What happens to other countries on Earth?

[Tallguy]

Everybody gets all excited about a peaceful 23rd century world without borders. But the Federation not only has borders, crossing some of them is an explicit act of war.

There is no war on Earth. But the Federation engages is wars that involve populations totaling in the billions. (Trillions?)

So we're only automatically at peace with our own species?

I've always figured that the nations that would stand in the way of a global government are destroyed or crippled in WWIII.

 

[Shawnster]

No. The monarch is the Commander in Chief of all military. If there is no monarch then there is no 'Royal Navy' it becomes the British Navy just as the real life, present day army is the British Army (I have no idea why it is not called the Royal Army).

Does that also include the Royal Academy?
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Royal_Academy
The Royal Academy was an educational and scientific institution located in Old Britain on Earth.

In the mid 21st century, the chief astronomer of the Academy was John Burke. He was the first Human to map the area of space in which Sherman's Planet was located. (TOS: "The Trouble with Tribbles")

Is there really such a thing? Such a vague name. What kind of academy are we talking about? LOL

 

[Nyotarules]

You see, your post is emphasising my point. Those are all Hollywood stereotypes of a 60's tv show. Your claim that Scotty is an unidentifiable 'Scot' [one 'T' not two] is laughable: I can assure you we aren't whiskey swigging, jolly, drunks - to claim he is an 'identifiable Scot' [when played by a Canadian in a cliche role] is half amusing and half derogatory. What you are pandering to is a pitiful stereotype. Picard also doesn't fit your argument in the slightest: he is French, with a British accent etc. He is actually more indicative of what a future 'Frenchman' may be like [instead of a cliche'd mess].

I struggle to follow much of your post also [I dislike the 'person from nation X and proud of it!' thing, which to me is silly nationalism] because O'Brien in many ways isn't your typical Irishman, Bashir is not racially stereotyped [which would have been easy with the actor playing him], La Forge is Somalian...and speaks with an American accent and barely mentions the country. Dr Crusher apparently has Scottish ancestry and was born on the moon.

As a museologist, cultural heritage is a tricky thing. It changes along with the world and with what people feel a part of. On 24th century Earth it is difficult to ascertain exactly what one person may feel is their heritage over another: is it regional? [many people are proud of the custom/history of their VILLAGE never mind city/region] It could even be global: it is very easy to assume there would be an 'Earth heritage' in comparison to say, a Vulcan heritage. People frequently define themselves through their heritage so much of that will still exist to an extent, but there will be a great ammount of new heritage being created that we simply do not have at the moment. Nationalistic pride, as you keep referencing, I suspect will be largely dead as most would view themselves as 'Human' or 'from Earth' rather than somthing silly like 'American/Scottish/Mongolian'.

Scotty is identifiable because the character has a Scottish accent, it might be a poor attempt but I don't hear him and think 'Oh, he must be Norwegian', whether or not there were scenes connecting him to whisky or drink. You mentioned that, I did not.
As for Picard being what a future Frenchman might be like, I doubt a present day French person would find that half amusing, more likely half derogatory. After all lets swap one 'cliched mess' for another - all future foreigners will have North American accents, especially African ones. (La Forge, M'Benga and both Uhuras).
(Maybe Scotty's accent is that of a future person from Scotland.... right?)
Why should national pride be dead, it might not be the way it is expressed today cos it is seen as negative. It is possible to be proud of your part of the planet and not automatically put down another part.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

Good luck with that. What would be the common ground upon which you could unite all of humanity?

Simple: rationality.

With that religion, cannibalism and all such other archaic nonsense dies. Culture changes, Earth changes, I find it completely within the realms of possibility that there is massive socio-economic upheaval that [over a distinct period of time] begins to dramatically alter Earth. Technology alone would have an insane impact upon us all [probably the biggest]: with resource problems solved, want eliminated, the transporter turning Earth into something smaller than a village, capitalism dead...the impact would be staggering.

People generally want to be free. I find it hard to see, despite some cultural differences, why it is so hard for some of you to see why a United Earth would actually be very possible. You can't look at it through 21st century eyes. Imagine what the replicator/transporter would do. Imagine what the slow death of religion will lead to. It all snowballs into a powerful force. The planet improves, people improve: they aren't forced to live in poverty, poorly educated and wanting. No 3rd world countries. No hunger...

I think that this can only happen by allowing most of the law making decisions to be had on the city/community level

That's anarchastic and just wouldn't work. Why are global laws so outlandish? As soon as you remove irrational practices laws start to become more simplistic.

Maybe some ares don't have a required belief system. Maybe some groups participate in endocannibalism, while for others it is illegal.

I just can't get on board with much of what you are saying. Anywhere that had a required beleif system or required enocannibalism is exactly the irrational nonsense we have now, and Trek shows we can leave behind.

It really is as simple as one humans get a grip and become more rational things should automatically improve.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

Scotty is identifiable because the character has a Scottish accent, it might be a poor attempt but I don't hear him and think 'Oh, he must be Norwegian', whether or not there were scenes connecting him to whisky or drink. You mentioned that I did not.
As for Picard being what a future Frenchman might be like, I doubt a present day French person would find that half amusing, more likely half derogatory. After all lets swap one 'cliched mess' for another - all future foreigners will have North American accents, especially African ones. (La Forge, M'Benga and both Uhuras).
Why should national pride be dead, it might not be the way, it is expressed today cos it is seen as negative. It is possible to be proud of your part of the planet and not automatically put down another part.

He does? Sounded more Canadian to me.

Picard is a Frenchman in a world that is minute. They said the jet-engine turned the world into a village: the transporter must make it even smaller. People will be far, far less likely to be born in one place, marry there, live there and die there. Earth would become as multicultural and fluid as it could possibly be. Alien would be walking down every highstreet. A Frenchman with an English accent isn't derogatory [why would it be? Are we all to be defined by how we sound/look? What is there to find derogatory about that?] it is probably something completely normal inthe 24th century.

Nationalistic pride, on Earth in the 24th century seems redundant in the extreme. People would likely be spending so much time travelling the planet [and perhaps other worlds] that being so defined by an ancient 'country' is just odd. I did state before and I will reiterate, I think people will still draw on their cultural heritage and will feel...warmly to their birthplace/cultural heritage but I don't think it will manifest [or mean] the same as it does now.

 

[Nyotarules]

Does that also include the Royal Academy?
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Royal_Academy
The Royal Academy was an educational and scientific institution located in Old Britain on Earth.

In the mid 21st century, the chief astronomer of the Academy was John Burke. He was the first Human to map the area of space in which Sherman's Planet was located. (TOS: "The Trouble with Tribbles")

Is there really such a thing? Such a vague name. What kind of academy are we talking about? LOL

The are real world Royal Academy of ________ (Art, Music etc) but there is no Royal Academy. Burke is a 21st century character in 2067, Prince or King William will be 85 then.

 

[Nyotarules]

He does? Sounded more Canadian to me.

Picard is a Frenchman in a world that is minute. They said the jet-engine turned the world into a village: the transporter must make it even smaller. People will be far, far less likely to be born in one place, marry there, live there and die there. Earth would become as multicultural and fluid as it could possibly be. Alien would be walking down every highstreet. A Frenchman with an English accent isn't derogatory [why would it be? Are we all to be defined by how we sound/look? What is there to find derogatory about that?] it is probably something completely normal inthe 24th century.

Nationalistic pride, on Earth in the 24th century seems redundant in the extreme. People would likely be spending so much time travelling the planet [and perhaps other worlds] that being so defined by an ancient 'country' is just odd. I did state before and I will reiterate, I think people will still draw on their cultural heritage and will feel...warmly to their birthplace/cultural heritage but I don't think it will manifest [or mean] the same as it does now.

Writes the person offended by Canadian sounding Scotty LOL

 

[Nyotarules]

While the whole WWIII/First Contact thing is presented as that something. I would like to see it depicted that humanity could have accomplished this all on our own, it's just the WWIII/First Contact gave us a kick in the pants.

Prior to ST FC the Federation novel does present this aspect, sadly its not canon and ST FC movie is. (Its a book that is worth reading).

 

[TheGoodStuff]

Writes the person offended by Canadian sounding Scotty LOL

I'm not the type to descend into 'LOLZ' here but I will try to explain one last time:

1. Your argument was that Scotty was an identifiable 'Scot'. That was a baseless claim, seeing as he has a Canadian accent and drinks a lot.

2. Your ascertion that he is 'obviously' Scottish, I highlighted, could be deemed derogatory because he is a two-dimensional Scottish stereotype character [who doesn't even have the accent right].

3. A Frenchman with an English accent isn't derogatory. That is actually quite progressive [and realistic] as it highlights greater depth of heritage where he has a different accent to his nationality as a great many people do [along with skin tone and other things]. The reasons for Picard's accent could be many, and varied [parents, eduction, influences etc]. Instead of him being a Frenchman, born in Paris, who likes wine, he is an interesting, different character like a real person.

4. I also never said I was offended by Canadian sounding Scotty. I said it was 'half-amusing, half-derogatory' in reference to how stereotypical your argument was becoming [about him obviously being Scottish].

 

[UnknownSample]

Yet Kirk did call the Federation an alliance.

In ENT,the time traveler Daniels called the 25th century Federation an alliance.And which of the federation presidents that we've seen would you call "strong?"In the 24th century, the president is elected, but it's never stated by whom.

"Alliance" is misused a lot, especially in recent years. If Kirk and others throw this word around onscreen, chalk it up to the sloppy use of language that TV writers would not be immune to. There's the "Ferengi Alliance" but they have a sort of monarch and central governing body. An alliance is a group of countries who have agreed to support each other in a war. It's not even a loose government-- it's a treaty.
---------------------
Kirk also used another word: "federation". United Federation of Planets. So it's united, and a federation.
----------------------
Which Fed presidents have been "strong"? We don't get to see much of them. I wasn't talking about individual qualities but just the fact that a president in this system would have real power, like the one in DS9. Not like the head of the UN. You can use that power however you like I guess, use it more, use it less.
-------------------
I believe there was a 24th century episode where characters asked about how the others were voting for president. I'm hazy on that. Do we know the details? No.

 

[David Strickhouser]

From the 1967 Writer's/Director's Guide:

"What is Earth like in STAR TREK'S CENTURY?

The 'U.S.S"'on our ship designation stands for 'United Space Ship' --
indicating (without troublesome specifics) that mankind has
found some unity on Earth, perhaps at long last even peace.


But television today simply will not let us get into details of Earth's politics of STARTREK,'S century; for example, which socio-economic systemultimately worked out best."

It's those "troublesome specifics" and "details" that "television today" circa 1967 didn't want to project exactly what a United Earth would look like, so as not to offend some viewer's sensibilities.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

The are real world Royal Academy of ________ (Art, Music etc) but there is no Royal Academy. Burke is a 21st century character in 2067, Prince or King William will be 85 then.

Actually there is a Royal Academy, more usually refered to as the Royal Academy of Arts, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Academy_of_Arts however is more likely they meant the Royal Astronomical Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Astronomical_Society.

 

[Nerys Myk]

1. Your argument was that Scotty was an identifiable 'Scot'. That was a baseless claim, seeing as he has a Canadian accent and drinks a lot.

Come now, Doohan is on record as giving Scotty what he thinks is a Scottish accent. He wasn't using his natural accent or trying to sound Canadian. Now it may be a bad accent and one based on stereotypes, but it wasn't Canadian. What next? Claiming the accent Koenig used is American?

 

[TheGoodStuff]

Come now, Doohan is on record as giving Scotty what he thinks is a Scottish accent. He wasn't using his natural accent or trying to sound Canadian. Now it may be a bad accent and one based on stereotypes, but it wasn't Canadian. What next? Claiming the accent Koenig used is American?

Lets not become hysterical.

It is a bad accent and Doohan was free to do whatever he wished. It isn't very good. It's the generic 'Scottish Hollywood' accent that nobody here actually uses. I've heard it was supposed to be Aberdeenshire base but...ehhh.

You can't get a Canadian, to do a phony Scottish accent, then declare "he is obviously Scottish!" without me mocking it I'm afraid. Everyone should understand this. Plenty of actors butcher accents they are asked to do. That's fine. Saying 'they are obviously from X' isn't. Obviously I understand he was supposed to be Scottish, but he isn't. He is a silly stereotype and no ammount of love for the character changes that. Once you add in a fondness for scotch and a tendancy for punch-ups and and it all becomes rather....

[Remember, we were discussing countries [and their peoples] in this thread, so take these comments in context]

 

[uniderth]

Simple: rationality.

Hahaha. Whose rationality? Yours? Everybody thinks their own views are rational. If they didn't, then they wouldn't hold those views.

With that religion, cannibalism and all such other archaic nonsense dies. Culture changes, Earth changes,

What you're describing here is ethnocentrism. What about eating insects? Eating insects is a very logical and rational thing to do, so I hope you enjoyed your maggot cereal for breakfast and your tarantula sandwich for lunch. Wait that's icky? Well sorry, that rationality police says you must eat your insects.

What of people who want to live a certain way becasue they rationally chose that? People who rationally want to be Catholic or Buddhist? Whose world view ultimately wins out that they get to enforce it on everyone else? And when that happens revolution happens. You cannot obtain a world government through overreach and dictatorial processes. You will always have rebellion. People must be free to live as they chose. Otherwise *poof* there goes your world government. And that mean allowing people to live in a way that you disagree with, or even hate.

I find it completely within the realms of possibility that there is massive socio-economic upheaval that [over a distinct period of time] begins to dramatically alter Earth. Technology alone would have an insane impact upon us all [probably the biggest]: with resource problems solved, want eliminated, the transporter turning Earth into something smaller than a village, capitalism dead...the impact would be staggering.

Agreed.

People generally want to be free. I find it hard to see, despite some cultural differences, why it is so hard for some of you to see why a United Earth would actually be very possible.

Agreed. But forcing people into a certain paradigm of what they should be is the antithesis of freedom. I can easily see a world government as being possible. But not by forcing people into what I want them to be. Saying, "oh, if only people were rational, then we could have peace on earth." is like wishing people had three arms so we could get more work done. It doesn't matter, becasue we don't. Humans are an irrational, emotional, diverse bunch. And creating a world government doesn't have to be a "wish-upon-a-star, if-only, if-only" scenario. By allowing people to live their lives it is easier for people to get along even when we disagree.

You can't look at it through 21st century eyes. Imagine what the replicator/transporter would do. Imagine what the slow death of religion will lead to. It all snowballs into a powerful force. The planet improves, people improve: they aren't forced to live in poverty, poorly educated and wanting. No 3rd world countries. No hunger...

What will the slow death of religion do? What does religion do now the prevents us from a Magical One World of Unity?

In terms of Star Trek you are forgetting that humanity reached a united state for BEFORE there were transporters or replicators. In today's terms we have a huge abundance of resources, yet the people in power make more money by keeping the status quo, so things don't change.

That's anarchastic and just wouldn't work.

Why not? You can't just say something won't work without providing a rebuttal. Well, you can, but you can't expect to be taken very seriously.

Why are global laws so outlandish? As soon as you remove irrational practices laws start to become more simplistic.

International laws are so outlandish and convoluted, becasue they are trying to meet all the needs of many global powers.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I just can't get on board with much of what you are saying. Anywhere that had a required beleif system or required enocannibalism is exactly the irrational nonsense we have now, and Trek shows we can leave behind.

And you can be free to live in a community of people with those same beliefs as you, with a legal system that is centered around your beliefs. Or you can be free to travel to other communities of people with differing belief systems than you. See how that works? I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, and you don't force your beliefs on me. And if I find myself in some place that has beliefs I don't agree with, I leave.

It really is as simple as one humans get a grip and become more rational things should automatically improve.

It is NEVER that simple, becasue humans aren't that simple.

That reminds me of the X-Files episode where Mulder gets wishes from a genie. He wishes for world peace and POOF everyone in the world but him is gone. If Christ, Muhammad, Gandhi couldn't create world peace what make you think that you can? And what army will follow you as you impose your world view of rationality on others?

 

[Tracy Trek]

Are those customs nationalistic or prejudicial? Or simply heritage?

They are simply heritage.

 

[Tallguy]

Earth is a separate but unified government. But what about the Earth colonies in the Sol system?

 

[TheGoodStuff]

Hahaha. Whose rationality? Yours? Everybody thinks their own views are rational. If they didn't, then they wouldn't hold those views.



What you're describing here is ethnocentrism. What about eating insects? Eating insects is a very logical and rational thing to do, so I hope you enjoyed your maggot cereal for breakfast and your tarantula sandwich for lunch. Wait that's icky? Well sorry, that rationality police says you must eat your insects.

What of people who want to live a certain way becasue they rationally chose that? People who rationally want to be Catholic or Buddhist? Whose world view ultimately wins out that they get to enforce it on everyone else? And when that happens revolution happens. You cannot obtain a world government through overreach and dictatorial processes. You will always have rebellion. People must be free to live as they chose. Otherwise *poof* there goes your world government. And that mean allowing people to live in a way that you disagree with, or even hate.

The issue with the first argument is that people thinking their arguments are rational means nothing. Yes, everyone thinks their views are rational but many, many aren't, There is a difference between believing you are rational and being able to rationally, ethically and morally justify your actions. That's where most of those viewpoints collapse.

The first paragraph is silly. Cannibalism and religion are not equatable to eating insects. Insects are a food choice and a healthy source of protein. Nobody could rationally force you to eat something you didn't want to purely out of 'rationality'. It is rational to eat to stay alive, how you do that is up to you and has no impact on another individual. Cannibalism, for example does.

Your third paragraph is an oxymoron. One cannot rationally be religious. As with your original sentence, one can think they are being rational by being theistic but one is not. The argument is that religion is simply one of a vast multitude of outdated 'isms' that will continue to fall by the wayside as humanity advances [and human history shows this to be true]. Nobody is being 'forced' to not be religious, it will simply become so [as is happening world-wide right now].

Your second part of that paragraph is quite aggressive, for want of a better way of wording it. You seem to view a utopian system as one gained through force, or revolution and whose ideals must be enforced. I think Trek hints at a reformed world where the evils of today are gone [greed, hate, hunger, poverty etc] and where religion likely does still exist but in severely limited pockets and this is perfectly acceptable.

I think you are reflective of some of the arguments made against Trek's utopian society that, somehow, it would involve repression. If that society is based on rationality then you would be free to do as you wish and diversity would thrive more than it does now...but a multitude of things that are 'wrong' and can be rationally demonstrated as being 'wrong', will be forbidden. You can't cry for a racist because his freedom to be racist is denied. He is the irrational one.

But forcing people into a certain paradigm of what they should be is the antithesis of freedom. I can easily see a world government as being possible. But not by forcing people into what I want them to be. Saying, "oh, if only people were rational, then we could have peace on earth." is like wishing people had three arms so we could get more work done. It doesn't matter, becasue we don't. Humans are an irrational, emotional, diverse bunch. And creating a world government doesn't have to be a "wish-upon-a-star, if-only, if-only" scenario. By allowing people to live their lives it is easier for people to get along even when we disagree

You cannot have a one-world government where every part of the planet does what they want. People would be free to do as they wish: so long as it was ethical, moral and rationally justifiable. Differing opinions and rationality are two different things and I think you are confusing that. Badly.

What will the slow death of religion do? What does religion do now the prevents us from a Magical One World of Unity?

In terms of Star Trek you are forgetting that humanity reached a united state for BEFORE there were transporters or replicators. In today's terms we have a huge abundance of resources, yet the people in power make more money by keeping the status quo, so things don't change.

It is divisive nonsense. It places emphasis on an existence apart from this one. It is dogmatic. It encourages people to be happy with not knowing. You cannot have multiple faiths on claiming to be right and expect, fundamentally, that to work properly. I could go on and on. The death of religion would usher in a new period of though on life, on existence and on the world in general. You also, again, are being overly aggressive in your statements: religion isn't purely responsible for us not having a united earth, it merely plays a part.

I remember Trek's history but in the context of countries I was discussing how those technologies would further change Earth and our view on the nation.

And you can be free to live in a community of people with those same beliefs as you, with a legal system that is centered around your beliefs. Or you can be free to travel to other communities of people with differing belief systems than you. See how that works? I'm not forcing my beliefs on you, and you don't force your beliefs on me. And if I find myself in some place that has beliefs I don't agree with, I leave.

That isn't how things work though. If your beliefs is that every blue person is inferior and should be shot, you deserve to have your beliefs challenged and changed. If the objective is to create an enlightened, united Earth, then certain beliefs will have to die because they are simply irrational and 'wrong' regardless of how uncomfortable for some people that may be.

It is NEVER that simple, becasue humans aren't that simple.

That reminds me of the X-Files episode where Mulder gets wishes from a genie. He wishes for world peace and POOF everyone in the world but him is gone. If Christ, Muhammad, Gandhi couldn't create world peace what make you think that you can? And what army will follow you as you impose your world view of rationality on others?

Those three names you mention are laughable. 'Jesus' was fictional and never existed, Muhammad was a tyrant who couldn't get his own village to listen to him and needed to spread his message through violence and Gandhi was a racist monster as well. I can't stress enough how weak it makes your argument look.

I also loathe the defeatist 'logic' you are using. "If x couldn't do it, why bother?" which is utterly, utterly contrary to progress.

 

[Shawnster]

Earth is a separate but unified government. But what about the Earth colonies in the Sol system?

Or outside the Sol system. TOS refers to a lot of extra solar "Earth Colonies."

 

[Tallguy]

What's the rational objection to cannibalism? Assuming you're not taking a live specimen and making it dinner?