^ I've always thought that the Vulcans must have helped in the cleanup and rebuilding after World War III. Otherwise I cannot see ANY way that the Earth could have recovered, from a global nuclear war, in only a hundred years!
Eras trek hasn't explored in detail
- Thread starter Voth commando1
- Start date
For me, it would probably be anything past the end of the 25th century. Ideally maybe no more than 70ish years past Nemesis.
I never bought into the 26th century era in Enterprise, or 29th century time cop ships of Voyager,
Yeah, I would have liked to see a Romulan War miniseries, which could have included the USS Franklin, and maybe the NX01 crews.
In my head canon, America stays mostly intact and our space program grew wildly after Apollo, and warp was just another step.
The incident in Voyager (Future's End) made up for the fact that all we got was wonky STS which launched the DYs from the ground. But allowed Zef to just cobble together a warp-ship--that lead to the NX's instead of (just) the Daedalus --then the Kelvin, which to me doesn't exist in the TOS timeline.
Future's End gives us the advanced Kelvin timeline as much as the Narada
If things go badly we might see it first hand.
I did read somewhere that Enterprise was
original supposed to be a 26th century show and didn't particularly mind the Voyager time cops myself,
That's only if you ignore that Humanity post WW3 wouldnt have access to massive automation technologies and more advanced methods of production (compared to us), not to mention recycling, and who knows what else was developed in between now and say 2063.
We already have the technology to clean up our mess and transform the Earth into a proverbial paradise in about 5 years or less in real life... heck, even climate change can be easily enough reversed if we remove excess methane and CO2 from the atmoshpere and pipe down on emissions by transitioning to renewable energy sources such as Geothermal, solar and wind, and remove animal agriculture (which contributes enormously to climate change) - both tackle the underlying causes and symptoms at the same time - problem solved in the long run and the planet stabilizes - things only continue to get worse if you do not remove the cause of the problem and clean up the atmosphere.
Trek historically followed real world breakthroughs and incorporated pre-existing knowledge more or less and expanded on it (actually, it seemed to be using scientific knowledge that existed before, just most people had no idea about it).
Even if the Vulcans never showed up and if Humanity decided to band together anyway, they likely would have been able to recover easily enough within 10 years.
There is NO WAY that it would take 100 years or more for Humanity to recover on their own.
That just ignores EVERYTHING we accomplished in terms of scientific and technical breakthroughs for the sake of stupid drama... and no, we don't need help from aliens to do it either (although, in Trek, it was the arrival of the Vulcans that apparently united Humanity and set them on a brighter path).
WW3 seems to have been highly localized. 600 million lost their lives in this conflict with most militaries and governments gone, but evidently, the planet at large was fine (btw, seeing just 1 small piece of Montana (from First Contact) that is in bad shape, doesn't mean the rest of the planet was in the same shape).
The Vulcans though did not strike me as if they actually helped Humanity either (considering that in Enterprise, we were told that they were very stingy with technology).
The NX-01 seemed to have been entirely Human technology...
All of which would be ground into dust after a global nuclear conflict. You can't rebuild, if there's nothing to rebuild with...
10 years?!? I'm sorry, but I can't possibly believe that. Cities can't even recover from hurricanes within 10 years, let alone a global thermonuclear war.
Let's talk about the rebuilding of the cities, for example. Do you have any idea how long it would take to completely rebuild a major city, from scratch? It'd be a century at least. Constructing even ONE large building takes years - sometimes even decades. Multiply that by a hundred, or even a thousand, and you get the idea of the sheer scale we're talking about here. It would easily take at least a century to completely rebuild even one city.
And that's without a world-destroying nuclear war to consider. Like I said, you can't rebuild your society if you have no infrastructure to rebuild it with. Yes, cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt after being nuked. But that took place in a society which (apart from those two cities) still had power, raw materials, massive amounts of aid, and an engineering system in place which COULD rebuild. How can you do this if everything has been destroyed?
That is a contradiction in terms. It's called WORLD War III for a reason, you know.
Last edited:
I assume your a vegetarian, no way you can feed so many people without livestock. I'll bet half of you eat comes from cows, chickens, pigs, among other animal. See that's what I can't stand about environmentalists their not willing to put their Malthusian ideas into practice...for themselves.
ST ENT never explored why the Vulcans were stingy from their point of view whether it was based on fear that humanity would be more powerful then they were in the quadrant, or fearful of another planet of billions of potentially violent, definitely emotional beings right on their doorstep (they were at war with Andoria). Shame that was never explored.
Ban fast food restaurants - problem solved! lol
Maybe because humans reminded them so much of themselves. Based on what Soval told Admiral Forrest.
Oh yes was that the ST ENT episode where the Earth embassy is bombed? The Forge?
Methinks this is why they object to our odour, we drive them to lust lol
Globally speaking 600 Million isn't a lot of people. About 8% at today's population. That's not even enough for every major city to have been hit. Even then, the way Riker said 600 Million made it sound like that was the total body count of the war. So that would include all the deaths by radiation poisoning afterwards. That means the actual nuclear bombs used would be fewer. So yeah, it would be devastating but not THAT devastating comparatively speaking. There would probably be many areas that went largely unaffected.
I have a post WWIII series sketched out that focuses on the aftermath of WWIII through first contact and ends with the loss of the SS Valiant. The style would be a sort of a hard sci-fi, space western. Similar to Firefly in some ways. It wont ever be made unless I stripped out the Trek elements, but It's a fun project to write on when I have time.
I have a post WWIII series sketched out that focuses on the aftermath of WWIII through first contact and ends with the loss of the SS Valiant. The style would be a sort of a hard sci-fi, space western. Similar to Firefly in some ways. It wont ever be made unless I stripped out the Trek elements, but It's a fun project to write on when I have time.
Post Voyager. I maintain hope that we will see this on TV one day.
I love meaT, I wouldn't want to see it off the table
However every calorie gained from meat needs fat more calories to feed the cow/lamb/crocodile/etc that provides it. If you did cancel all livestock the energy from the food the livestock eats would be more than enough for a population far larger than 7 billion.
Wouldn't be very tasty though.
Not everybody can survive as a vegetarian.
A global war that takes 600 million and leaves what... 7 odd billion (a conservative estimate) Humans on Earth?
Yeah, I would say you would be incorrect.
Look at Cochrane... he built a Warp capable ship in Montana underground.
I would say most of the relevant technology and production capacity would be left intact... all those people post war were certainly getting fed somehow... which could easily imply vertical farming systems with hydroponics underground... or just regular agriculture (outdated garbage that's too time consuming and requires a lot of land).
You do realize we had the technology to 3d print all structures in a single day for a while now.
Extrusion and prefabrication would also like a word with you (which existed for decades, up to over a century), as would structures designed with say inverted cones that would naturally prevent hurricanes from lifting or damaging them in such areas.
The problem lies in inherent stupidity of the general population in insisting on outdated designs and materials (out of ignorance and monetary limitations - but not resource limitations or those in technology), not to mention outdated political decisions/systems to ascertain the damage... and even more time to rebuild because they focus on the monetary cost as opposed to ignoring all that stupidity and simply utilizing technology and necessary resources to rebuild proper homes that would be resistant in the future to such natural phenomena (more than doable) and actually give people places to live in in the shortest time frame possible without ridiculous bureaucracy.
China would like a word with you as its built hundreds of cities in 15 years and its actually building even more.
http://www.citymetric.com/skylines/...are-chinas-ghost-cities-still-unoccupied-1180
Seriously, what century do you live in? The dark ages?
Trek Humans by 2063 would have massively more advanced technology in comparison to us.
3d printers would be so fast that building a house would take minutes at best... not even 12 hours (and we have already designed 3d printers that can print up to 100 times faster - using liquidized materials and lasers that would be FASTER than 12 hours for a freaking HOUSE).
I shall repeat: WW3 takes away 600 million and leaves roughly 7 billion Humans on Earth.
It was at best surgical precision strike that also managed to leave most of the relevant infrastructure intact it would seem.
Earth did not undergo a nuclear winter, nor did everyone suffer from radiation poisoning.
A warp capable ship was built underground... and it makes sense that A LOT of production facilities would likely be situated underground or in areas unaffected by the war (or have you forgotten that if you target the actual production facilities, most corporations would end up losing money from waging war?).
The only contradiction here is that you are ignoring facts and apparently know very little of our technological capabilities.
Even after the first 2 World wars, most of the infrastructure on Earth was fine. Many people lost their lives, yes (which was sickening and deplorable because it's the idiot politicians who start wars and not the general populations - do you need ANY more evidence that the current system is detrimental to our well being as well as that of the environment)?
Voth commando1
Actually, I'm vegan (there is a difference between vegetarians and vegans), and you really need to check your facts at how much food we actually produce.
The globe is producing enough to feed around 10 billion humans at least (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html)... over 40% of the produce is discarded because of 'aesthetic' reasons (otherwise they are perfectly edible and nutritious): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/10/half-world-food-waste
Then there's the fact that a lot of the produce is actually given to livestock, oh... and yes, it takes a lot more resources (water, energy, land, food, etc.) to grow livestock (which suffers under deplorable conditions completely needlessly - we end up killing about 70 billion animals per year btw) than it does vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, seeds, legumes, grains, etc. - oh and if you bothered to check peer-review medical data, you would know that plant based diet along (without animal products of any kind) can provide every single vitamin and mineral you need, especially if you plan it accordingly (most people do not, and usually cannot due to limited choices in food shops with rising prices - but that happens with everyone else who also eat animal products... and they [people who consume animals] are far more prone to nutritional deficiencies as evident in peer-review, not to mention extreme amount of medical issues that suspiciously accompany such dietary choices).
Plus, shall we also ignore the amount of methane that is being generated by animal agriculture which accounts for A LOT of the change in rising temperatures around the globe?
Renewable energy is one step... but without addressing animal agriculture, it will all fall short of 'successful'.
Yes, let's also ignore that we had the technology since 1974 to grow food in fully automated vertical farms using hydroponics alone in Omega garden designs that would have 0 need for soil, pesticides, chemicals, GMO, and the crops would grow up to 5 times faster if forced to fight against gravity, while using 95% less water than regular agriculture...
What I cannot stand about the general population is it's ridiculous ignorance about actual facts (when they live in the information age and have all this knowledge at their fingertips) and even go so far to ignore the scientific data when its hitting them on the nose all because they fear they will lose a type of food they were conditioned into eating from the moment they were born (all the while plant based alternatives have come out and are just as good as the actual thing).
The only problem here lies in cognitive dissonance which is directly fueled by lack of exposure to relevant general education and living in accordance to outdated 'traditions' that act like a straight jacket to most people - interconnected problems. Such lack of education generates Humans easily prone to manipulation and being used by others.
Plus, what on Earth do you have against preserving the environment?
Try counting your money while holding your breath, or eating and drinking paper money.
Guess what, you need food and water for that (among other basic necessities), and we are intricately dependent on the environment (and its biodiversity) to survive.
You cannot have indefinite growth on a finite planet.
Sure, we can make completely isolated environments (and could have done that for a while now), but that's only if you are willing to desolate the entire planet (which is exactly what you are proposing).
Indefinite growth on a finite planet... what a ridiculous concept.
There is a far better way without compromising our technological development... but the current system and the behaviors that it generates need to be discarded.
Last edited:
I'm sorry I won't give up steak or pork for you, for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, the Pope, or the Dalai Lama. Period. Also given your admitted Veganism it seems I have nothing of further common ground with you-we think and operate with regards to politics in entirely different universes-I won't accept a life of eating broccoli if that means pandas and people in Bangladesh die so be it.
Furthermore as long as my lifestyle is maintained then the environment can be damned-short sighted? Cruel? Backwards? Those opinions are your problem.
I really really hate environmentalists.
After all as scientists claim the sun will engulf the earth in around 4 billion years so why bother.
I just fucking fucking fucking hate environmentalists just so passionately excuse my French but I just hate them. I hate them for their arrogance, for their stupid Gaia worship, I hate them for their anti democratic and elitist proclivities, I hate them because they smell bad, and look stupid protesting on major blocks, I hate them because for their lack of submission to they way things should be, I hate them for offending people with genuine and real religious beliefs, I hate them because they make up an essential block in the Democratic Party, I hate them because they have the hears and minds of international technocrats and bohemians-The UN, CFR, Bilderbergs, Rome Institute, among others, I hate them because they breath air that I should exhale.
I just fucking fucking fucking hate environmentalists just so passionately excuse my French but I just hate them. I hate them for their arrogance, for their stupid Gaia worship, I hate them for their anti democratic and elitist proclivities, I hate them because they smell bad, and look stupid protesting on major blocks, I hate them because for their lack of submission to they way things should be, I hate them for offending people with genuine and real religious beliefs, I hate them because they make up an essential block in the Democratic Party, I hate them because they have the hears and minds of international technocrats and bohemians-The UN, CFR, Bilderbergs, Rome Institute, among others, I hate them because they breath air that I should exhale.