up the Long Ladder". In that episode, there was an entry on Picard's computer monitor for a ship named the "SS Buckaroo Banzai", captained by John Whorfin, and on a mission to the Planet 10 (fans of Buckaroo Banzai will understand the references to captain and mission).

It's entertainment. Just roll with it; have fun with it.

[Franklin]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

There's nothing wrong with a little tongue-in-cheek wink-and-a-nod playfulness from the filmmakers directed at the audience.

It's similar to that Easter egg/inside joke I posted in the Peter Weller thread regarding the Okudagram seen in the TNG episode "Up the Long Ladder". In that episode, there was an entry on Picard's computer monitor for a ship named the "SS Buckaroo Banzai", captained by John Whorfin, and on a mission to the Planet 10 (fans of Buckaroo Banzai will understand the references to captain and mission).

It's entertainment. Just roll with it; have fun with it.

I saw that in the other thread. Apparently, little Easter eggs like that were all over those PADDs.

Another neat thing on the bus scene in TVH was the passenger you can see reading an issue of "OMNI" magazine (for you youngsters, the magazine used to publish science articles and some sci-fi -- it stopped publishing in the late 1990s). You can't see the issue on screen, but years later, I read it was the one celebrating 25 years of manned space flight.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^ I remember Omni magazine very well. It was published by Bob Guccione (of "Penthouse" fame). It was a cross between "Discover" Magazine and "Asimov's Science Fiction Anthology" Magazine.

[UFO]

DarthTom wrote:

---

Exactly. Which is one of my primary criticisms of TNG. If you believe the dialogue of the characters all of a sudden human nature dramatically changes with poof a few new gadgets and inventions like the holodeck and replicator technology.

It's preposterous to think that all of a sudden humans would abandon our selfish ways and as Picard said, "work to better humanity."

Abrams vision of the future is far more realistic than to a lesser degree Roddenberry's TNG was and/or Bermans.

Well its true that humans need some sort of motivation in their lives (that's the nature of the universe we live in) but some people already find that in the feeling of "a job well done" etc. Perhaps our descendants have found ways of encouraging or directing most of us towards that form of impetus.

I am not sure that a hundred years between TOS and TNG is "all of a sudden" and TOS itself showed some general improvement in social behaviour and attitudes. Or at least it used to. And as I say, it may be humans have found a way to channel their selfishness in other ways. Altruism is an indirect form of "selfishness" after all.

If you are wondering why things might be different in the future than they "always have been", we need only observe the significant improvements even in the social sciences. I don't believe it would require a crystal ball to anticipate that we have yet to see the most important benefits of that.

Then too there is certainly a massive amount of room to improve general human behaviour via better socialisation. One impediment to that is the very idea that you can't change "human nature". But things do seem to be changing slowly anyway, luckily.

[Jeyl]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

There's nothing wrong with a little tongue-in-cheek wink-and-a-nod playfulness from the filmmakers directed at the audience.

Only if it comes at the expense of character development. Nero for example.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

UFO wrote:

---

...If you are wondering why things might be different in the future than they "always have been", we need only observe the significant improvements even in the social sciences. I don't believe it would require a crystal ball to anticipate that we have yet to see the most important benefits of that...

Considering this is a work of fiction, I have no problem accepting the fictional Earth alluded to in TNG where we are all enlightened (Utopian society). However, I also have no problem accepting a future fictional Earth where people act a lot like people do in today's world.

One question I have regarding TNG's Utopian Society where everyone enjoys classical music and knows Shakespeare by heart...Where is the 1/2 of the people who would have a lower-than-average IQ -- the people who may not be able to, for example, understand the nuances of Shakespeare, or directly contribute to the advancement of that society? I suppose genetic engineering could have weeded out those people, but that opens up a whole new moral question as to whether that type of genetic engineering should be done.

[Franklin]

UFO wrote:

---

Well its true that humans need some sort of motivation in their lives (that's the nature of the universe we live in) but some people already find that in the feeling of "a job well done" etc. Perhaps our descendants have found ways of encouraging or directing most of us towards that form of impetus.

I am not sure that a hundred years between TOS and TNG is "all of a sudden" and TOS itself showed some general improvement in social behaviour and attitudes. Or at least it used to. And as I say, it may be humans have found a way to channel their selfishness in other ways. Altruism is an indirect form of "selfishness" after all.

If you are wondering why things might be different in the future than they "always have been", we need only observe the significant improvements even in the social sciences. I don't believe it would require a crystal ball to anticipate that we have yet to see the most important benefits of that.

Then too there is certainly a massive amount of room to improve general human behaviour via better socialisation. One impediment to that is the very idea that you can't change "human nature". But things do seem to be changing slowly anyway, luckily.

We will always be looking for the "better angels of our nature."
One thing I always tell my intro to politics students is that despite all that they may still see wrong with the U.S., there's no reason to be a pessimist. In fits and starts, and with some setbacks, in the long run this country is still moving in a more socially inclusive direction.
Like the Metron told Kirk, there is hope for us. It may just take another couple thousand years. (I don't bring up the Metron part, though. I'm enough of a geek to them as it is. That's just for us geeks on this board. )

[DarthTom]

UFO wrote:

---

Well its true that humans need some sort of motivation in their lives (that's the nature of the universe we live in) but some people already find that in the feeling of "a job well done" etc. Perhaps our descendants have found ways of encouraging or directing most of us towards that form of impetus.

Here's a 21st Century example of human hypocrisy/selfishness and greed. Al Gore, Mr. "save the environment," owned a 5,000 square foot home whilst telling the rest of us to watch our carbon footprints - rode on private jets and in limos while telling the rest of us to drive hybrids - and just last week sold Clear Channel to Al Jazeera to avoid the tax consequences of higher taxes on rich folks.

I don't believe humans have - will - or ever will change our general nature because of new gadgets.

[Robert Maxwell]

DarthTom wrote:

---

Here's a 21st Century example of human hypocrisy/selfishness and greed. Al Gore, Mr. "save the environment," owned a 5,000 square foot home whilst telling the rest of us to watch our carbon footprints - rode on private jets and in limos while telling the rest of us to drive hybrids - and just last week sold Clear Channel to Al Jazeera to avoid the tax consequences of higher taxes on rich folks.

I don't believe humans have - will - or ever will change our general nature because of new gadgets.

Do you have some kind of grudge against Al Gore? Because you've been griping about him in one way or another around here since 2009.

[UFO]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

Considering this is a work of fiction, I have no problem accepting the fictional Earth alluded to in TNG where we are all enlightened (Utopian society). However, I also have no problem accepting a future fictional Earth where people act a lot like people do in today's world.

That would be fine (if disappointing) for almost any other futuristic franchise.

One question I have regarding TNG's Utopian Society where everyone enjoys classical music and knows Shakespeare by heart...Where is the 1/2 of the people who would have a lower-than-average IQ -- the people who may not be able to, for example, understand the nuances of Shakespeare, or directly contribute to the advancement of that society? I suppose genetic engineering could have weeded out those people, but that opens up a whole new moral question as to whether that type of genetic engineering should be done.

Hmmmm. Are you sure TNG really suggests that absolutely everyone likes and/or appreciates classical music (The Beatles etc ) and knows Shakespeare by heart? That seem unlikely. Anyway, could such a society really be considered "Utopian"?

Secondly, appreciating either classical music or Shakespeare may not be exclusively the prerogative of the intelligent, Plus, hasn't average IQ gone up over time anyway? While that will probably still leave some in the category you suggest, I'm not sure "lesser" activities will be "illegal" in TNG's society or that the things you point to are the only options?

Franklin wrote:

---

We will always be looking for the "better angels of our nature."
One thing I always tell my intro to politics students is that despite all that they may still see wrong with the U.S., there's no reason to be a pessimist. In fits and starts, and with some setbacks, in the long run this country is still moving in a more socially inclusive direction.
Like the Metron told Kirk, there is hope for us. It may just take another couple thousand years. (I don't bring up the Metron part, though. I'm enough of a geek to them as it is. That's just for us geeks on this board. )

Good to see positive messages going out. Bit of a shame the Metron can’t get due credit though.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^ Well, the Shakespeare and classical music stuff I mentioned were just examples -- with a little hyperbole mixed in.

However, I don't think basic IQs will rise that much in 300 years. But even IQs aside, the Utopian society that was often touted on TNG seemed to rely on people doing not much more devoting their lives to bettering themselves and expanding their horizons all for the sake of creating a better society. I find it hard to believe that there would not be a certain percentage who, frankly, don't really want to expand their horizons and don't really care about working at making the world a better place (maybe some of them would want the world to be a better place, but they may not necessarily want to work hard at making it that way).

Again, I'm being more nitpicky more than anything, and I have no real problem with TNG's depiction of the future, considering it is only a fictional TV show. However, I think a more realistic version of the future would include people with basically the same motivations (and the same personal foibles) as we have in our society today.

I DO think future society as a whole will be better -- at least I think it will be more inclusive and tolerant, considering we have generally headed in that direction over the past several centuries. However, I think there will still be a certain percentage of people who will buck societal norms. TNG seems to want us to think that part of Earth society does not exist, and I just find that hard to believe.

Again, I look back 200 years and see humans acting much in the same way we act today -- in the "basic human nature" sense. I think people in the future will also (basically) act much like we act today. Frankly, some of the depictions of TNG's future seem so unfamiliar in a human sense that their world sometimes seems creepy to me -- something like out of the Stepford Wives.

[Set Harth]

Jackson Roykirk wrote:

---

However, I don't think basic IQs will rise that much in 300 years.

Yeah, I don't think IQ is trending in the "up" direction.