History of Star Trek having no "money"

[Tenacity]

Vulcan being 'conquered' by humans

No one ever said it was Humans.

Sarek's "race" was conquered, Vulcan never has been conquered. Those two facts can easily both be true. T'Pol is white, Tuvok is black, Vulcan possesses different races.

(and yes, some people don't like using the term race)

The prevailing wisdom has always been that later information overwrites earlier information

YMMV, in Trek when possible I side with the established precedent first.

Do we really need to bring up "Turnabout Intruder"?

It is Trek canon, and firmly exists.

Vash did it for the same reason people do MMA or alligator wrangling or space diving = the thrills.

More likely she did it to obtain wealth untold.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

SPOCK: My father's race was spared the dubious benefits of alcohol.
MCCOY: Now I know why they were conquered.

And that's it.

Doesn't have to refer to some outside power taking over Vulcan. Maybe he regards Surak as "conquering" them, with the logical mindset he introduced. That is, by teaching them to rigorously discipline their passions, he effectively neutralized them. McCoy thinks if alcohol was a Vulcan thing, maybe they wouldn't have succumbed to Surak's philosophies.

 

[WebLurker]

Doesn't have to refer to some outside power taking over Vulcan. Maybe he regards Surak as "conquering" them, with the logical mindset he introduced. That is, by teaching them to rigorously discipline their passions, he effectively neutralized them. McCoy thinks if alcohol was a Vulcan thing, maybe they wouldn't have succumbed to Surak's philosophies.

Could be, although I do think the simpler explanation is that McCoy is just spouting off.

A few of the other episodes have established that Vulcan does produce alcoholic drinks well into modern times, so obviously some Vulcans drink.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Maybe Vulcans drink a version of synthehol.

 

[WebLurker]

Maybe Vulcans drink a version of synthehol.

Maybe, although didn't the Ferengi supposedly invent that?

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Maybe, although didn't the Ferengi supposedly invent that?

Or they have an antidote to drunkenness they take with it...or it isn't anywhere near as potent...

 

[WebLurker]

Or they have an antidote to drunkenness they take with it...or it isn't anywhere near as potent...

Maybe. To me, the fact that the Enterprise-D had non-intoxicating alcohol since the beginning of the series disproves the Ferengi model.

 

[Lance]

No one ever said it was Humans.

Sarek's "race" was conquered, Vulcan never has been conquered. Those two facts can easily both be true. T'Pol is white, Tuvok is black, Vulcan possesses different races.

(and yes, some people don't like using the term race)

That's a very interesting interpretation, and one that I hadn't considered.

YMMV, in Trek when possible I side with the established precedent first..

Me too, I've personally never understood the mentality of later = more legitimate. But my point is that's the logic that has become 'accepted wisdom' within the fandom. Which is weird, because then the same fans will be the first to turn about and complain about ENT not respecting established canon or whatever, seems like hypocrisy to me.

 

[Tallguy]

I thought synthehol was introduced with ten forward, second season.

I never understood the conversation in Conscience in any context.

I can see dismissing a one off remark like that, or even "Vulcan has no moon." Women can't be captains was ridiculous and only ever stated once (by an insane character).

But money and wealth came up as a topic often and was never questioned.

 

[Tenacity]

I can see dismissing a one off remark like that, or even "Vulcan has no moon.

Vulcan has no moon, however Vulcan is a moon (my take).

" Women can't be captains was ridiculous and only ever stated once (by an insane character).

Only stated once, then you go and look for evidence to either confirm the statement or refute it.

During TOS television series we see and hear of ship captains. In Starfleet, in the civilian world, or in enemy militaries. All Starfleet captains are either male or their gender is unidentified.

In TAS, Uhura is briefly in command of the ship when all the males are incapacitated, but that doesn't make her captain.

Of the TOS Enterprise officers, three are observed to later become starship captains, none are female.

We finally do see a female Starfleet captain in the 1986 TOS era movie, and she is the only clearly TOS era female starship captain until the TNG era.

We see female Starfleet senior officers at the high level briefing in TUC, but you can become an admiral without ever being captain of a ship.

There was a known female starship captain a century before Lester's statement. But Lester's statement does seemingly referred to the "here and now."

 

[Arpy]

Vulcan has no moon but is perhaps part of a binary planet unit with a close companion orbit --- perhaps what made Romulus and Remus such a good sign for the early travelers.

In the show as presented Spock was likely talking about his father's Vulcan race. McCoy was probably needlingly referring to Vulcan's incorporation into the "Terran" Federation.

"Turnabout Intruder" is canon, yes. Obviously it exists. But I expect DISCOVERY to put the sexist issue therein to rest quickly.

More likely she did it to obtain wealth untold.

That's the thrills part.

Maybe the Ferengi invented synthehol (not an uncommon beverage across species -- maybe they created the popular ones) and it found itself on the E-D through intraquadrantal-trade long before they met there Ferengi.

 

[Tenacity]

Maybe the Ferengi invented synthehol (not an uncommon beverage across species -- maybe they created the popular ones)

Maybe, alcohol could effect various species in different ways, a spectrum from nothing through deadly, Ferengi could have created a beverage that is consumable by the majority of species with fairly uniformed intoxication.

Just good business.

"Turnabout Intruder" is canon, yes. Obviously it exists. But I expect DISCOVERY to put the sexist issue therein to rest quickly.

I suspect your expectation will be correct, In a way it will be somewhat disappointing. Star Trek should depict future that's different than our own present, including societal differences. I would rather Discovery explained the "no women captains" facts, instead of simply dismissing them.

It wasn't just TOS and the 1960's, Starfleet as clearly mostly patriarchal in the 24th century as well. There also signs that it might have been patriarchal in the 22nd too, although we didn't see enough to be sure.

It's not just a one off comment by Janice Lester.

 

[Tracy Trek]

Vulcan has no moon but is perhaps part of a binary planet unit with a close companion orbit --- perhaps what made Romulus and Remus such a good sign for the early travelers.

That was my head canon as well. Vulcan and T'Khut (or is it T'Kuht) are sister planets like Earth and the moon. Only bigger and/or closer than the Earth/Moon system.

 

[Tenacity]

My head canon is that there's a large gas giant in the Vulcan star system which has many moons, this is what we see in Vulcan's sky during TMP.

Vulcan is one of the moons.

 

[WebLurker]

Only stated once, then you go and look for evidence to either confirm the statement or refute it.

During TOS television series we see and hear of ship captains. In Starfleet, in the civilian world, or in enemy militaries. All Starfleet captains are either male or their gender is unidentified.

In TAS, Uhura is briefly in command of the ship when all the males are incapacitated, but that doesn't make her captain.

Of the TOS Enterprise officers, three are observed to later become starship captains, none are female.

We finally do see a female Starfleet captain in the 1986 TOS era movie, and she is the only clearly TOS era female starship captain until the TNG era.

We see female Starfleet senior officers at the high level briefing in TUC, but you can become an admiral without ever being captain of a ship.

There was a known female starship captain a century before Lester's statement. But Lester's statement does seemingly referred to the "here and now."

It's a big fleet and Lester is the only one to claim that only men can be captains, so I don't think the proof is conclusive.

 

[Ithekro]

Didn't Star Trek Continues attempt to justify that claim via it being another member species objection to women in positions of importance, and Starship captains was were Starfleet gave in to keep their membership intact (Tellarites I believe it was). That humanity was beyond such things, but not every species in the Federation accepted the idea of female captains.

 

[Tenacity]

but not every species in the Federation accepted the idea of female captains

If the Federation does engage in group decisions, then this could be one explanation.

Humans were simply out voted on the matter.

 

[Arpy]

If in other species females (and in yet others males) don't have the intellectual capacity for it (truly, not bs pseudoscience to bolster societal sexism) then only in those species can they bar females (or males) from command. But they should have no right to expect the same in other species in which this is not the case. If they don't like it, they can apply for membership into the Klingon Empire or wherever.

The reason sexism was an issue in TOS and to lesser degrees other series is because of real world idiocy undermining in-universe thought. We should not let the tail wag the dog. There's little to be gained by rebranding TOS as a backward dystopia without, and maybe against, equal rights for women. It would in fact be a gross betrayal of the heart of TOS and later Treks to play up the sexism. The whole point of Number One as second in command, or Uhura on the bridge, or any number of other officers in TOS, or of Admirals Nechayev or Shanthi or Brand and the rest, of Captains Janeway or Tryla Scott is to show full sexual equality by Trek's future.

Tracy Trek, this page shows what I think you're saying, but I think they could even just be planets with a really close flyby once or twice a year. Come to think of it, what might be better (given Spock's line about Vulcan having no moon was in response to Uhura asking him about looking up at the sky on a [romantic] summer evening) would be if the two planets only sync up ever number of years than even, say, once a winter. The syncing up wouldn't be romantic so much as like a kind of eclipse -- notable and spectacular, but unlike the picture Uhura was trying to paint. ...but not every seven years, or sex would very much be something Vulcans would think about, looking at the celestial dance between massive nearby bodies.

 

[Tenacity]

If in other species females (and in yet others males) don't have the intellectual capacity for it

Or it not a aspect of their societies present culture. Unless you want all civilization to immediately copy Earth?

And there's no telling what Earth's culture is going to be like in the mid-23rd century. If future United Earth is a composite of all existing Human cultures, instead of just western ones, then it's not going to be solely a western society in disposition.

The US Navy only got it's first female warship commander some eighteen years ago, and most countries navies today don't have female ship captains.

If they don't like it, they can apply for membership into the Klingon Empire or wherever.

And if the majority of the Federation has a certain position, then what?

Have a small number of "we know better then the little people" elites make decisions for the majority perhaps?

The reason sexism was an issue in TOS and to lesser degrees other series is because of real world idiocy undermining in-universe thought.

Star Trek is modern people (modern to when a series first aired) living in the future. Even the aliens are usual metaphoric examples of modern people.

"In-universe" is what's on screen.

 

[Spot261]

I agree the federation is far from the utopia it is often claimed to be, either in the 23rd century or the 24th. It is aspirational only in that it aspires, not that it is uniformly something to aspire to.

In universe the gender difference doubtless plays out differently between species, as in fact we have seen in a number of episodes. Humanity may have moved on from many of our current forms of discrimination (it clearly finds new ones), but that need not apply to aliens within the universe, or within the federation for that matter.

At no point are we shown the federation claiming that membership requires member races to share all of humanity's values, they are more pragmatic than this.

Throughout this thread I've noted the dividing line between in universe and real life blur on occasions, not in terms of what is real, but in terms of what is canon. As tenacity points out, the canon is what is shown on screen, period.

Whether the federation has money or not does not balance on Roddenberry wanting them not to, it lies in whether they are shown on screen having it. Insights into the backstage maneouverings and issues are interesting, but informative only in terms of how what we see on screen came to be there. The end result is still a product with an extensive internal universe which may or may not have contradictions. When we make an in universe assessment of that universe, we use that product as presented, not what we have been told or inferred about the real world processes that led to it. As noted numerous times on these forums "writers intent" means nothing, the evidence on screen is what matters.

Where there are discrepancies, "money does not exist in the 24th century" for example, we have two choices, we either pick what to believe, or we find ways to work round those discrepencies. There may be those that consider that to be over thinking things, but the show is a cerebral exercise from the word go and whilst I'd dispute the term "sci fi" its certainly a show which invites people to think about what is on screen.

A few posts back I posted what I feel is a reasonable way of rationalising Picards statement given the urgency of the context and the relative ignorance of Lilly Sloane. Clearly money does exist in the 24th century, the question is whether we ignore Picards statement altogether or try to make sense of it. I prefer the latter and am willing to disregard overly comfortable assumptions in doing so.