Humanity in the TNG era is more buggered than they let on
- Thread starter Lance
- Start date
Why like our own, and not like a society from the 15th century, or from the 2nd century BC?
If you say that the 24th century society is no more advanced than our 20th century society, then how is our society different that that from the 16th C, 12th C, etc?
There's the obvious technological differance.
But think of how many social institutions and practices are generally the same.
Biologically we're the same, our brains and intellectual capacity are the same.
There's the obvious technological differance.
But think of how many social institutions and practices are generally the same.
Biologically we're the same, our brains and intellectual capacity are the same.
I don't think anyone is arguing that in the 400 years between now and the 24th century there has been any biological evolution taking place, I don't think humans in the TNG era all have 4 toes because they evolved to not need the 5th one or something like that.
But when you say that social institutions are the same you are not correct.
What kind of expectation of personal privacy do you think people 400 years ago enjoyed? What kind of justice do you think a peasant could count on back then?
Now fast forward to TNG era. On Earth there is no conflict over resources, no one is allowed to starve to death or die of exposure or from a preventable disease. Right now we have the technology to feed everyone on the planet, but we don't. We have the medicine to cure a lot of people, yet they die by the millions. Clearly it is more than just technology.
I have 10 toes, huh. Canadians are weird.
No, I believe that would a position held by a fairly small percentage of the population.
Not everyone is arrogant and self-consumed. People who thought of themselves as "better' than people from 400 years in the past likely would also think themselves better than the people around them in the present.
Some people are just that way.
That could mean that they don't have money as physical currency, do are compensated through credits for non-essential goods but Picard feels it's not the most important thing, especially in the Starfleet sector.
I thought the general lack of conflict made the conflicts between Riker and his father and Picard and his brother particularly interesting.
I do find it interesting that Picard is basically ducking Lily's fairly simply question.
She didn't ask Picard if he "acquired wealth," but rather if he just gets paid.
Um, you do realize that people in the 23rd century weren't that different from people ion the 20th century right.
So its more like becoming better superior humans in about 70 years.
Um, ok...
War, poverty, disease, all wiped out within 50 years of First Contact, which was in 2063.
Enterprise showed us that already by around 2150 things were pretty good on Earth.
Bot both of those points aside, I honestly am not sure what you are trying to say.
That the whole superior human attitude of the 24th century kind of falls apart becuase it means humans went from better but still flawed to "evolved" in less than a century.
Given what I posted, which demonstrates a progression from current to 24th c humans via what ST:FC & Enterprise showed us, where are you getting your idea that things changed so drastically?
Besides, no one is claiming 24th c humans are perfect, DS9 especially showed us many flaws, but to claim that the only difference between now and then is the level of technology is, I think, ignoring everything we have been shown by Star Trek, and everything we know from our own history.
For example, if the only difference between now and the 1600s was the level of technology, we would have slavery on an industrial level, instead of it being a thing of the past. White people would be flying slaves from Africa to Europe and the Americas instead of bringing them over on boats.
In TOS the idea was "Let's have people who are absolutely no different from us have Western adventures in space, with absolutely no consideration given to how living with aliens or space travel will have affected society!"
By TNG, a bit more thought had been given to how people might act.
Um, multinational crew, lack of racism, mentioning that they are trying to and probably doing at least a slight better job of keeping their baser instincts under control, directive against screwing up other planets.
I think thats kind of different from 1960s people.
What spending two seasons being a bit sanctimonious about the afore mentioned stuff, and turning said directive into an inhumane death sentence?
We could still argue humans in the 23c were still better, having eliminated poverty, want, etc. on Earth. Maybe less pompous or overt about it, but humanity in Kirk's time was still better off than ours and arguably better than ours without our hangups and problems. There were also moments of 20c human bashing, or dislike for our society. Plenty of references to this in Star Trek IV, but for a TOS specific one look at McCoy's thoughts on 20c medicine when ariving in Earth's past in City on the Edge of Forever," in that same episode Edith Keeler makes seemingly naive and idealistic predictions for humanity, which Kirk remarks she's right on, though a couple centuries off.
Kerler's remarks mostly being on par with an ideal, utopic, future for humanity as we're told about in TNG. So, TOS was hardly saying, "they're just like us but in spaaaaaaaace!!!!!" It also had its moments of showing humanity's brighter future, again, they were maybe a bit less pompous on it. Though, they had some slips.
Kerler's remarks mostly being on par with an ideal, utopic, future for humanity as we're told about in TNG. So, TOS was hardly saying, "they're just like us but in spaaaaaaaace!!!!!" It also had its moments of showing humanity's brighter future, again, they were maybe a bit less pompous on it. Though, they had some slips.
The multinational crew was to show that these people had given up their cultural identities and become Space Americans. Anytime Chekov mentioned his Russian heritage it was used for jokes.
And there was plenty of racism, just look at how they treated Spock (and how Spock treated them).
And they had no problem screwing up planets if they thought it would give them some minor temporary advantage.
It wasn't that different from the 60s.
Their arrogance may have been grating at first, but it was a fully deserved arrogance.
I do find it interesting that Picard is basically ducking Lily's fairly simply question.
She didn't ask Picard if he "acquired wealth," but rather if he just gets paid.
That's a really interesting distinction.
Picard could have been indicating that yes, he is paid, but that's not what motivates him to do what he does, hence it's not relevant to discuss.
Lily's question could have sounded to Picard as if you or I got a new job, and we asked the other if they gave us a place to park our car!
Is it really that important to shoot down idealism in a fictional universe just because you personally don't agree that it is possible?
If you don't agree humanity can evolve beyond its current problems you don't agree with the premise of Star Trek.
If you don't agree humanity can evolve beyond its current problems you don't agree with the premise of Star Trek.
Similar threads
