A brief perusal of memory alpha didn't answer this, I'm wondering if anyone knows the answer to my previous question?
Thanks
Thanks
Australia
- Thread starter Paul Weaver
- Start date
Actually, in the dialogue of "Attached", Australia was but one example of a country that did not join until 2150. For all we know, the "World Government" in 2149 included only three countries, and those were the weird ones - Australia was simply a typical nation-state that had no good incentive to give up its incentive before that point.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Because we're slack. Couldn't be buggered with the paperwork.
The thing is, there is no indication that Australia was any different from any other country. For all we know, everybody joined in 2150, and Australia was chosen as a "what if" example either completely at random, or then because it was the most absurd possible example of a nation reluctant to join.
What does this tell about political changes in Australia before the joining, BTW? Would the nation today be free to make decisions of that sort, or would it have to beg the Queen for permission?
Timo Saloniemi
What does this tell about political changes in Australia before the joining, BTW? Would the nation today be free to make decisions of that sort, or would it have to beg the Queen for permission?
Timo Saloniemi
Dude it's 2150. The Queen is dead.
Okay fine, have it your way. She's immortal. Suits me, saves not having to replace her portrait at the office.
Well, that goes without saying. "The King is dead, long live the King" and all that.
...So, how does it go? Would the death of Elizabeth II change something vis-á-vis Australia's ability to make decisions of this sort? Would a new face beneath the crown make it likelier for Australia to cease to be ruled by the Queen/King of Australia, incidentally aka Queen/King of United Kingdom? Or is Australia going to go republic only after the UK does?
Timo Saloniemi
...So, how does it go? Would the death of Elizabeth II change something vis-á-vis Australia's ability to make decisions of this sort? Would a new face beneath the crown make it likelier for Australia to cease to be ruled by the Queen/King of Australia, incidentally aka Queen/King of United Kingdom? Or is Australia going to go republic only after the UK does?
Timo Saloniemi
Lex Luthor already made it clear he had dibs on Australia due to his affinity for beachfront property so we will be taking it up with him, assuming he is also immortal and wins in a fight to the death with the Queen. Which I think likely.
Last edited:
She's not dead. She's a Futurama head-in-a-jar!
It's wishful thinking, everyone wants to think there was a holdout to the one world government.
And given that it's a hypothetical, that tends to suggest that Australia DID join the world government.
After all, you don't generally present something as a hypothetical unless it didn't actually happen. If someone said, "Hypothetically, if man had landed on the moon in the late sixties..." You'd get the impression that he thinks it was a hoax.
Crusher was obviously posing a hypothetical, but if you change the emphasis, you might get this:
Crusher: "Well, think about Earth. What if one of the old nation states (say Australia) had decided not to join the World Government in twenty one fifty? Would that have disqualified us as a Federation member?"
So her question might have "What if only one, instead of several of the old nation states ...," or "instead of half of the old nation states ...," would that have disqualified Earth?
If instead of a sizable portion of Earth's political landscape including Australia not joining, it had been a (relatively) small minority of dissenting Humans from just Australia, would that have changed things?
Actually, it likely wouldn't have disqualified Earth, given that Earth wasn't so much joining the Federation, as creating it (with others). Not being a one world state wouldn't have made a difference in that time period. If the Federation changed the entry rules later, members who entered previously might have been except from the additional requirement, their current politically diverse status being "grandfathered" in.
Having to be a mono-state might have been something resent to the episode in which it was mentioned. A new qualification.
"Hypothetically, if only one man had landed on the moon in the late sixties..." You'd get the impression that he meant less than the four who actually did (eight more landed in the early seventies).
Nothing wrong with thinking.
Last edited:
Twisted minds think alike. But why would Crusher pick 2150 for her example if she believed that at that date, a whole bunch of nations failed to join UE? That would mean that Earth would be disqualified in any case, and decreasing the number of dissidents to one would not create any contrast. She should in that case have picked, say, 2179 when (say) everybody did finally join and the UE reached a status that would make her eligible for UFP membership by TNG era standards.
It's just so highly unlikely that Crusher would deliberately pick an obscure (and possibly completely random) date that decreased the power of her example, when she should know the famous date of the UE reaching 100% membership by rote, and should use that date for the greatest symbolic power.
Timo Saloniemi
It's just so highly unlikely that Crusher would deliberately pick an obscure (and possibly completely random) date that decreased the power of her example, when she should know the famous date of the UE reaching 100% membership by rote, and should use that date for the greatest symbolic power.
Timo Saloniemi
"... twenty one fifty? Would that have disqualified us as a Federation member?"
The year 2150 might have more to do with the process of Earth (and the others) becoming the founding members of the Federation, than anything involving Earth's uber-state and who joined when.
The creation of the Federation was likely a protracted multi-year series of events and procedures. Exactly who would be in the first batch of species to be "the founder" might have been more than the final number that was arrived at. (and was it four or five?) Did all the various allies from the Romulan War (dozens?) wish to be in the first draft? With ultimately some of them having to wait until later to join. Or never getting in at all.
If you look at the Eurpean Union, not all the currrent members were allowed to join in the original smaller formation, there was a selection process. Not every country qualified .. or was "good enough."
Possibly the same with the Federation, more than (four?) species wanted initially to join.
Yeah, whatever is being presented as a hypothetical, obviously the person doesn't think that the hypothetical being presented is real.
So if Bev presents a hypothetical in which Australia didn't join the world government, then obviosuly she thinks that it DID.
And, by extension, that everybody did - that there was no "substitute nation X here" that would have even considered not joining in 2150.
Since Crusher is specifically talking about total world unity, we can safely assume now that Earth became totally united in 2150 sharp. The leeway we have is in thinking that a United Earth existed for some time before that date, and that it just didn't cover 100% of the nations yet.
Timo Saloniemi
Since Crusher is specifically talking about total world unity, we can safely assume now that Earth became totally united in 2150 sharp. The leeway we have is in thinking that a United Earth existed for some time before that date, and that it just didn't cover 100% of the nations yet.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
