Friendly for flaming.
Friendly for trolling.
Both of you need to cool it and steer this thread back on course.
Eras trek hasn't explored in detail
- Thread starter Voth commando1
- Start date
Both of you need to cool it and steer this thread back on course.
I'm
Sorry if I overdid my rant but I meant every word of it.
Anyway speaking far future trek how would a multi galactic trek set in the I dunno the 4th millennium feel to everybody?
^Well in the ST universe folks on earth who live in the West will care about pandas and other humans in Bangledesh, chances are they will find some of our attitues barbaric.
I'm sorry I overdid my rant but please take it seriously because I genuinely feel that way.
Anyway what about a 2160-2200 show late 22nd century?
Anyway what about a 2160-2200 show late 22nd century?
First world war was mostly in different parts of Europe, the third world war could be in similar limited sized areas and still be called a "world war."
Plus any war between two nations that involves nuclear weapons would be a "world war."
If it was so localized, then explain the lines about 600 million dead and "most of the major cities have been destroyed, very few governments left".
Well the movie was made when the population was like 5.5 billion or something, so maybe a proportionally bigger deal than it is now.
And Vulcans didn't just help rebuild I always interpreted it as them molding human society to be less violent, less destructive, less you know suicidal.
That can easily imply that only major cities with dense populations were targeted.
It is also projected (in reality) that cities would contain A LOT of people in the next few decades.
So, that might explain 600 million dead and 'most major cities destroyed' (but not ALL major cities).
Using your analogy, why bother with anything then?
There's a huge window of time before the sun engulfs the Earth... 4 billion years. We and the rest of the species currently living on Earth (yes there's more than just Humanity, and they matter just as much, if not more so) still need to LIVE on it.
I don't know about you, but why should one participate in the destruction of the environment and live in a contaminated world that won't support human life in mere decades, even though we have had the resources, the technology and the science to reverse it for decades?
Forgive me, but that strikes me as highly irresponsible. Don't you get it that this will also negatively affect you?
Have you thought about the possibility that your hate for 'environmentalists' might stem from your own lifestyle being confronted by scientific fascts that say its unsustainable and potential fear of change?
Btw, I never used religion or spiritual aspects to defend my arguments, I used science (which is not religious, nor is it based on 'belief, truth or faith').
Putting EVERYONE in the same category who share similar end aspects, or just because a group of people call themselves 1 thing and do certain things that do not agree with you seems presumptuous at best. I may be vegan, speak out for animals and propose solutions to protect biodiversity and help the planet flourish (which Humanity demonstrated it can do in a few short years), but I also take showers (among other things).
Not all environmentalists are 'spiritual', 'religious' nor do they smell bad.
Some of them are actual scientists, or base their views on verified science and know what they are talking about.
As for politics... I cannot stand politics personally, because politicians are NOT problem solvers.
When did ANY politician solve actual problems in terms of increasing food production capacity for example... or proposed far better housing structures using Buckminster Fuller's designs as a basis?
Ask almost any politician on how they plan to end hunger, poverty, disease, increase living standards for everyone... and almost NONE of them will be able to answer that.
This is because they are mainly trained in politics... their scientific and technical knowledge is next to non-existent, and their thinking is LIMITED to the confines of the current socio-economic system (Which they think needs to be patched up to 'work properly', when in reality, its working as intended - or in short, its NOT working and is already crumbling into oblivion mainly due to faster than exponential advances and automation).
Our society (on a global level) CANNOT be maintained by this level of incompetence.
But hey, don't take my word for it. I insist you do the research yourself (if you are interested).
Thinking that 1 person cannot change the world is a bit faulty... since change often starts with but 1 person that upon reaching approximately 10% of the population, starts being adopted everywhere exceptionally fast.
5.7 billion in 1996, but as I mentioned earlier, a lot of the people would be living in urbanized areas (cities) in the future... this was a trend that was indicated back then, just not widely known.
Actually, there is no evidence that the Vulcans helped Humanity rebuild.
If anything there is ample evidence pointing they were simply there keeping Humans away from entering the galactic stage 'too soon' (or before the Vulcans deemed them ready) and it was pointed out in Star Trek Enterprise that the Vulcans never really shared any of their technologies with Humanity.
They might have been there as 'consultants' but knowing Vulcans of that era, they'd probably limit themselves to 'yes' or 'no' answers that wouldn't point into anything specific, or they would just keep their mouth shut - so, helpful in a very limited capacity that did NOT actually help further Humanity's Warp technology.
Humanity eradicated war, poverty and disease in 50 years after First Contact (according to official canon).
Why would Vulcans interfere in this junction that was evidently crucial for Humanity to grow out of its infancy, especially since they would know that Humans had all the technology and resources to do it themselves?
Humanity's rebuilding and maturation took 50 years at most... but the Vulcans STILL didn't think they were ready as they continuously blocked the Warp 5 program, but finally relented (with protest) 40 years later.
Vulcans were certainly crafty in delaying humanity for decades - but that WAS before the real Surak teachings took effect.
Last edited:
I gave @Voth commando1 a friendly for posting that...which means the subject is closed for discussion here. If you want to discuss his views on environmentalism, send him a PM or start a thread in Miscellaneous or The Neutral Zone.
Don't forget that in the late 21st century there were still kangaroo courts and drug addicted soldiers according to Encounter at Farpoint.
How about the 27-28th centuries AD?
What about the year 2525?
Will man still be alive?
Can woman survive?
What will they find?
Will man still be alive?
Can woman survive?
What will they find?
That's the 26th century and I love that song!
All of the technology of which you speak would be wiped out in a global nuclear war.
Actually, yes, Earth did suffer nuclear winter after WWIII. It's been mentioned in dialogue a few times on TNG.
As for radiation poisoning? Remember Colonel Green. After the war, Green's forces made it a point to execute people suffering from radiation poisoning, so they wouldn't contaminate the gene pool.
Is it wrong the first thing my mind went to upon seeing 2525 was that old show Cleopatra 2525?
Tonight we've become the Bizarro World, so not really.
What do you mean?
Shouldn't get all political here...that's a hint.
If the deaths Riker referred to mostly took place in the limited areas on Earth where the war took place, then the cities and governments that Riker referred to could have also been mostly in those limited areas too.
No, because you can't wipe out a significant amount of the world's technology and still have nine billion people survive.
Problem with that is, the highway and rail lines run through the big citiese. So if the majority of the cities worldwide are destroyed, we would be unable to move food, fuel and other commodities that can't be produced in local areas.
Last edited: