Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

[T'Girl]

In a way, you get the feeling that the writers are talking to us, the viewers, through these characters.

Talking yes, but there was also a certain tone of being lectured too.

That you feel they would need to be re-educated shows it wouldn't be respected at all ...

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.

Everything Picard had to say to Offenhouse was dead on.

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

Yeah, he could have said it nicer, but Offenhouse obviously didn't put much stake in niceness anyway.

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.

I certainly wouldn't coddle them.

To a large degree, I would.

The question was never about how they would be treated, but how their worldview would be respected.

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.

... and indeed many things about 17th century beliefs would not be compatible in our times.

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.

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?

Ralph didn't have a vagina.

:

 

[Third Nacelle]

Moving three people from the 1990's to 2364, would be more like moving some people from around 1910 to today.

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.

It's the height of arrogance to think everyone should be just like 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?

 

[sonak]

Moving three people from the 1990's to 2364, would be more like moving some people from around 1910 to today.

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.

It's the height of arrogance to think everyone should be just like 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?

trying to make some money is like slavery , wife-beating, and forced child labor?

 

[stj]

^^^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?

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.

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.

 

[T'Girl]

And anyone who doesn't think that genetic engineering or "expert systems"/AI won't be equally profound is grievously wrong.

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.

The notion that human nature or society will be fundamentally the same is reactionary, even bigoted, nonsense, that defies the lessons in living memory.

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.

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

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).

You'd be polite about that? Or would you have a frank discussion about how things have changed?

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.

 

[CoveTom]

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?

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.

 

[TheGoodNews]

Go to 21:45 on the video below.

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.

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.

 

[T'Girl]

I've yet to see her apologize or recant that statement.

Nor will you.

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

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.

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.

 

[Ain Jalut]

STJ:
^^^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?

How is it any dfferent than trying to improve your status which something lots of people in the Federation do.

 

[Belz...]

Do you always go by what T'Girl says?

Why are you making this personal ?

In answer to your question, the Spanish Revolution lasted from 1936-1939.

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

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

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.

 

[sonak]

STJ:
^^^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?

How is it any dfferent than trying to improve your status which something lots of people in the Federation do.

exactly-when you come right down to it, money is simply a means to get something else. It's no more "wrong" or comparable to things like slavery than trying to earn a promotion in Starfleet would be.

Imagine if Lily had mocked Picard in FC with "ah, so no money, but I see you still have hierarchy and rank. Why not just work to better yourself and serve the greater good, and not worry about whether you're the captain or an ensign?"

 

[Bad Thoughts]

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.

What does stability have to do with it? There are many reasons why a society might move to a money-based economy, not the least of which are the possibility of long-term investment and taxation. For thousands of years in ancient Egypt, transactions were conducted in terms of grain, a commodity that had an intrinsic value. And for most of the history of European and the Mediterranean, up until 1500, most transactions were conducted without money. States did not mint coins in sufficient number and in sufficiently small denominations to make it otherwise. Certainly, it's difficult in the modern world to move away from money as a basis of transactions: such efforts tend to be experimental and short-lived.

What use for money would a charity have in a money-less society? Why does moneyless equate with charity? Again, look at the long history of humanity: Many wealthy societies survived without it.

 

[T'Girl]

What does stability have to do with it?

If you're avocating being moneyless, as a alternative to our existing finacial system, then whether this new system was - is - would be stable is an important consideration.

And for most of the history of European and the Mediterranean, up until 1500, most transactions were conducted without money.

That not completely true, there was a combination of barter, and the use of cowry shells and precious/base metal coins. Charlemagne in the eighth century standardize coinage in a large section of Europe (also weights and measures used in barter). Some transactions were conducted without money

Certainly, it's difficult in the modern world to move away from money as a basis of transactions: such efforts tend to be experimental and short-lived.

As imperfect as some may find money to be, it has the attribute that it does work.

Why does moneyless equate with charity?

It doesn't automatically, however a poster here was giving examples of supposed moneyless societies that were in actuality charities.

Again, look at the long history of humanity: Many wealthy societies survived without it.

But as you yourself noted, those societies did have some form of formalize units of exchange. A predetermined measure of grain/oats with a recognized value within the society, is a unit of exchange. Not exactly a gold coin, but yes a form of money.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

What does stability have to do with it?

If you're avocating being moneyless,

No, I am not.

And for most of the history of European and the Mediterranean, up until 1500, most transactions were conducted without money.

That not completely true, there was a combination of barter, and the use of cowry shells and precious/base metal coins. Charlemagne in the eighth century standardize coinage in a large section of Europe (also weights and measures used in barter).

My point was not that moneyless societies continued to exist, but that most transactions were still conducted without money. They supply of money was not sufficient to make that otherwise. The fact that many states introduced currency systems does not change that fact. 1500 (or rather the 16th century) is a watershed in this respect because the extraction of precious metals from the New World allowed European power to mint higher quantities of coin (eventually representing symbolically in paper) that would allow for greater economic flexibility. Even so, there are many reports, well into the 19th century, the peasants throughout Europe bartered, paid in kind with labor, or used dated coins, some as old as the Roman Empire, to conduct their business.

Again, look at the long history of humanity: Many wealthy societies survived without it.

But as you yourself noted, those societies did have some form of formalize units of exchange. A predetermined measure of grain/oats with a recognized value within the society, is a unit of exchange. Not exactly a gold coin, but yes a form of money.

If the standards are being made in terms of something that has a direct value, then it is not money. It might suggest money at some point, some means of innovating transactions, but it is still based on something that has an value of its own. Saying otherwise is putting the cart before the horse, historically speaking..

 

[Belz...]

There are many reasons why a society might move to a money-based economy

The most obvious is "being functional."

 

[T'Girl]

What does stability have to do with it?

If you're avocating being moneyless,

No, I am not.

My intent was to employ a hypothedical "you" (you're) in the third person, and not a direct referrence to you personally Bad thoughts., I apologize for using the pronoun incorrectly.

I should have used "someone."

(If someone were avocating being moneyless ...) or possible (If a moneyless system was being avocated ...)

 

[Belz...]

You also said "if". Seemed quite clear to me.

 

[JJohnson]

No money.

Mankind having evolved past greed and now working only to better themselves.

No conflict on TNG among the crew because of all this enlightened evolving.

Wesley.

The no money part - if there's no money, there's no economy and no trade. You need an accepted medium of exchange or else you have to have a barter system.

TNG's crew had no real interpersonal conflict unless an outsider came in (Shelby) who was treated relatively poorly by the crew (Riker), who should've been professional enough to understand that she's there for a reason and to do a job.

Lack of visible enlisted crew with actual rank pips/stripes. Not everyone's an officer. Why spend 4 years at the academy to be a yeoman in TNG's timeframe? Someone has to fill clerical duties for the admirals at Starbases, and an ensign sure wouldn't do it.

Jumpsuits. Those never looked comfortable nor like uniforms, unlike the Wrath of Khan uniforms.

Wrath of Khan uniform derivatives - the crewneck and no-shirt variants. Better to use transitional uniforms, like Excelsior and Ambassador were transitional ships to the Enterprise D. I've seen a few here and at the Uniform site.

Dress uniforms - they were actual dresses. Later uniforms with just gold piping were better, but I'm sure there's a happy medium to be had.

Admiral uniforms - they changed every time an admiral appeared with no explanation.

DS9/VOY jumpsuits - why?

No political exploration - just for an episode or a scene, discuss the political structure of the Federation. At best, it's a republic, with elected representatives sent to a Federation Council of some sort, leaving the individual planets to manage their own internal affairs without interference from other species. What's the President's term, and how is he elected/selected? Is it Federation-wide, or is he elected from the Federation Council, similar to how a Prime Minister works in some governments?

No advancement - I get it with contracts and all, but why would Riker stall his career for over 12 years to stay on the Enterprise, when he could've been an admiral by then? Similarly Picard, Crusher, La Forge, etc. The original crew had rank advancement much more quickly than the TNG crew.

Carpet/Upholstery civilian garb - I've seriously seen some of those civilian outfits on couches in the late 80s/early 90s.

Overuse of Miranda/Excelsior/Oberth ships - are there not any other classes of vessel in Starfleet? We should've seen New Orleans, Centaur, Constitution, et al, all over the place. A perfect opportunity for TNG-R to spruce things up, which they likely won't take.

No exploration of Pike or April's time on the Enterprise - aside from the Cage/Menagerie, and the animated episode with April, we don't hear anything about Captain Robert April's time on the Enterprise, and he remains really nothing more than conjecture.

No exploration of 1701B or 1701C - Perhaps after Generations or even during, we could get at least some notice that Harriman either retired or transferred, and what happened to Demora Sulu, at least in passing. And when did 1701-C launch? Little things yes, but they make a difference.

Archons in Enterprise - It would've been nice to see a real live Daedalus class vessel, perhaps even mention the USS Archon getting lost, or one of the other Daedalus class getting lost somewhere.

Orions in Next Generation, DS9, Voyager - nowhere to be found. All we saw was Rachel Nichols in ST09 as an example of a 'normal' Orion in Starfleet.

There's more if I could think of it, but that should do for now.

 

[JJohnson]

No money seems fine to me. My only beef with that whole aspect is actually the failure to explore in any meaningful way the ramifications of a post-scarcity economy. We just get these rather smug hew-mons endlessly gassing on about how enlightened they are. Show, don't tell, I say.

Data shouldn't use contractions (OK I'm not sure that was Roddenberry himself).

'Klingon' is a really silly name.

The Traveler and Wesley's destiny with him.

I wonder what would've happened if they stayed with "Leslie" Crusher.