Humanity in the TNG era is more buggered than they let on

[T'Girl]

But think of how many social institutions and practices are generally the same.

But when you say that social institutions are the same you are not correct.

Let's see, there are still marriages, families, and children. People form friendships, have people over for dinner. After work they go for a drink, play some cards, listen to music.

The society, the social forms, don't seem really too awful different.

What kind of justice do you think a peasant could count on back then?

It would depend on where in the world the person was. 5000 years ago in Eygpt the court system included social equality, impartiality, and legal representatives. Sumerian and Babylonian culture had codified laws a few centuries later.

From what we've seen, the legal system in the future doesn't seem to be fundamentally different than today's. The episode Court Martial showed the use of English-style case law, and there were obvious rules of evidence. The concept of case law goes back for centuries.

The matter of Dr. Bashir, where his parent took him out of the Federation, had a birth defect medically treated and were (later) penalized for what happen outside the Federation shows that the Federation's legal system is flawed.

Now fast forward to TNG era. On Earth there is no conflict over resources, no one is allowed to starve to death or die of exposure or from a preventable disease.

Advanced technology.

Right now we have the technology to feed everyone on the planet, but we don't.

Depend on what you mean by "we don't."

The American people exports vast amounts of food every year, a third of our agricultural acreage is exclusively used to grow food for export, about half of all grain on the international market is grown in America.

Starvation and malnutrition numbers have been going down every year on Earth for decades, it's a ongoing process with stead improvements.

We could still argue humans in the 23c were still better ...

Correction, they were better off, they as people were not themselves "better."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Is it really that important to shoot down idealism in a fictional universe just because you personally don't agree that it is possible?

If you don't agree humanity can evolve beyond its current problems you don't agree with the premise of Star Trek.

We're not suggesting anything of the kind. Of course humankind can evolve and improve itself; nobody disputes that. The problem is when supposedly 'evolved' humans actually GLOAT about it and act all sanctimonious and arrogant about it, and brag about how much better they are. That's the real problem here.

 

[T'Girl]

... the premise of Star Trek.

Action / adventure in outer space. Ethical questions. Meeting (and sometimes shooting) intelligent aliens.

A future utopian society? Not really, certainly never the core of the show.

 

[Stoo]

An optimistic view of future human society is most definitely at the core of Star Trek.

(At least from TNG onwards, I admit I've not watched enough of the original series to comment.)

 

[BillJ]

If you don't agree humanity can evolve beyond its current problems you don't agree with the premise of Star Trek.

But did it really evolve beyond its current state? A line from "Encounter at Farpoint" always made me wonder:

Q: Oh, better. And later, on finally reaching deep space, humans of course found enemies to fight out there too. And to broaden those struggles you again found allies for still more murdering. The same old story, all over again.

Watching Star Trek, there is really nothing to argue. Q was right. Humans just took their bloodlust to the stars.

 

[Bisz]

Is it really that important to shoot down idealism in a fictional universe just because you personally don't agree that it is possible?

If you don't agree humanity can evolve beyond its current problems you don't agree with the premise of Star Trek.

This.

It always tickles me when a discussion of Trek's vision of the future, be it better humans or no money, comes up. Some people are hell bent on proving that Trek's future is just like the present, there absolutely must be money because you can't have a world without money, and so fort.

Why?

Star Trek is about an optimistic future. Its not the Terminator or Blade Runner, things aren't bleak, humanity isn't miserable.

Star Trek says things in the future get better, people are kinder, life is happier. The shows say this outright, the characters say this outright. I like that message, its part of why I like Trek (even though the bleakest of the shows, DS9, is my favourite).

Why do people feel the need to tear down this central premise of the mythos just to make it fit their pessimistic outlook?

 

[T'Girl]

An optimistic view of future human society is most definitely at the core of Star Trek.

Roddenberry described TOS as "hopeful," hopeful meaning that humanity survived until the 23rd century. There being concerns in the 1960's that we wouldn't survive.

Sisko described Earth in the mid 24th century as a paradise, problem is we really don't know what Sisko himself considered "paradise" to be.

 

[Makarov]

I take the Trek universe to be as Picard & company describe it. It is mean to be a fantasy. The few examples we see which might contradict this is just due to the limitations of the show being written from our modern day perspective in which we can hardly realize such a concept.

 

[Bisz]

Sisko described Earth in the mid 24th century as a paradise, problem is we really don't know what Sisko himself considered "paradise" to be.

I would venture that he means this:

Paradise [par-uh-dahys, -dahyz]

noun 1. heaven, as the final abode of the righteous.

2. an intermediate place for the departed souls of the righteous awaiting resurrection.

3. (often initial capital letter) Eden (def 1).

4. a place of extreme beauty, delight, or happiness.

5. a state of supreme happiness; bliss.

6. Architecture.

1. parvis.
2. an enclosure beside a church, as an atrium or cloister.

. (initial capital letter, italics). Italian Paradiso
[pah-rah-dee-zaw] (Show IPA). the third and concluding part of Dante's Divine Comedy, depicting heaven, through which he is guided by Beatrice. Compare inferno (def 3), purgatory (def 2).

Which is what paradise means. I'd venture he was specifically applying definition 4.

 

[T'Girl]

Which is what paradise means. I'd venture he was specifically applying definition 4.

Why go that far down the list? Sisko was referring to the first and primary definition.

Or not, as I posted we don't really know Sisko's thoughts and beliefs when it comes the concept of paradise.

However, we do know that Sisko is a authoritative man, who initially backed the majority of Admiral Layton's ideas in Homefront on the way Earth should be managed and "protected." Only opposing Layton when they disagreed on how far to go.

I very much doubt that Sisko's personal ideas on paradise coincide with my own.

Is it really that important to shoot down idealism in a fictional universe just because you personally don't agree that it is possible?

Shoot down? I was under the impression that we were discussing the matter.

 

[Stoo]

Eh, semantics. This whole thread has you been trying to argue against Trek's optimistic view of the future.

If you have some problem with that particular optimism then okay, but it's not useful to try and twist the show's vision into something it's not.

 

[Kruezerman]

TNG-VOY didn't create characters, they created characitures.

 

[Anwar]

TNG-VOY didn't create characters, they created characitures.

The TOS characters were more or less just archetypes played by actors whose chemistry overshadowed that.

 

[Bisz]

TNG-VOY didn't create characters, they created characitures.

That's neither a helpful nor insightful statement.

Especially given that TOS was absolutely rife with caricatures (I'm assuming that's the word you wanted?)

 

[T'Girl]

Eh, semantics. This whole thread has you been trying to argue against Trek's optimistic view of the future.

I really (really) don't believe that that is what I been "arguing" against.

I continue to truly believe that the material wealth, comfort and possessions that the people in the 24th century surround themselves with in no way make them different in the least from the people in the 21st century. They simple have more things and yes abilities. But that in no way are they "better" than us or really anyone.

The majority of these things are the result of actions and deed accomplished by their ancestors, and knowledge acquired from aliens through exploration. TAS says that the artificial gravity system employ on Starfleet vessels was obtained through off-world archeological research. Warp drive will (for Humans) be invented in only another 50 years, Laforge said that the basics remained unchanged (there were incremental improvements). Their legal system date from before our time. Human societal and cultural base is thousands of years old.

Look down on twentieth century people? They should get down on their proverbial knees. We and the people who came before us are the foundation of their world.

I do argue that their world isn't a utopia.

Now optimistic (in some ways) can be seen, again in a material sense and also in the fact that we as a species survived at all

In other way not at all, Humans might not openly war between themselves, but war certainty hasn't disappeared from our existence. Modern illnesses might be a thing of the past, but they have been replace in the future with a whole new extensive list of afflictions.

If you have some problem with that particular optimism then okay ...

I take the show as presented, not solely from the voices of the characters (that is in the mix too) but also from the events on screen which includes a hell of a lot of backstory that is presented in bits and pieces.

... but it's not useful to try and twist the show's vision into something it's not.

Who's vision? The late Gene Roddenberry, the B and B twins, Ron Moore's, or just your own. Whose vision are you speaking of?

Maybe Fontana-Gerrold-Justman's vision.

 

[velour]

Picard said both lines in the same scene, my quotation was off.

LILY: How much did this thing cost?

PICARD: The economics of the future are somewhat different. ...You see, money doesn't exist in the twenty-fourth century.

LILY: No money! That means you don't get paid.

PICARD: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives.

That could mean that they don't have money as physical currency, do are compensated through credits for non-essential goods but Picard feels it's not the most important thing, especially in the Starfleet sector.

I thought the general lack of conflict made the conflicts between Riker and his father and Picard and his brother particularly interesting.

It's interesting that you mentioned the Starfleet sector. The environment of Starfleet could be similar to that of present day universities. Starfleet could be the ivory tower, in the economics sense, of TNG era.

It seems that Starfleet provides just about everything that Picard and crew might need, similar to how present day universities provide for professors (bloated salaries, subsidized health care, pensions, subsidized housing etc.) They live in a bubble.

That may be why the acquisition of wealth is not the driving force in Picard's life. Starfleet is his sugar daddy, so to speak. Besides, Picard has already acquired wealth, his family farm; which brings up another point.

I assume that Picard's brother is a self employed farmer. He would have to provide for himself and his family. I suppose Picard's brother couldn't be cavalier about money and about earning a living the way Jean-Luc could be; unless somehow the Fed's are subsidizing his brother, who in turn would then just be farming for the heck of it.

The nature of private enterprise (no pun intended) in the trek universe had not really been depicted at all in the series.

The only other thing that I can think of is the business practices of the Ferengis. And the series has portrayed them as unscrupulous wheeler dealers. I got the impression that the TNG writers meant the Ferengis as metaphors for capitalism. I suspect that the writers have a negative view of free enterprise and the role money plays in society.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I assume that Picard's brother is a self employed farmer. He would have to provide for himself and his family.

Especially since Robert does not approve of replicators and refuses to allow them in their home. The replicator is often trotted out as the be-all and end-all to 24th-century life; but what happens when someone can't, or won't, use one? Obviously the Picard family makes a decent living selling the family wine.

 

[Trekker4747]

I continue to truly believe that the material wealth, comfort and possessions that the people in the 24th century surround themselves with in no way make them different in the least from the people in the 21st century. They simple have more things and yes abilities. But that in no way are they "better" than us or really anyone.

You continue to overlook the bigger picture. In our 21st century society, and we'll just look at the First World for this, we have people dying of curable ailments, starving and struggling to just have something of a life with the basics (food, clothing, shelter.) We also, in the first world, people with none of those things living on the streets sleeping in storm-drains and either eating out of garbage cans or crummy soup from charitable organizations.

This is in a world where people sit in proverbial ivory towers making more money in a year than most people make in a month and over a lifetime make more money than they can ever possibly spend.

Then when we get into the Second and Third worlds where people are *truly* struggling with life's basics and dying from curable ailments. Where, again, people live in a way that'd make most kings jealous.

In 24c's time people no longer do that. "Poverty, disease, hopelessness, hunger." are all gone. To paraphrase a conversation between Troi and Mark Twain:

"Poverty was eliminated on Earth, a long time ago."
"Young lady, I come from a time where people strive for power and get there on the backs of the less fortunate. And you're telling me that's no longer the way it is anymore?"
"Yep."

"That* is what makes 24c humans, just as we're better than or 17th century counterparts in that we're not literally robbing people of virtually everything they have so a single leader can live in luxury and keep the masses in control.

People stopped working for themselves so they can live in luxury and instead work to make *everyone* better.

That Earth has gotten into the occasional war with an alien force is irrelevant because you can be assured they were wars Earth didn't want to get into but had to in order to protect its borders and its citizenry. They didn't attack Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians or whatever in a need for territory, or a precious resource or what have you. They did it to protect their citizenry.

Humans in the 24c, as we see them in Trek, are certainly better than us. Just as we are better than our 17c counterparts. I'm not going to praise them for inventing the telescope or any other technology that came from that time period. Yeah, cool, you did that, but you were still kind of shitty in the way your society behaved, especially to those people who were not fortunate enough to be born into regal line.

24c humans has nothing to do with evolution, or that they still have to fight wars, it has to do with how people are treated and as we're shown and told in Trek, people in the 24c are treated petty darn well.

 

[suarezguy]

I think most fans of the series would agree that Picard was at times or even often arrogant/pompous but would disagree with how often it was and how much it applied to the other characters and to the series as a whole.
Its also fair to consider that on the original series Kirk would also recurringly damn particular cultures and place his own as better, even actively transforming them, but most viewers don't mind that because they don't feel like he's attacking them. I think both shows have at times had and expressed strong views.

The only other thing that I can think of is the business practices of the Ferengis. And the series has portrayed them as unscrupulous wheeler dealers. I got the impression that the TNG writers meant the Ferengis as metaphors for capitalism. I suspect that the writers have a negative view of free enterprise and the role money plays in society.

Roddenberry at the time of TNG certainly felt that way but I think most of the other writers were more nuanced if not outright less hostile. I really liked that "The Price" had nuanced ideas of capitalism, and also critiques of the value of Starfleet, and Moore & Braga have admitted that they find a lack of money a bit too extreme and improbable, likely leading to their FC stance that there wasn't money but could still be some payments and exchanges playing a role.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

If people today ran into folks from the 16th Century naturally they'd think they were better than them.

Not everyone is arrogant and self-consumed. People who thought of themselves as "better' than people from 400 years in the past likely would also think themselves better than the people around them in the present.

Some people are just that way.

I dunno. I think the fact I've lived a much longer life than 99% of the population of earth 400 years ago (and it's been a happy one) already makes me better than anyone that could be my contemporary from that time period. In fact, with some of the medical issues I've had, anyone in my position wouldn't have survived childhood.

So yes. I don't count myself to be better than anyone I know now. But I'm 1000% better than everyone back then. Except for maybe a king. Maybe.