Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by ZapBrannigan, Mar 16, 2013.

  1. Third Nacelle

    Third Nacelle Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    Location:
    The Denorios Belt
    To be fair though, I don't blame Picard for his behavior. He was under a lot of stress with the Romulans at that time. I do, however, fault Troi for not being with those three the whole time and helping them to understand what's happened. It's her job to hold people's hands and talk softly, not Picard's.
     
  2. Crazyewok

    Crazyewok Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    So how would you treat them?

    Like dirt? Like in TNG?
     
  3. Third Nacelle

    Third Nacelle Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    Location:
    The Denorios Belt
    I certainly wouldn't coddle them.

    The question was never about how they would be treated, but how their worldview would be respected. That you feel they would need to be re-educated shows it wouldn't be respected at all, and indeed many things about 17th century beliefs would not be compatible in our times. Nor would things about 20th century beliefs be combatible in the 24th century.

    Everything Picard had to say to Offenhouse was dead on. Yeah, he could have said it nicer, but Offenhouse obviously didn't put much stake in niceness anyway.
     
  4. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    In a way, you get the feeling that the writers are talking to us, the viewers, through these characters.
     
  5. Ain Jalut

    Ain Jalut Lieutenant

    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    I bet he meets plenty of traders and he does not treat them like that. Why is he even dating that greedy Vash chick then? Is she so much bettr than Offenhouse?

    No wonder they only wrote that one episode.
     
  6. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    I don't usually take arguments via Youtube, but from your post it seems it wasn't very long-lived. Are we talking about a state, here ? Or just a few people ?

    Also, from T'Girl's reply to you, it seems you did not represent the evidence from your video very well.
     
  7. yousirname

    yousirname Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    PICARD: That's what this is all about. A lot has changed in the past three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We have grown out of our infancy.
    RALPH: You've got it all wrong. It's never been about possessions. It's about power.
    PICARD: Power to do what?
    RALPH: To control your life, your destiny.
    PICARD: That kind of control is an illusion.


    I don't think your interpretation of Picard's remark is accurate. I think that rather than meaning that all forms of control over one's life/destiny are 'an illusion', Picard meant that the kind of control Offenhouse perceived as attainable through wealth etc, is illusory.

    I wouldn't necessarily agree with him, but I think it's a far more reasonable claim.
     
  8. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    That is so pretentious !

    That wasn't Picard's finest day, nor Trek's.
     
  9. Crazyewok

    Crazyewok Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Well as someone said I can understand Picard haveing a very short fuse that day due to the stress. But he should have been kept away from the poor humans. Instead Troi should have been doing her job better and seeing as Data seemed to have a repore with one of them he maybe should have helped out later when he could have been spared.
     
  10. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Talking yes, but there was also a certain tone of being lectured too.

    If the idea is to "re-educate" them in how to think, feel and what to believe, then yes that is disrespectful. However if the education being offered is in the area of how to simply live three hundred years in the future then there is no disrespect.

    Only in places, the people of the 24th century still have needs and wants, Picard would have to blind not to know this.

    Offenhouse started off as quite polite actually. He was with his talk with Riker, it's only after he perceived that he was being given the run around that he began to push.

    To a large degree, I would.

    How they would be treated would be part of the question, make no mistake.

    And what reason could there be not to respect their "world view." Picard was from a time where the greater culture include hundred of intelligent species, it's unlikely there would have been anything remotely unique in the world view of the 20th century people.

    Picard attitude (imho) to a large degree came from the fact that he personally didn't like the Human past that these people came from, that time period didn't fit his personal "world view." It's the height of arrogance to think everyone should be just like you.

    The problem with two identical three century time jumps is that they're really not comparible. Moving three people from the 1990's to 2364, would be more like moving some people from around 1910 to today.

    Ralph, Clare and Sonny were from a era where there was already a mobile society, machines, technology, international relations, some space flight, and there was the possibility of space aliens in popular discussion.

    The people from the early 1900's would be from a era where there would have been urbanization, some technological advances, industrialization, transision from animal transportation, discussions on the possibility of equal rights.

    Both of these time traveling groups would find a future that surprised, delighted and confused them, but in both cases a lot of what they found would be a more advanced version of what they left behind.

    So it wouldn't be like the experiences of a person from 1743 brought to 2013.

    Ralph didn't have a vagina.

    ::)
     
  11. Third Nacelle

    Third Nacelle Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    Location:
    The Denorios Belt
    Technological and social advancement is speeding up, not slowing down. I'd say the three century jump to the future would be a much bigger change than the three century jump from the past, at least in real life.

    In Star Trek, however technological and social advancement seems to have stagnated somewhere between Enterprise and TOS - to make the characters relatable to 20th-century viewers. So I'll concede that point to you.

    So if some people from the past showed up and wanted to go buy some slaves, beat their wives, drive Native Americans out of their territory, go on a whaling expedition, build a factory staffed by children, or force their religious views on people - you'd be all right with that? You'd be polite about that? Or would you have a frank discussion about how things have changed?
     
  12. sonak

    sonak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination

    trying to make some money is like slavery , wife-beating, and forced child labor?:wtf:
     
  13. stj

    stj Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Location:
    the real world
    ^^^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?

    Birth control wasn't a part of life in 1910. The social changes from that alone are still working themselves out. But the ones already part of our lives makes everything different from life in 1910. Of course, many political conservatives think (whether they'll admit it or not,) that changes in family and sexual life are merely galloping moral decay, not change.

    And anyone who doesn't think that genetic engineering or "expert systems"/AI won't be equally profound is grievously wrong. The real problem with modern Trek is that its technology is grievously out of date, and it horribly underestimates the magnitude of the choices confronting us.

    The notion that human nature or society will be fundamentally the same is reactionary, even bigoted, nonsense, that defies the lessons in living memory.
     
  14. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Genetic engineering, at least for Humans, is apparently illegal.

    From Data's and the EMH's experiences, artificial intelligence may not be illegal in the future, but it is rare.

    Yet people in the future still get married, make babies, gather to eat meals, play cards and have a drink at the end of a hard day.

    For the first three I would calmly explain that there have been changes in the legal code, given the passage of time not to be unexpected.

    For the next three, I would advise them to move to Japan (whaling), China (child labor) and the Middle East (forced religion).

    I would politely explain things yes, these are people from another culture and time, they are likely to spend the rest of their lives in our time. Some of the things they were raised to believe have passed.

    I would tell them that you can't buy slaves, but you can hire employees. You can purchase land (or access to it) from tribal councils. Want to beat someone of the opposite gender, well most large cities have S&M social clubs. If you insist on staying in America and going whaling, some Native American tribes still engage in this activity, maybe they'll let you tag along.

    Would someone from the past automatically want a slave, or any of the things you mentioned? Hard to say. Would not being able to do any of the things you mentioned be much of a real problem for them?

    Probably not.

    :)
     
  15. CoveTom

    CoveTom Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    CoveTom
    Why exactly are being polite and being frank mutually exclusive options? To be polite doesn't mean that you fail to say what you think. And, yes, knowing where the people came from and what society was like at that time, I would be polite. I see no reason to be hostile toward them.
     
  16. TheGoodNews

    TheGoodNews Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Do you always go by what T'Girl says? She misrepresented me with her comment that I maintained that the Argentinean workers, who were reacting to an economic catastrophe that occured in 2002, were (in her words, not mine) "choosing" their situation, rather than just reacting and adapting to very difficult economic circumstances that were imposed on them through no fault of their own. Her misrepresentation of my views in a public forum was very offensive to me. I've yet to see her apologize or recant that statement. And for you to even dismiss anything I say on the basis of her reply which included a misrepresentation of my view maybe also be construed as irresponsible or insulting.

    In answer to your question, the Spanish Revolution lasted from 1936-1939. It was a huge event involving large sections of Spain and millions of people. The main anarcho-syndicalist union, the CNT, had over a million members. They collectivized industries and agriculture in areas such as Catalonia (the main industrial region), Aragon, Andulcia, Levant and others. Money was abolished in many areas. Their success was noted by such observers as George Orwell and others.
     
  17. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Nor will you.

    The evidence you've presented to make your case is faulty.

    It's not dismissial on anyone's part, it's examination and analysis. You're only offering examples of charities, and communities where money is being pumped in from outside, and people who were acting out desperation.

    Even your example of the Spanish communities lack validity because they were in existance for such a brief period of time. There's no way to know if they were truely viable.

    :)
     
  18. Ain Jalut

    Ain Jalut Lieutenant

    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    How is it any dfferent than trying to improve your status which something lots of people in the Federation do.
     
  19. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Why are you making this personal ?


    It doesn't seem to have been a stable working system, though.
     
  20. Jerikka Dawn

    Jerikka Dawn Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    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.
     

Share This Page