RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,694
Posts: 5,431,106
Members: 24,829
Currently online: 497
Newest member: 713brianp27


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 17 2013, 06:47 PM   #76
The Laughing Vulcan
Admiral
 
The Laughing Vulcan's Avatar
 
Location: At The Laughing Vulcan's party...
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

We're judging a fictional, and future culture by current standards. Right now we live in a risk averse culture that has demonised death to the point where we refer to it by euphemisms, we try and extend our childhoods, push back the time when we should have families and settle down. The bold, intrepid reaching for the stars that took place at the start of the twentieth century, with the advances in transportation of all sorts, all the way to the 1960s, when nations chased the moon, is all something that is way in the past. We now live in a society where the US space programme shuts down for half a decade following an accident in introspective navel gazing and contrition. Faulty batteries ground an airliner. Fear of death has made us extremely risk averse. Fear of being sued, and excessive compensation claims have made us even more so. The UK is currently descibed as a nanny state, refering to the excessive regulation and legislation designed to keep people safe. It's a society where fun is only permitted under certain rules.

Maybe in the 24th, they've got back to that point in society where they accept death as a part of life, and don't wrap everyone up in cotton wool and bubble wrap. Maybe they weigh up the benefits of having families on ships against the dangers and choose that the benefits are worth the risk.
__________________
"Don't try to live so wise. Don't cry 'cause you're so right.
Don't dry with fakes or fears, 'Cause you will hate yourself in the end."

Anime @ MyReviewer
The Laughing Vulcan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 06:57 PM   #77
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Christopher wrote: View Post
WesleysDisciple wrote: View Post
Would like to say, that in Emissary


they had HOURS to prepare for the battle

ITs seems contrived that they DIDNT at least evacuate the children.
Evacuate to where, though? "Hours" isn't much when you're dealing with interstellar travel, which typically takes days or weeks. The Saratoga's position may have allowed it to reach Wolf 359 in time for the battle, but left it no time to divert to a starbase or unload its civilian personnel to a different ship.
They managed to produce lifeboats after the ship was lost, why not before? Did the unnamed Vulcan Captain of the Saratoga really think that the civilians would be safer aboard ship rather than dropped off in lifeboat(s) before the battle?

Wolf 359 is in the heart of the Federation, not out on some frontier. Surely, rallying points for lifeboats near the system wouldn't have been out of the question. If boats in such formations were vulnerable, then their ships would have been already destroyed. And, the Borg likely would have ignored them, anyway.

As WesleysDisciple said, they likely had hours to prepare for the battle en route. Tasking one officer to be responsible for disembarking civilians is not out of the question at all.

The Laughing Vulcan wrote: View Post
We're judging a fictional, and future culture by current standards. Right now we live in a risk averse culture that has demonised death to the point where we refer to it by euphemisms, we try and extend our childhoods, push back the time when we should have families and settle down. The bold, intrepid reaching for the stars that took place at the start of the twentieth century, with the advances in transportation of all sorts, all the way to the 1960s, when nations chased the moon, is all something that is way in the past. We now live in a society where the US space programme shuts down for half a decade following an accident in introspective navel gazing and contrition. Faulty batteries ground an airliner. Fear of death has made us extremely risk averse. Fear of being sued, and excessive compensation claims have made us even more so. The UK is currently descibed as a nanny state, refering to the excessive regulation and legislation designed to keep people safe. It's a society where fun is only permitted under certain rules.

Maybe in the 24th, they've got back to that point in society where they accept death as a part of life, and don't wrap everyone up in cotton wool and bubble wrap. Maybe they weigh up the benefits of having families on ships against the dangers and choose that the benefits are worth the risk.
Well said. I like this.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 01:01 AM   #78
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Mojochi wrote: View Post
By all accounts, it's unsafe just living in the 24th century

Riker's mom? Dead
Beverly's husband, Wesley's dad? Dead
Geordi's mom? Dead
Data's creator & daughter? Dead (Brother deactivated)
Worf's Klingon parents & baby mama? Dead
Troi's dad & sister? Dead
Ro Laren's dad? Tortured to death in front of her
Picard's entire family except maybe his sister-in-law? Dead
Tasha's parents? Dead
Tasha? Dead
Data? Destroyed

& that's just from TNG, the show people complained was too squeaky clean. Hell, the only person seemingly untouched by an untimely death is nutty Barkley. The 24th century is a damn dangerous place
That's kind of unfair. Between the various cities you looking at the status of the parents of but a handful of people, many of those dead persons living in a military-style line of work that brings with it an inherent level of danger.

But if we count the main characters of all of the series you're talking about a few dozen people, even including secondary characters. That's a few dozen people out of TRILLIONS upon trillions who live in the galaxy. (Since you've included not just Earth-based humans, but also those living on human colonies and aliens.)

But I counter with Kirk, both of whom's parents lived until at least he took command of the Enterprise. (If Prime-Universe Spock from "Star Trek '09" is to be believed.) Same for Spock, both of his parents lived until advanced age. (His mother presumably dying of old age for a human, his father dying of Vulcan Alzheimer's at advanced age.) I'm not sure about McCoy's mother but we also know his father died at advanced age of an incurable illness.

You're saying living in 24th century is dangerous based on a handful of examples, examples that are further made to have these things happen to them because it makes for better drama.
__________________
Out of hope.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 01:40 AM   #79
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Living in any fictional universe is dangerous. As I believe I already said, if there were a Trek series set at Starfleet Headquarters or the Academy, then San Francisco would become a far more dangerous place than any starship. It's just the rules of fiction. Nobody who is a character in an action-adventure series is going to be able to avoid danger, no matter where they live. In adventure fiction, everywhere that people live, every job that they do, every technology that they employ, is going to be far more dangerous than it would be in real life. (Heck, there was a time a few years back when the annual homicide rate in the three New York-based Law & Order shows combined was higher than the annual homicide rate in the real New York City.)
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 02:43 AM   #80
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Hell, how many murderous lunatics live in Las Vegas and Miami? How many bizarre, inexplicable, illnesses afflict the population of Princeton and New Jersey?

And, seriously, why would ANYONE decide to live in Sunnydale, Smallville or Metropolis?! (Hell, even Gotham for that matter?)
__________________
Out of hope.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 03:11 AM   #81
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Just get me the fuck away from Jessica Fletcher.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 03:30 AM   #82
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Ah, Cabot Cove. A place with a murder rate so high it makes Detroit go, "The fuck, man?!"
__________________
Out of hope.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 03:47 AM   #83
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
And, seriously, why would ANYONE decide to live in Sunnydale, Smallville or Metropolis?! (Hell, even Gotham for that matter?)
And why do people keep living in whichever city the current crop of Power Rangers lives in, given that there will inevitably be weekly monster attacks and giant robot/monster throwdowns tearing up the downtown area? (For that matter, why do the villains always focus their attempts to invade Earth on that same particular city instead of someplace the Power Rangers don't live?)
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 03:58 AM   #84
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Death is the Only Option:

You're a low-ranking ensign on the Enterprise assigned to an away mission on a never-before visited planet. The rest of the away team consists of senior officers.

OR

You're serving any position on any other Federation starship, your ship has been dispatched to rendezvous with the Enterprise.
__________________
Out of hope.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 04:24 AM   #85
Dream
Admiral
 
Dream's Avatar
 
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Death is the Only Option:

You're a low-ranking ensign on the Enterprise assigned to an away mission on a never-before visited planet. The rest of the away team consists of senior officers.

OR

You're serving any position on any other Federation starship, your ship has been dispatched to rendezvous with the Enterprise.
The writers were better with Picard's love interests.

I don't remember a single one dying.

Any time a woman was interested in Kirk, they tend to end up dead.
Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 04:48 AM   #86
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Death is the Only Option
Death is only the beginning.

Dream wrote: View Post
The writers were better with Picard's love interests.

I don't remember a single one dying.
There was the woman Picard had an affair with years earlier, who had the son that wasn't Picard's son.

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 04:55 AM   #87
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
You're a low-ranking ensign on the Enterprise assigned to an away mission on a never-before visited planet. The rest of the away team consists of senior officers.
"Away team?" No. That's a TOS trope you're describing, so the phrase you want is "landing party."

Let's see, just for the heck of it, here are all the known Enterprise-D fatalities during TNG:

"Lonely Among Us": Engineer Singh, aboard ship
"Heart of Glory": Two security guards, aboard ship
"Skin of Evil": Tasha Yar, away mission
"Where Silence Has Lease": Haskell, conn officer, on bridge
"Q Who": 18 unnamed personnel, aboard ship
"The Bonding": Marla Aster, A&A officer, away mission
"The High Ground": Three unnamed crew, aboard ship
"The Best of Both Worlds": 19 crew dead or missing after Borg attack
"The Loss": Marc Brooks, unspecified accident (referenced)
"In Theory": Engineer Van Mayter, aboard ship
"Disaster": Conn officer Monroe, on bridge
"Violations": Ensign Keller, in engineering (flashback)
"Ethics": Sandoval, disruptor blast (referenced); Fang-lee, unspecified (referenced)
"Schisms": Hagler, aboard ship (after abduction by aliens)
"Lessons": Science officer Richardson and 7 others, away team
"Descent": Two security guards, away team; security guard Franklin, on bridge
"Gambit": Security guard, away team
"Lower Decks": Sito Jaxa, missing and presumed dead, away mission
"Eye of the Beholder": Engineer Kwan, suicide in warp nacelle
"Genesis": Conn officer Dern, on bridge

So that's 14 fatalities off the ship, 51 aboard ship, and 3 unspecified. Of the off-ship fatalities, only four were known to be security guards, with only one definite security death on an away mission, the far-from-anonymous Tasha Yar, prior to the 6th-season finale. Of the on-ship fatalities, only three were known to be security; but all in all, it looks like for the most part, you had considerably better odds of survival on an away team, not worse. (Although perhaps that's because TNG away teams usually consisted solely of regular characters.)

If anything, it seems that the most dangerous single posting on the ship was the conn, since at least three people died at that station -- plus there's the conn officer Q froze half to death in the pilot, and the conn officer who got sucked out into space in Nemesis, so the whole series is bracketed by conn officers suffering.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog

Last edited by Christopher; February 18 2013 at 04:11 PM.
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 05:18 AM   #88
Dream
Admiral
 
Dream's Avatar
 
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Christopher wrote: View Post
Let's see, just for the heck of it, here are all the known Enterprise-D fatalities during TNG:
How many redshirts and crew members died on TOS over the entire series? I bet the ratio is much worse compared to TNG.
Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 05:34 AM   #89
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Dream wrote: View Post
How many redshirts and crew members died on TOS over the entire series? I bet the ratio is much worse compared to TNG.
Well, here you go:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star...e-year_mission

In the first season (not counting the pilots), redshirts only account for about 1/3 of the fatalities. It wasn't until season 2 that they became the primary cannon fodder.

Not counting the pilots, the onscreen death toll would appear to be 45 people out of 430 crew, while in TNG it's 68 out of a bit more than 1000. So yeah, that's a significantly worse ratio.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 18 2013, 02:14 PM   #90
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Is it smart to have families on the Enterprise-D?

Christopher wrote: View Post
"The High Ground": Three unnamed crew, on shore leave
This happened to jump out at me: These three didn't die on shore leave, but rather when the terrorists board and try to blow up the Enterprise. (Presumably, one of them was the guy gunned down in a corridor by a female terrorist.)
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.