RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,514
Posts: 5,511,681
Members: 25,137
Currently online: 564
Newest member: VonDingle

TrekToday headlines

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


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 > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 7 2013, 04:21 PM   #661
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Ain Jalut wrote: View Post
STJ:
^^^It's not just a hobby. Most people want money for consumption of some form, which includes experiences like travel. But other people want money as capital. That is wanting power for its own sake. Yes, it should be obvious that someone could see this as intrinsically wrong. You might disagree but to not even get the point?
How is it any dfferent than trying to improve your status which something lots of people in the Federation do.

exactly-when you come right down to it, money is simply a means to get something else. It's no more "wrong" or comparable to things like slavery than trying to earn a promotion in Starfleet would be.

Imagine if Lily had mocked Picard in FC with "ah, so no money, but I see you still have hierarchy and rank. Why not just work to better yourself and serve the greater good, and not worry about whether you're the captain or an ensign?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7 2013, 04:36 PM   #662
Bad Thoughts
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Containment Area for Relocated Yankees
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

FKnight wrote: View Post
It seems to me that stable and viable moneyless societies that existed in the past would still exist if they were stable and viable.

Then again, not sure how you can label a "society" as "moneyless" when they are really a charity receiving money.
What does stability have to do with it? There are many reasons why a society might move to a money-based economy, not the least of which are the possibility of long-term investment and taxation. For thousands of years in ancient Egypt, transactions were conducted in terms of grain, a commodity that had an intrinsic value. And for most of the history of European and the Mediterranean, up until 1500, most transactions were conducted without money. States did not mint coins in sufficient number and in sufficiently small denominations to make it otherwise. Certainly, it's difficult in the modern world to move away from money as a basis of transactions: such efforts tend to be experimental and short-lived.

What use for money would a charity have in a money-less society? Why does moneyless equate with charity? Again, look at the long history of humanity: Many wealthy societies survived without it.
Bad Thoughts is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 7 2013, 09:14 PM   #663
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Bad thoughts wrote: View Post
What does stability have to do with it?
If you're avocating being moneyless, as a alternative to our existing finacial system, then whether this new system was - is - would be stable is an important consideration.

And for most of the history of European and the Mediterranean, up until 1500, most transactions were conducted without money.
That not completely true, there was a combination of barter, and the use of cowry shells and precious/base metal coins. Charlemagne in the eighth century standardize coinage in a large section of Europe (also weights and measures used in barter). Some transactions were conducted without money

Certainly, it's difficult in the modern world to move away from money as a basis of transactions: such efforts tend to be experimental and short-lived.
As imperfect as some may find money to be, it has the attribute that it does work.

Why does moneyless equate with charity?
It doesn't automatically, however a poster here was giving examples of supposed moneyless societies that were in actuality charities.

Again, look at the long history of humanity: Many wealthy societies survived without it.
But as you yourself noted, those societies did have some form of formalize units of exchange. A predetermined measure of grain/oats with a recognized value within the society, is a unit of exchange. Not exactly a gold coin, but yes a form of money.

Merry Christmas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 7 2013, 09:58 PM   #664
Bad Thoughts
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Containment Area for Relocated Yankees
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Bad thoughts wrote: View Post
What does stability have to do with it?
If you're avocating being moneyless,
No, I am not.

And for most of the history of European and the Mediterranean, up until 1500, most transactions were conducted without money.
That not completely true, there was a combination of barter, and the use of cowry shells and precious/base metal coins. Charlemagne in the eighth century standardize coinage in a large section of Europe (also weights and measures used in barter).
My point was not that moneyless societies continued to exist, but that most transactions were still conducted without money. They supply of money was not sufficient to make that otherwise. The fact that many states introduced currency systems does not change that fact. 1500 (or rather the 16th century) is a watershed in this respect because the extraction of precious metals from the New World allowed European power to mint higher quantities of coin (eventually representing symbolically in paper) that would allow for greater economic flexibility. Even so, there are many reports, well into the 19th century, the peasants throughout Europe bartered, paid in kind with labor, or used dated coins, some as old as the Roman Empire, to conduct their business.


Again, look at the long history of humanity: Many wealthy societies survived without it.
But as you yourself noted, those societies did have some form of formalize units of exchange. A predetermined measure of grain/oats with a recognized value within the society, is a unit of exchange. Not exactly a gold coin, but yes a form of money.
If the standards are being made in terms of something that has a direct value, then it is not money. It might suggest money at some point, some means of innovating transactions, but it is still based on something that has an value of its own. Saying otherwise is putting the cart before the horse, historically speaking..
Bad Thoughts is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 8 2013, 12:00 AM   #665
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Bad thoughts wrote: View Post
There are many reasons why a society might move to a money-based economy
The most obvious is "being functional."
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8 2013, 12:36 AM   #666
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Bad thoughts wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
Bad thoughts wrote: View Post
What does stability have to do with it?
If you're avocating being moneyless,
No, I am not.
My intent was to employ a hypothedical "you" (you're) in the third person, and not a direct referrence to you personally Bad thoughts., I apologize for using the pronoun incorrectly.

I should have used "someone."

(If someone were avocating being moneyless ...) or possible (If a moneyless system was being avocated ...)

Merry Christmas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 8 2013, 10:31 AM   #667
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

You also said "if". Seemed quite clear to me.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10 2013, 05:10 PM   #668
JJohnson
Captain
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

teacake wrote: View Post
No money.

Mankind having evolved past greed and now working only to better themselves.

No conflict on TNG among the crew because of all this enlightened evolving.

Wesley.
The no money part - if there's no money, there's no economy and no trade. You need an accepted medium of exchange or else you have to have a barter system.

TNG's crew had no real interpersonal conflict unless an outsider came in (Shelby) who was treated relatively poorly by the crew (Riker), who should've been professional enough to understand that she's there for a reason and to do a job.

Lack of visible enlisted crew with actual rank pips/stripes. Not everyone's an officer. Why spend 4 years at the academy to be a yeoman in TNG's timeframe? Someone has to fill clerical duties for the admirals at Starbases, and an ensign sure wouldn't do it.

Jumpsuits. Those never looked comfortable nor like uniforms, unlike the Wrath of Khan uniforms.

Wrath of Khan uniform derivatives - the crewneck and no-shirt variants. Better to use transitional uniforms, like Excelsior and Ambassador were transitional ships to the Enterprise D. I've seen a few here and at the Uniform site.

Dress uniforms - they were actual dresses. Later uniforms with just gold piping were better, but I'm sure there's a happy medium to be had.

Admiral uniforms - they changed every time an admiral appeared with no explanation.

DS9/VOY jumpsuits - why?

No political exploration - just for an episode or a scene, discuss the political structure of the Federation. At best, it's a republic, with elected representatives sent to a Federation Council of some sort, leaving the individual planets to manage their own internal affairs without interference from other species. What's the President's term, and how is he elected/selected? Is it Federation-wide, or is he elected from the Federation Council, similar to how a Prime Minister works in some governments?

No advancement - I get it with contracts and all, but why would Riker stall his career for over 12 years to stay on the Enterprise, when he could've been an admiral by then? Similarly Picard, Crusher, La Forge, etc. The original crew had rank advancement much more quickly than the TNG crew.

Carpet/Upholstery civilian garb - I've seriously seen some of those civilian outfits on couches in the late 80s/early 90s.

Overuse of Miranda/Excelsior/Oberth ships - are there not any other classes of vessel in Starfleet? We should've seen New Orleans, Centaur, Constitution, et al, all over the place. A perfect opportunity for TNG-R to spruce things up, which they likely won't take.

No exploration of Pike or April's time on the Enterprise - aside from the Cage/Menagerie, and the animated episode with April, we don't hear anything about Captain Robert April's time on the Enterprise, and he remains really nothing more than conjecture.

No exploration of 1701B or 1701C - Perhaps after Generations or even during, we could get at least some notice that Harriman either retired or transferred, and what happened to Demora Sulu, at least in passing. And when did 1701-C launch? Little things yes, but they make a difference.

Archons in Enterprise - It would've been nice to see a real live Daedalus class vessel, perhaps even mention the USS Archon getting lost, or one of the other Daedalus class getting lost somewhere.

Orions in Next Generation, DS9, Voyager - nowhere to be found. All we saw was Rachel Nichols in ST09 as an example of a 'normal' Orion in Starfleet.

There's more if I could think of it, but that should do for now.
JJohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10 2013, 05:12 PM   #669
JJohnson
Captain
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

yousirname wrote: View Post
No money seems fine to me. My only beef with that whole aspect is actually the failure to explore in any meaningful way the ramifications of a post-scarcity economy. We just get these rather smug hew-mons endlessly gassing on about how enlightened they are. Show, don't tell, I say.

Data shouldn't use contractions (OK I'm not sure that was Roddenberry himself).

'Klingon' is a really silly name.

The Traveler and Wesley's destiny with him.
I wonder what would've happened if they stayed with "Leslie" Crusher.
JJohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 07:05 AM   #670
Ghel
Commander
 
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

No interpersonal conflicts--I call shenanigans! As long as people live together, they will have interpersonal conflicts simply by virtue of their proximity to one another. Some people will have differing ideas regarding how to solve a problem, some people will come into a conflict over a "scarce" commodity (we both want the promotion, but only one of us can have it), and some people will just have personality conflicts.

No Religion--no matter whether you are religious or not, it's hard to imagine that religious beliefs that have existed since humanity began (whether monotheistic, polytheistic, or other) that somehow, humanity will shed all religious belief in the next 200 - 300 years merely because we advance technologically. (This really only applies to TOS and TNG where religious people were relegated to "primitive" cultures)
Ghel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 10:40 AM   #671
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

I don't have a problem with no religion, but not that soon. Plus, superstition will stay for quite a bit longer.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 12:54 PM   #672
Trek Survivor
Captain
 
Location: UK
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

JJohnson wrote: View Post
teacake wrote: View Post
No money.

Mankind having evolved past greed and now working only to better themselves.

No conflict on TNG among the crew because of all this enlightened evolving.

Wesley.
The no money part - if there's no money, there's no economy and no trade. You need an accepted medium of exchange or else you have to have a barter system.

TNG's crew had no real interpersonal conflict unless an outsider came in (Shelby) who was treated relatively poorly by the crew (Riker), who should've been professional enough to understand that she's there for a reason and to do a job.

Lack of visible enlisted crew with actual rank pips/stripes. Not everyone's an officer. Why spend 4 years at the academy to be a yeoman in TNG's timeframe? Someone has to fill clerical duties for the admirals at Starbases, and an ensign sure wouldn't do it.

Jumpsuits. Those never looked comfortable nor like uniforms, unlike the Wrath of Khan uniforms.

Wrath of Khan uniform derivatives - the crewneck and no-shirt variants. Better to use transitional uniforms, like Excelsior and Ambassador were transitional ships to the Enterprise D. I've seen a few here and at the Uniform site.

Dress uniforms - they were actual dresses. Later uniforms with just gold piping were better, but I'm sure there's a happy medium to be had.

Admiral uniforms - they changed every time an admiral appeared with no explanation.

DS9/VOY jumpsuits - why?

No political exploration - just for an episode or a scene, discuss the political structure of the Federation. At best, it's a republic, with elected representatives sent to a Federation Council of some sort, leaving the individual planets to manage their own internal affairs without interference from other species. What's the President's term, and how is he elected/selected? Is it Federation-wide, or is he elected from the Federation Council, similar to how a Prime Minister works in some governments?

No advancement - I get it with contracts and all, but why would Riker stall his career for over 12 years to stay on the Enterprise, when he could've been an admiral by then? Similarly Picard, Crusher, La Forge, etc. The original crew had rank advancement much more quickly than the TNG crew.

Carpet/Upholstery civilian garb - I've seriously seen some of those civilian outfits on couches in the late 80s/early 90s.

Overuse of Miranda/Excelsior/Oberth ships - are there not any other classes of vessel in Starfleet? We should've seen New Orleans, Centaur, Constitution, et al, all over the place. A perfect opportunity for TNG-R to spruce things up, which they likely won't take.

No exploration of Pike or April's time on the Enterprise - aside from the Cage/Menagerie, and the animated episode with April, we don't hear anything about Captain Robert April's time on the Enterprise, and he remains really nothing more than conjecture.

No exploration of 1701B or 1701C - Perhaps after Generations or even during, we could get at least some notice that Harriman either retired or transferred, and what happened to Demora Sulu, at least in passing. And when did 1701-C launch? Little things yes, but they make a difference.

Archons in Enterprise - It would've been nice to see a real live Daedalus class vessel, perhaps even mention the USS Archon getting lost, or one of the other Daedalus class getting lost somewhere.

Orions in Next Generation, DS9, Voyager - nowhere to be found. All we saw was Rachel Nichols in ST09 as an example of a 'normal' Orion in Starfleet.

There's more if I could think of it, but that should do for now.
You do realise that almost all of these had nothing to do with Roddenberry (his 'worst ideas' are the topic of the thread)...
__________________
Want an awesome read? Check out "Showdown: A Darker Evil Rising" on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Showdown-Darke...er+evil+rising
Trek Survivor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 03:30 PM   #673
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Trek Survivor wrote: View Post
You do realise that almost all of these had nothing to do with Roddenberry (his 'worst ideas' are the topic of the thread)...
To be fair, many of the issues brought up during the course of this tread can't be directly linked to Roddenberry, but rather to the group known as TPTB, Star Trek as a concept, and to the "expanded universe" that has been created by the fan base over time.

Merry Christmas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 11 2013, 03:51 PM   #674
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Belz... wrote: View Post
I don't have a problem with no religion, but not that soon. Plus, superstition will stay for quite a bit longer.

I think that both will be here to stay for a long while. Belief is often remarkably impervious to logic and evidence, and "religion" or especially "spirituality" can be so broad and malleable that they can adapt themselves to whatever scientific discoveries or cultural changes will come.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 06:35 AM   #675
Mama Claus
Captain
 
Mama Claus's Avatar
 
Location: maneth
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

I have no problem with superstitions and individual spiritual experiences (even belief in a supernatural being) will survive for as long as humanity survives. However, I do hope that Roddenberry's vision of no organized religion, with religious figures in positions of authority and religious principles as foundations for secular laws (except in cases where such principles transcend individual religions, as in "You shall not commit murder") will come to pass. In fact, such developments have been underway in the West (at least outside the US) since the mid-20th century if not earlier.
__________________
Live long and prosper
IDIC
Mama Claus 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 07:08 PM.

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