History of Star Trek having no "money"

[Nyotarules]

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

Based on your logic then Starfleet TOS was 99% populated by Humans and all the commanding officers including Admirals were only humans since we never saw a non human in charge of anything. I put the no women captain statement in 'Turnabout' due to the limited imagination of the writer due to 1960's cultural constraints. Funny how they could imagine a black man in a leadership role but not a woman of any ethnicity lol
Somewhere between TOS and TMP' The Federation stopped being peopled by just humans and Starfleet was sued for racial and sexual bias, hence the sudden change. Either that or we dismiss the lack of diversity shown on TV and pretend The Federation and Starfleet was just as the movies depicted all along. How else to explain Captain Hernandez in the 22nd century?

 

[Arpy]

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

The Federation doesn’t accept just any aliens who fill out the application. If they don’t accept all their citizens regardless of race, sex, faith, orientation, geography, etc as equals (who are biologically so), then they do not meet the requirements for membership. The Federation doesn’t accept worlds that are not unified and they won’t even let pre-warp civilizations know they exist. Chekov quoted the Federation believing in “inalienable human rights.” It should be obvious that they’re looking for peoples who have progressed socially as well as technologically passed their primitive stages. Earth has nothing to do with it.

It would be interesting to see more species that aren't biologically equal. Ones in which males, say, are little more than horny zombies. Or in which individuals are made up of collections of separate living parts like a Portuguese man o' war, or mini-hives of telepathically or otherwise communicating beings, or wholy electronic lifeforms of varying levels of intelligence.

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

If everyone in the world wanted you to commit suicide, would you do it?

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.

The modern people of the 60’s are not what kept Star Trek alive lo these many decades. Television was created to sell soap while entertaining the masses. Roddenberry sprinkled in progressivism wherever he could and it inspired generations. Star Trek is whatever we make it. I think Fuller's TOS prequel (with a possible black female captain and gay female lead) may further argue my point. There's a thought: what do you think about the lack of homosexuality in Trek? Have they "cured" it in your head canon?

 

[Tenacity]

I put the no women captain statement in 'Turnabout' due to the limited imagination of the writer due to 1960's cultural constraints.

And by "limited imagination" you mean Gene Roddenberry?

 

[Spot261]

he Federation doesn’t accept just any aliens who fill out the application. If they don’t accept all their citizens regardless of race, sex, faith, orientation, geography, etc as equals (who are biologically so), then they do not meet the requirements for membership. The Federation doesn’t accept worlds that are not unified and they won’t even let pre-warp civilizations know they exist. Chekov quoted the Federation believing in “inalienable human rights.” It should be obvious that they’re looking for peoples who have progressed socially as well as technologically passed their primitive stages. Earth has nothing to do with it.

We actually know very little about the requirements for federation membership, but arranged marraige, sexual inequality and various forms of internal prejudice are all well documented within member societies. I'm not sure where you've drawn this idea from.

Certainly to make the statement: "they don’t accept all their citizens regardless of race, sex, faith, orientation, geography, etc as equals (who are biologically so), then they do not meet the requirements for membership" without qualification or reference represents an unwarranted assertion. On the contrary they are quite explicitly non judgemental about a societies norms.

 

[Nyotarules]

And by "limited imagination" you mean Gene Roddenberry?

If he wrote the episode then 'yes'

 

[The Wormhole]

And by "limited imagination" you mean Gene Roddenberry?

Yes

 

[Tenacity]

In universe the gender difference doubtless plays out differently between species

Most likely yes, it's highly improbable that the various federation members share the same cultural standards. Vulcan very obviously doesn't have the same values as Earth.

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.

The federation is just a interstellar organization, in all honesty the council probably has little power to micro-manage which gender obtains command of individual starships. That would be up to the species crewing a ship (in the case of the Enterprise, Human). That we only saw a single woman above the rank of lieutenant during TOS is likely the result of a Human policy, and not a federation one.

Based on your logic then Starfleet TOS was 99% populated by Humans and all the commanding officers including Admirals were only humans since we never saw a non human in charge of anything.

Ahh, but we did hear of starships crew entirely by Vulcans (Immunity Syndrome) and of Tellarite starships too (Journey to Babel). Who commanded those ships (in fact the selection of the whole crew) was probably based upon those species cultures, traditions, and military practices.

Somewhere between TOS and TMP' The Federation stopped being peopled by just humans and ...

In one of the more resent novels (forget the title) while Will Decker was still in command of the Enterprise he decides to made a change in the selection of the Enterprise's new crew (she was still in drydock) and deliberately go with a highly diverse crew. This was the crew we saw in the rec room briefing scene in TMP, and the crew Kirk "inherits." In other words, it was a atypical one off.

How else to explain Captain Hernandez in the 22nd century?

That it was century before TOS and a different time, Culture (even today's) isn't craved in stone.

Either that or we dismiss the lack of diversity shown on TV and pretend The Federation and Starfleet was just as the movies depicted all along

After TMP Starfleet vessels return to once more being mostly Humans with one or two aliens. What diversity?

The 23rd century Federation is diverse, Journey to Babel shows this, but the ships look to be non-diverse.

The Federation doesn’t accept just any aliens who fill out the application.

I doubt they would.

If they don’t accept all their citizens regardless of race, sex, faith, orientation, geography, etc as equals (who are biologically so), then they do not meet the requirements for membership

T'Pau:
T'Pring, thee has chosen the kal-if-fee, the challenge.
Thee are prepared to become the property of the victor?
T'Pring:
I am prepared.

Remember, right from the first creation of the federation Earth was out numbered four to one by the other founding members. How could Earth have sole say as to how the federation would be organized, and what future requirements for membership would be?

Chekov quoted the Federation believing in “inalienable human rights.”
Earth has nothing to do with it.

How do you feel these two statements don't oppose each other?

It should be obvious that they’re looking for peoples who have progressed socially as well as technologically passed their primitive stages.

Ardana doesn't meet the modern description of "progressive," Vulcan itself likely doesn't either. Yet they are a federation members, and Vulcan a founder.

If everyone in the world wanted you to commit suicide, would you do it?

Oh, we're going to move this into the realm of the personal? Maybe you'd like to rephrase the question.

Roddenberry sprinkled in progressivism wherever he could

And don't forget big chunks of sexuality. Maybe that was Roddenberry's "progressivism."

It was Roddenberry who eliminate the role of a female first officer when his mistress couldn't have the part. The network liked the idea of number one, all he had to do was recast the actress.

There's a thought: what do you think about the lack of homosexuality in Trek?

This is one of the prime reasons that the federation and Eath can't be thought of as a "utopian." The absence of gays shows that there something profoundly wrong with the Trek future.

 

[Tallguy]

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.

Kind of the original point of this thread is that I don't think Roddenberry ever wanted the abolition of money until well into TNG.

 

[Spot261]

Exactly

 

[Tenacity]

It would be interesting to know when Roddenberry first started talking about the absence of money. If it was during his college speeches during the '70's, there might be some record of it, a transcript. Or maybe during one of the many interviews he did.

It might first have been after TNG went on the air.

IIRC, the TNG director and writers guide mentioned that one of Starfleet's duties was protectiong Federation commerce, but I don't think Roddenberry was the primary author of that guide. More likely Gerrold and Fontana.

 

[Tallguy]

It would be interesting to know when Roddenberry first started talking about the absence of money. If it was during his college speeches during the '70's, there might be some record of it, a transcript. Or maybe during one of the many interviews he did.

That is exactly the question I'm asking.

 

[Arpy]

With work I didn’t think I’d have time to reply this week, but here we go:

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.

The federation is just a interstellar organization, in all honesty the council probably has little power to micro-manage which gender obtains command of individual starships. That would be up to the species crewing a ship (in the case of the Enterprise, Human). That we only saw a single woman above the rank of lieutenant during TOS is likely the result of a Human policy, and not a federation one.

This is an absurd statement. The central government would not allow billions of citizens to be oppressed because it’d be “micromanaging.” If severing trading ties makes Brexit alone take two years, they're definitely going to address more fundamental concerns like individual rights before unification. And as our courts do every day, Federation courts will also deal with the safeguarding of those rights constantly.

Somewhere between TOS and TMP' The Federation stopped being peopled by just humans and …

In one of the more resent novels (forget the title) while Will Decker was still in command of the Enterprise he decides to made a change in the selection of the Enterprise's new crew (she was still in drydock) and deliberately go with a highly diverse crew. This was the crew we saw in the rec room briefing scene in TMP, and the crew Kirk "inherits." In other words, it was a atypical one off.

Tail wagging the dog. Everyone knows why there is a more diverse crew in later Trek than earlier: budget. Retconning in this manner undermines the intent of earlier installments: diversity.

The Federation doesn’t accept just any aliens who fill out the application…If they don’t accept all their citizens regardless of race, sex, faith, orientation, geography, etc as equals (who are biologically so), then they do not meet the requirements for membership

T'Pau:
T'Pring, thee has chosen the kal-if-fee, the challenge.
Thee are prepared to become the property of the victor?
T'Pring:
I am prepared.

This is interesting. Vulcans don’t mate like humans. They can literally die if they don’t mate every seven years. Their emotions are more volatile than ours. Some animals die after mating and others eat their mates. Ain’t biology grand? For Vulcans maybe they need to mate in this manner, or maybe the language is a carryover from an ancient time but is irrelevant today: if a wife does not "obey" her husband, does that annul the marriage?

Chekov quoted the Federation believing in “inalienable human rights.”
Earth has nothing to do with it.

How do you feel these two statements don't oppose each other?

Because Chekov's quote refers to “inviolable sentient rights” using the semantical language of its day. Are you also going to count alien rights as 3/5ths a human’s, like whites did of blacks in the past? Do we really need to replay history all over again because some people choose to be obtuse or nasty?

Whether the physicist is Newton or T’Planahath, or the philosopher is Jefferson or Surak, the similar ideas can be found time and again arising independently of one another.

If everyone in the world wanted you to commit suicide, would you do it?

Oh, we're going to move this into the realm of the personal? Maybe you'd like to rephrase the question.

Not as personal as you took it. Consider the question in regard to the question that inspired it.

Roddenberry sprinkled in progressivism wherever he could

And don't forget big chunks of sexuality. Maybe that was Roddenberry's "progressivism.”

Don’t be nihilistic. He wasn’t a saint, even if he lived in paradise, but he did a lot of good others weren’t and still aren’t for.

It was Roddenberry who eliminate the role of a female first officer when his mistress couldn't have the part. The network liked the idea of number one, all he had to do was recast the actress.

I’m not sold the studio was for it. He-said/he-said stories are common in Hollywood. 1966 may not have been 1936, but it was also not 1996. Kirk and Uhura’s first interracial kiss never even showed lip-contact between the actors.

There's a thought: what do you think about the lack of homosexuality in Trek?

This is one of the prime reasons that the federation and Eath can't be thought of as a "utopian." The absence of gays shows that there something profoundly wrong with the Trek future.

Again you’re arguing for the limits of the show’s production era to overrule its spirit. It’s as easy for a viewer to watch and think there were gay personnel left and right as to think they “cured” it by then. We were certainly watching actors some of who were gay, and we see where society has gone since then, and where many on the show at the time would have liked it to go then. I find it grotesque to watch a limited show from the 60’s and hope that society goes backward in the future to give its limits greater verisimilitude. It’s not the Quran, meant to be taken as perfect as is. Do we really need to start talking about papier mache boulders and plastic knives, latex aliens and hammy acting?

That is exactly the question I'm asking.

Let us know if you ever find more. I'm curious if there's more there to flesh out the idea, or if there are other interesting ideas that might have been incorporated too but never were. And others that mercifully weren't.

And is it just me or does the possibility that the idea may have come from Roddenberry while he was giving "college speeches during the 70's" sound like a dog-whistle for anti-liberals or anti-intellectuals?

 

[Tallguy]

Are you also going to count alien rights as 3/5ths a human’s, like whites did of blacks in the past?

I don't know. Are there Federation members that want to count their population as full individual to increase their representation on the Fed Council but not allow those "full" people to vote? 3/5's was an abolitionist measure.

 

[Arpy]

I don't know. Are there Federation members that want to count their population as full individual to increase their representation on the Fed Council but not allow those "full" people to vote?

Such peoples would no meet the requirements for membership to begin with. The Klingons were an empire and although allied with the Federation by treaty in the 24th century, they were by no means members.

3/5's was an abolitionist measure.

The compromise was to limit the power of the oppressors. It had nothing to do with the humanity of the slaves, and has since usually been referenced to call attention to the obscenity of the times. This is not a model to draw from for the Federation.

Going back to my wondering about member species that are not biologically equal, what rights would semi-intelligent drone males have in an insect-like society? I imagine they would be free from physical harm, but would their votes be counted by percentage of neurons compared to the queens'? Would traditional movements in their society hold that, no, the inferior wretches have no rights at all, including those to life, should a queen wish it?

 

[Tenacity]

Are there Federation members that want to count their population as full individual to increase their representation on the Fed Council but not allow those "full" people to vote?

Such peoples would no meet the requirements for membership to begin with.

While there are signs that the Federation council itself operates using democratic procedures, it's unknown if being a democracy is a requirement of Federation membership. Ardana appears to be a aristocracy.

This is an absurd statement. The central government would not allow billions of citizens to be oppressed because it’d be “micromanaging.”

Would the Federation council have any say in such a matter?

Kirk referred to the Federation as a alliance, if each of the Federation members are fully sovereign entities, the Federation council would have no say in how they run their individual nation states.

And as our courts do every day, Federation courts will also deal with the safeguarding of those rights constantly.

Federation court likely deal with interstellar matters, not what going on with members internal affairs.

Tail wagging the dog.

Hey I didn't write the novel, and none of the novels are canon.

But it did float the idea that the TMP Enterprise having a highly diverse crew was unusual, and essentially an experiment.

Everyone knows why there is a more diverse crew in later Trek than earlier: budget.

Often all it took to "make" someone an alien was a unusual name or a mention in the dialog, which TOS didn't do for the crew of the Enterprise. It was a fully Human crew with one exception, and that one exception was half Human.

Retconning in this manner undermines the intent of earlier installments: diversity.

No retcon involved, simply a matter of what was on display on screen.

TOS did showcased Human diversity.

Because Chekov's quote refers to “inviolable sentient rights” using the semantical language of its day.

Chekov said Human rights, he just as easily could have said "civil rights," but he didn't.

His dialog was deliberate on the part of the writers, otherwise Azetbur's following dialog would have made no sense.

Chekov didn't mean "sentient rights.”

Whether [snip] the philosopher is Jefferson or Surak, the similar ideas can be found time and again arising independently of one another.

Jefferson owned slaves.

The network liked the idea of number ne, all he had to do was recast the actress.

I’m not sold the studio was for it.

Look at the times. Women liberation was was becoming a major movement, and the network noticed this. The networks were creating more series that featured woman leads and women in stronger supporting roles. NBC like the idea of a female first officer, they just didn't want Majel Barrett.

Again you’re arguing for the limits of the show’s production era to overrule its spirit.

How can you possible think that the intent/spirit of Star Trek was that there were gays aboard the ship? There wasn't even a unambiguous clearly gay character in a guest spot.

It’s as easy for a viewer to watch and think there were gay personnel left and right as to think they “cured” it by then.

Where do you keep coming up with this "cured" idea?

Do we really need to start talking about papier mache boulders and plastic knives, latex aliens and hammy acting?

The paper mache boulders represented actual rocks, where did you see characters who represented actual gays? The way that (example) Kirk represented a actual heterosexual?

And is it just me or does the possibility that the idea may have come from Roddenberry while he was giving "college speeches during the 70's" sound like a dog-whistle for anti-liberals or anti-intellectuals?

First off, your use of the term "dog-whistle" might have a special meaning for you that I'm not immediately recognizing.

What is wrong with the possibility that this is where Roddenberry began to work out a new concept? He gave a fair number of these college speeches/presentations and it would have been a good venue for him to get audience feedback on various ideas.

 

[Spot261]

The Federation doesn’t accept just any aliens who fill out the application. If they don’t accept all their citizens regardless of race, sex, faith, orientation, geography, etc as equals (who are biologically so), then they do not meet the requirements for membership.

This is an absurd statement. The central government would not allow billions of citizens to be oppressed because it’d be “micromanaging.”

Yes, there are entry requirements, but you are making that statement then expecting people to just accept your version of what those requirements are, without supporting it. Again, basing your argument on either weighted evidence or simply asserting something to be the case. Do you actually have some list of the entry requirements?

Memory Alpha has this :

The Federation has exacting requirements for prospective member worlds that wish to join. Caste-based discrimination is forbidden,[13] and major systematic violations of sentient rights, such as the unjust peacetime imprisonment of specially modified soldiers on the planet Angosia, are not tolerated for any petitioner.[14] Furthermore, while most member worlds have single, unified world governments, it is not required for entry, as the Federation will consider "associate membership" of non-unified worlds.[15] Beyond that, each Federation member planet's internal politics and how it governs its own people is done without interference from the Federation at large, provided it abides by rules of conduct expected of all Federation worlds.

This is distinctly different from your statement:

The Federation doesn’t accept just any aliens who fill out the application. If they don’t accept all their citizens regardless of race, sex, faith, orientation, geography, etc as equals (who are biologically so), then they do not meet the requirements for membership. The Federation doesn’t accept worlds that are not unified and they won’t even let pre-warp civilizations know they exist. Chekov quoted the Federation believing in “inalienable human rights.” It should be obvious that they’re looking for peoples who have progressed socially as well as technologically passed their primitive stages

The truth is the federation makes a big distinction between policy decisions and cultural norms. They will respect the internal cultures and norms that define a society provided that the government acts according to a set of principles which have in fact only ever been vaguely defined. They will NOT insist that the people of a particular world hold values equivalent to humanity, or the federation for that matter, provided they are prepared to implement policy decisions that DO reflect those values. Sexism, racism, cultural subjugation based on expected norms within the society may well pass given that they are not overtly supported or endorsed at a policy level

The actual requirements for federation membership may well be strict, but they've never been shown to us except in reference where specific parts become relevant to the plot. Therefore to base an argument on "such a species would not get membership as they don't meet the requirements" is pretty spurious when we don't in fact know what those requirements are, merely that they exist.

So no, far from being absurd, my statement was correct based on what we do in fact KNOW as opposed to BELIEVE we know about the federation.

 

[Arpy]

This is an absurd statement. The central government would not allow billions of citizens to be oppressed because it’d be “micromanaging.”

Would the Federation council have any say in such a matter?

Kirk referred to the Federation as a alliance, if each of the Federation members are fully sovereign entities, the Federation council would have no say in how they run their individual nation states.

Being “allies” can have all manner of meaning. Arguments can be made for both strong and weak Federation central government, but given it’s based on the US, and how little we’ve seen of individual member worlds mentioned compared to the Federation overall, I’m guessing it’s stronger.

Alliance, Federation, Union, etc. They’re all synonyms for political bodies. Some of which are contradictory: the Centauri Republic had an emperor. The United Kingdom has a queen with minimal authority. You go by behavior. It respects the biological differences between members, but it’s not laissez faire about rights, fairness, and law.

as our courts do every day, Federation courts will also deal with the safeguarding of those rights constantly.

Federation court likely deal with interstellar matters, not what going on with members internal affairs.

Why do Federal courts concern themselves with state rulings?

knows why there is a more diverse crew in later Trek than earlier: budget.

Often all it took to "make" someone an alien was a unusual name or a mention in the dialog, which TOS didn't do for the crew of the Enterprise. It was a fully Human crew with one exception, and that one exception was half Human.

Retconning in this manner undermines the intent of earlier installments: diversity.

No retcon involved, simply a matter of what was on display on screen.

TOS did showcased Human diversity.

Because they hadn’t been invented yet. TOS made a statement with its diversity, of the main cast and a number of others. The franchise ran with the expansion of alien diversity at every budgetary opportunity. TOS focused more on the story of the week than blowing the budget on silent extras. The first season Spock’s ears ate much of the make-up budget. By Season 2 when a broad array of Federation leaders was shown, it wasn’t Grand Moff Tim McLarkin of Andor that was introduced but Ambassador Shras. Also, when they had the opportunity they referenced whole ships as alien as the Enterprise was human. Ships btw with human names (U.S.S. Intrepid), suggesting the Enterprise’s esthetics were a combination of all its member worlds not just Earth’s - thank you ENT for blowing that out of the water. DS9 showed the Vulcan crewed and Vulcan named U.S.S. T’Kumbra too was a standard Federation Nebula Class starship.

But it’s interesting as we’re saying no-money came later, what’s the timeline for the invention of the multi-species UFP in TOS? HQ was first called UESPA and Star Command and other things, right? Coupled with McCoy’s line about Vulcan being "conquered" in “Conscience of the King,” Ep1x12, could it be that initially TOS presented your typical human empire of which Vulcan was a subject world?

Chekov's quote refers to “inviolable sentient rights” using the semantical language of its day.

Chekov said Human rights, he just as easily could have said "civil rights," but he didn't.

His dialog was deliberate on the part of the writers, otherwise Azetbur's following dialog would have made no sense.

He purposely said human rights because he was quoting from an ancient but important text. The writers took the opportunity to point out the, to us, limited language to point out its limits today, and to give Azetbur the juicy line. They were having the discussion we’re having now about letter vs. intent of language. I found myself eye-rolling at the scene knowing it was manufactured tension, but felt for Azetbur knowing how terrified she was at the prospect of the destruction of their race. General Kerla lashed out in the scene saying that’s where this was going and right on old Southern gentleman McCoy indignanty saying No, that’s not where it was going - that’s not who we are.

[snip] the philosopher is Jefferson or Surak, the similar ideas can be found time and again arising independently of one another.

Jefferson owned slaves.

Like Roddenberry’s love for women, that doesn’t negate everything that came from the man. They consciously put out into the world seeds of what would later end their then ways of life, and I’m thinking they were happy for it.

network liked the idea of number ne, all he had to do was recast the actress.

I’m not sold the studio was for it.

Look at the times. Women liberation was was becoming a major movement, and the network noticed this. The networks were creating more series that featured woman leads and women in stronger supporting roles. NBC like the idea of a female first officer, they just didn't want Majel Barrett.

Where were the networks’ other shows at the time with a high-powered women in charge? Maybe the intelligentsia and youth were for it, but it didn’t happen easily. Look at casting issues with minorities since -- they’re whitewashing Asian and Egyptian movies to this day, casting cis actors in trans roles, and don’t get me started on what passes for news in the media. I’d have to look further into this, but it’s not something I’m all that interested in pursuing. Oh and Rick Berman didn’t even want same sex couples holding hands in the background in Ten Forward, even as they were trying to do things like “The Host” and “The Outcast.” Go figure.

you’re arguing for the limits of the show’s production era to overrule its spirit.

How can you possible think that the intent/spirit of Star Trek was that there were gays aboard the ship? There wasn't even a unambiguous clearly gay character in a guest spot.

Do we really need to start talking about papier mache boulders and plastic knives, latex aliens and hammy acting?

The paper mache boulders represented actual rocks, where did you see characters who represented actual gays? The way that (example) Kirk represented a actual heterosexual?

The spirit was diversity. They included all the diversity they could given the times.

And I look forward to some of the Thermians on these boards continuing to watch these “historical documents” and eventually conjecturing reasons for the papier mache rocks and hammy acting…”speaking patterns today aren’t like those in ancient times. Clearly by the future, we’ll all…be speaking…THAT WAY!”

is it just me or does the possibility that the idea may have come from Roddenberry while he was giving "college speeches during the 70's" sound like a dog-whistle for anti-liberals or anti-intellectuals?

First off, your use of the term "dog-whistle" might have a special meaning for you that I'm not immediately recognizing.

See: “dog-whistle politics”

What is wrong with the possibility that this is where Roddenberry began to work out a new concept? He gave a fair number of these college speeches/presentations and it would have been a good venue for him to get audience feedback on various ideas.

Exactly. I’d love to read more about it and imagine Treks that might have been. Maybe in some alternate universe a la “Parallels” or a comic book installment

Yes, there are entry requirements, but you are making that statement then expecting people to just accept your version of what those requirements are, without supporting it. Again, basing your argument on either weighted evidence or simply asserting something to be the case.

You go by the way something is presented. Not everything is explicitly stated. A small fraction of interpersonal communication is verbal for example. Writers will take characters and storylines in directions they hadn't previously considered based on how they see what "worked" in previous episodes. I don't pretend my personal interpretation is the only one possible; I'm arguing for it. Think also of the idea of fans' "head canon," where they think this technology works this way or that protocol goes like that or they only recognize these series or those media tie-ins.

Memory Alpha has this...

Memory Alpha is a nice fan reference but is by no means canon or complete. It doesn't give you a three dimensional map of the Romulan Empire marked with every planet, asteroid, and base therein yet you don't assume it's flat and mostly empty.

Also, is anyone else still following this thread? I'm wondering if it's time to move on.

 

[Spot261]

Also, is anyone else still following this thread? I'm wondering if it's time to move on.

Probably

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Everyone has taken it in too many directions.

 

[Tallguy]

And is it just me or does the possibility that the idea may have come from Roddenberry while he was giving "college speeches during the 70's" sound like a dog-whistle for anti-liberals or anti-intellectuals?

"College speeches during the 70's" is a dog whistle for "I never had any idea of making this part of Star Trek when I was getting paid for it. But now I'm having ideas and nobody watched Genesis II." Or "Nope, never crossed my mind in five years of making Star Trek. But now it's canon."

Also, is anyone else still following this thread? I'm wondering if it's time to move on.

Probably

People are still posting, so yes they're following. (Arpy has written rather a lot.)

But as I said a page or two ago: The question was essentially "Did GR pull 'no money' out of his butt sometime after 1975 and then it was retconned back into TOS by later movies and series?"

And the answer is yes.

Just to gild the lily a bit: Are there even FAN references (because there are no televised ones) to a post-money society in Star Trek before TVH/TNG?