Ok, just to be clear, was it implied that literal orgies were happening in "Naked Now" or am I being malicious?!?

[Christopher]

Yes, but their families don't physically go on missions with them, they don't ride in tanks and planes with them.

The intent was that the saucer section would be left behind somewhere safe before the battle section went into combat, as we saw in "The Arsenal of Freedom." (This was later ignored because of the difficulty of working with the 6-foot Enterprise miniature, the only one that could separate.) And it's not as if frontier towns or forts never came under attack. It's not as if cities are never hit by storms or wildfires or earthquakes. There's no place where people's safety is absolutely guaranteed. (I for one have never understood how people are willing to risk having homes and families in a city like San Francisco that's right on top of an active earthquake fault. Having families aboard a starship hardly seems any more dangerous than that.)

What would you think of a mercenary who, say, takes his 8-year-old son into the jungle to fight rebels because otherwise he'd "feel alone"?

That's a straw man. Starfleet crews don't bring their children down on away missions to dangerous planets. They leave them on the ship surrounded by state-of-the-art shields and weapons.

 

[CoveTom]

Yes, but their families don't physically go on missions with them, they don't ride in tanks and planes with them.

It's one thing to go and live in a house near a military base, but it's another to go and face an enemy who's shooting at you.

Honestly, who made the decision for children? I'm a little perplexed by the ethics of this. Of course, parents make decisions, but in this case, they're deciding about the fate of other human beings.

What would you think of a mercenary who, say, takes his 8-year-old son into the jungle to fight rebels because otherwise he'd "feel alone"?

In this case, the combat vehicle *is* the military base. They are one and the same. So you are left with either putting families at risk because a starship could go into combat or separating families for many years at a time while ships are off on long-term missions.

As for who made the decision for the children, presumably the parents, who are entrusted with making most all decisions for their children. No one is forced to enlist in Starfleet and, as we have seen, anyone can resign from Starfleet at any time. Even an android. So it is the families themselves, and no one else, who are making these decisions.

 

[Christopher]

In this case, the combat vehicle *is* the military base. They are one and the same.

Again, the whole point of saucer separation was that they weren't supposed to be. The "base" was just being carried around on top of the combat vehicle and would be left behind when combat was needed. The later producers just ignored that intention.

Although a Galaxy-class saucer is less of a military base and more of a university village, since the Galaxy class was meant to be a research vessel that only engaged in combat when all else failed, making military analogies inappropriate.

 

[Oddish]

Although a Galaxy-class saucer is less of a military base and more of a university village, since the Galaxy class was meant to be a research vessel that only engaged in combat when all else failed, making military analogies inappropriate.

That seems about right. Despite the show's intro, the Enterprise D seemed to do more diplomatic, scientific, and courier work than exploration. And it had saucer separation. So having children on it was questionable, nothing more. Putting a kid on a deep space exploration ship like Voyager would have been less defensible.

 

[CoveTom]

Again, the whole point of saucer separation was that they weren't supposed to be. The "base" was just being carried around on top of the combat vehicle and would be left behind when combat was needed. The later producers just ignored that intention.

Although a Galaxy-class saucer is less of a military base and more of a university village, since the Galaxy class was meant to be a research vessel that only engaged in combat when all else failed, making military analogies inappropriate.

I don't entirely agree, because we have to go by what actually appeared on the screen, not by what someone's intention was early on that got changed. In the entirety of the Enterprise-D's lifespan that we saw on screen, saucer separation was performed only four times. And in one of those four times, it was actually done so that the saucer could be used as a diversion in combat! It seems clear, then, that either Starfleet or Captain Picard (or both) do not consider it a routine practice to separate, even when there is a good possibility of a combat situation developing. It's also interesting to note that of the four times they did separate, only one of them was actually ordered by Picard. One was ordered by LaForge and two by Riker.

In addition, even if the practice was to separate before going into combat, the truth is that we often see situations where combat is unexpected or unpredictable. You're not always going to have the opportunity to separate the ship. So even if that were standard practice, you are still going to be taking families into combat situations from time to time.

 

[Christopher]

I don't entirely agree, because we have to go by what actually appeared on the screen, not by what someone's intention was early on that got changed.

"Have to?" No. It's a creative work. We're allowed to analyze it on any level we want. Fiction is not an authoritarian dogma. It's supposed to stimulate our thought and imagination, not restrict them. I see no reason to limit oneself to considering a work of fiction from only one perspective.

If the subject of the conversation is the validity of taking families aboard starships, then I think it's negligent not to consider the intentions of TNG's creators when they introduced the idea. If they had intended the entire crew to go into dangerous situations as a matter of routine, then they might not have decided to put families on board. The reason they did make that choice is because they expected that the families would not be taken into combat along with the rest of the crew. You can't understand or fairly judge their creative choice if you don't recognize that they were approaching it from that perspective.

The decision made by later creators to abandon saucer separation, as I said, was forced largely by the practical difficulty of working with the miniature. If that had not been an issue, they might have chosen to continue the practice. Again, it is impossible to fairly assess their choice without considering all the factors that went into it. It's unfair to argue that bringing families on starships was an illogical choice if you willfully refuse to acknowledge the real-world considerations that led to a fundamental mismatch between the creators' original intentions and the final practice of the show. Yes, it's a flaw, but it's a flaw that exists for well-documented reasons.

In the entirety of the Enterprise-D's lifespan that we saw on screen, saucer separation was performed only four times. And in one of those four times, it was actually done so that the saucer could be used as a diversion in combat! It seems clear, then, that either Starfleet or Captain Picard (or both) do not consider it a routine practice to separate, even when there is a good possibility of a combat situation developing.

Picard is a fictional character. The only reason he didn't use saucer separation more is that the writers chose not to let him. And that's because the original writers who came up with saucer separation were replaced, and because it proved too impractical to shoot saucer-sep scenes on a regular basis. It's not something that arose organically from in-story logic, it's something that was artificially forced on the show and characters by real-world factors.

In addition, even if the practice was to separate before going into combat, the truth is that we often see situations where combat is unexpected or unpredictable. You're not always going to have the opportunity to separate the ship. So even if that were standard practice, you are still going to be taking families into combat situations from time to time.

Yes, and you could get killed in traffic driving to work in the morning, or you could get caught in a wildfire or earthquake or toxic gas leak in your own house. No situation is completely free of danger. I've heard this objection raised a thousand times over the past 38 years, and I've always found it disingenuous.

Especially since it's a TV show. Dangerous situations happen because that's what adventure shows are about. Set a Trek series on a planet surface, and that planet will get attacked just as regularly as a starship would.