My picks:
1. What is the purpose of an actual transporter room anymore?
The machinery probably needs to be concentrated somewhere anyway, with a live controller overseeing it and a live maintenance person standing by to troubleshoot. Once you concentrate all those functions, you might just as well let that center have a few actual transporter pads, too. And we must remember that there are a few precautions to be taken before people or objects are beamed aboard a starship. An actual transporter room nicely serves as a quarantine/clear-in area, or a gathering area for organizing away teams.
Site-to-site transport need not be old news by the time of TNG yet. I'm sure that the technique is already common in the civilian circles, but Starfleet might not yet be at the cutting edge of such comfort. In addition to distrust of new technology, tradition as such would be strong in the military. While the above reasons would keep transporter rooms viable, tradition would keep them favored, at least for a few decades. Yes, Picard could beam out from his own office or from the bridge as far as tech issues and operational concerns went, but he'd value the traditions and perhaps prefer to do it the way his underlings have to do it when they gather for an away mission.
2. Didn't virtually every episode of TOS involve a direct and total
violation of the prime directive?
Unlikely, since we never quite learned what the Prime Directive in TOS says. All we know from "Bread and Circuses" is that it includes the clause of hiding one's identity as an outer space intruder during certain types of mission.
3. Isn't there an organization like OSHA in the 24th century that would ban
the use of holodecks? I mean considering the number of times holodecks have hideously malfunctioned, been invaded by aliens, created sentient holograms, had the safeties disabled, and imperiled the lives of everyone inside, it seems like a very dangerous and not understood piece of technology And what person in his right mind would give children access to a technology like that?
One would say the same about bungee jumping. The logic is probably much the same, too - 24th century people are so bored out of their skulls that they desire the risk.
And 24th century people also seem to like putting their children to risk, too. It's an attitude shift from today, but by no means unheard of in Earth history, and by no means an unlikely development in a hyperegalitarian future.
4.Have you ever wondered how species like the Cardassians and Klingons would handle many of the problems the federation has? Like meeting Trelane or the
Melkotians. Other societies are viewed as much less open minded and
adaptable than humans and much quicker to fire than talk.
I guess that's just Starfleet's angle on it, as Starfleet tends to meet these other societies mainly when they are engaged in nastiness.
5. Why are civilazions like the Borg, the Dominion and the Federation
considered so powerful and dominant in the galaxy when there are still so
many species scattered throughout the Galaxy so much more powerful then any
of them(The Zytherians, the Prophets, Metrones, Orgonians,etc.)
It's probably because they choose to actually apply those powers on opposing the Federation, while the truly godlike beings tend to keep their distance.
6. Isn't the philosophy of humanism the Star Trek franchise is attempting to
popularize virtually the same philosophy as that which racists on earth
currently popularize.
Naah. It's just the good old "us vs. them" attitude. When we follow human heroes, it's humans vs. others. But when we follow a biologically diverse group of heroes, it's this group vs. others, without a bias for the "human way". DS9 is the best example of this, as odd Bajoran and Klingon customs are favorably portrayed (even though today they'd be derided or feared for their close resemblance of those of the enemies of the United States), and even the rather gross biological nature of the Trill is considered a positive thing. At times, the Ferengi jump from the "them" group to the "us" group, too.
7. Why are there still incurable diseases in the 24th century when for a
full century every doctor in Star Fleet has been regularly curing hitherto
unknown viruses and conditions within 24 hours after identifying them.
Oh, new diseases keep on emerging. And probably at a higher rate than ever before if 24th century medicine is so efficient at weeding out the older and weaker diseases.
8. Why are the Ferengi portrayed as warlike and unsrupulous on the one hand
and eager for trade and profit at the same time? Any society looking to
maxamize profit would not go to such lengths to make enemies with every new
species they come upon.
But they do make enemies of their trade victims sooner or later. They might have the good sense to exploit some of their victims gently and gradually, but to head for an instant kill with others they identify as unlikely to agree to being sucked dry through business deals.
9. Why is it that an insecure psychology student fresh out of the
academy(Ezeri Dax) is capable of surviving battles and shooting straighter
than trained Star Fleet security officers?
Well, that's Trill for ya. Hell, I'd probably agree to having a mind-controlling worm put into my body if it gave me all that!
10. What exactly are the moral tenets of the Federation? The genocide of the
Founders was unacceptable, the slaughter of millions of Federation and Jem
Hadar was. The using of Hugh was unacceptable, the Borg still assimilating
millions was. They refuse to harm a multitude of life foms on principle, yet
align themsleves with the Klingons for political benefit.
I'd suggest pragmatism tops all. The UFP society can hardly afford to cling to any particular form of idealism when even its own member species are such a diverse bunch. They have to accept Vulcan duels to death and Trill body takeovers, so they really can't be too uptight about abortion or school prayer, either. Whatever works on a particular day becomes the moral norm - but Kirk's or Picard's next report from outer space probably sends the lawyers, lawmakers and moralists back to the drawing board again.
It's that way in the real world, too. It's just that societies here on Earth tend to change relatively slowly nowadays, having found a sort of equilibrium - so their morals change slowly, too, resulting in us mistaking them for absolutes and constants when they are as relative as ever.
Timo Saloniemi
