Discussion in 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' started by HansentheSwede, Feb 1, 2013.
The Yamato yes, the Odyssey no. As didn't they unload all unneccessary personnel at Starbase DSN?
Because they station was threatened with destruction only a handful of times in seven seasons, which was helped by the fact that for most of the show it was a heavily armed space fortress which fried ships that could have and in one case owned a Galaxy-class.
But remember, it's fiction, so who wins or loses an engagement is determined by dramatic necessity. The hero ship will always survive things that will destroy a guest ship of the same class. So that kind of ranking of relative strengths doesn't really hold up.
In principle, the E-D was just as heavily armed as DS9 was. In fact, it was more heavily armed than DS9 was in seasons 1-3. The ship was specifically designed to be as safe as possible for its inhabitants, which is why a ship that was intended as a research vessel had such massive phaser strips all around the top and bottom of the saucer. The ship wasn't meant to get into fights, but its designers made sure that if it did, it would be able to protect the people within. That was fundamental to the design philosophy.
The problem, again, is that the rules of fiction trump the rules of common sense. Dramatic tension required making the ship seem more vulnerable than it realistically would've been. In countless ways, good safety design was ignored in order to make things as perilous as possible -- there were no seatbelts, security had no armor, holodeck safeties could be deactivated, and systems that should've had multiply redundant safeguards didn't have them. I mean, come on, fiction requires putting characters in danger, so even if the series had been set at Starfleet Headquarters, you can bet that San Francisco would've become the most dangerous city on Earth. (How many times has New York City been trashed in the Marvel Universe? How many times has London been invaded in Doctor Who? Yet people still live there and raise families there, in real life and in fiction.)
I think this sums it up quite nicely.
Yeah, we discussed it on the same page:
There is a nice scene in "The Bonding".
Well they could of fooled me.
No way. Holodeck. That thing broke down every Tuesday and ALWAYS in a magically way that couldn't be cured by pulling the power cable. Whoever put in the safety should have been beamed into space.
Evil Holographic Lincoln is BACKKKKK!!!!!
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.
Yep, I agree.
If you watch the episode "The Bonding", Picard and Troi have a conversation that pretty much answers any questions. Yes, it's a bit irresponsible to have families on a vessel that faces danger on a regular basis but, the galaxy is a dangerous place and no one can be totally safe at all times.
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.
You mean this one here? From http://www.chakoteya.net/NextGen/153.htm:
ETA: And partially recounted upthread.
And they are wrong. It's two entirely different things to face the dangers of everyday life and putting children in ships that are supposed to do dangerous things, like patrolling the romulan border or just go to places no one has ever explored.
Overall, Star Trek is kind of oblivious to the value of life. They just don't seem to care.
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
& 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
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.
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.
Well said. I like this.
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.
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.)
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?)
Separate names with a comma.