Humanity in the TNG era is more buggered than they let on
- Thread starter Lance
- Start date
But don't we take "pot-shots" at humans from our own past? Hell, humans even from the fairly recent past where we'd say, "Man people were assholes when they were all for Jim Crow laws." Go back 50 or 60 years, "What the fuck were those idiots thinking dropping nuclear weapons on our own soil and, further more, dropping them on two major cities where we incinerated 1000s of innocent civilians in a split second!" Go back a little more than 100 years,"People back then owned slaves, abusing and owning other human beings is despicable." Go back 300 years and we get into a really, really shitty era of human history as far as how society was structured. Sure it was how everyone knew life to be at the time and maybe didn't know or think any better and they can be praised for scientific and technological developments they came up with but then they also tortured people and sent them to death simply because they didn't accept Jesus as their savior.
When I watched TNG and saw the 20th century human bashing I didn't harumph and go, "Well, I never!" I was like, well, he's sort of right. 20th century humans are pretty terrible compared to life in the 24c. Because even back then, as a young teenager, I knew all of the nonsense humanity was up-to, had done in even then the recent past, and that we still lived in the system where your worth is based on your paycheck and you need to struggle to even have your basic needs met.
And, keep in mind, between all of that 20th century human bashing and hating it seemed to more-or-less be on a scale of "lumping them all together" but there were plenty of moments where some measure of respect was shown for humans from our era. When Q appears wearing a 20th century military uniform Picard, even though he calls it a costume, says it comes from a time when humanity was making progress.
We know from the movie "First Contact" that they lauded and idolized Zepheram Cochrane a 21st century human from the post-atomic horror. They didn't even seem to mind, upon meeting him, that he wasn't everything he lived up to be and knew through all of his flaws the man he'd become.
20th century human bashing was maybe a *bit* much but the "idea" of the show was to show the faults we had today and how much better society could be if we dared to try. So Picard and company, esp. in the first couple of seasons, bashed on 20th century humans a bit more in those two years than people today probably bash on 16th/17th century humans we also don't have something of a principle or narrative we want to present.
But in a conversation about how much society has progressed or improved in the last 400 years there's a *lot* we could say against our 17th century counterparts, and it'd be very, very hard to say that, other than in some isolated parts of the world, we're not better than them.
When I watched TNG and saw the 20th century human bashing I didn't harumph and go, "Well, I never!" I was like, well, he's sort of right. 20th century humans are pretty terrible compared to life in the 24c. Because even back then, as a young teenager, I knew all of the nonsense humanity was up-to, had done in even then the recent past, and that we still lived in the system where your worth is based on your paycheck and you need to struggle to even have your basic needs met.
And, keep in mind, between all of that 20th century human bashing and hating it seemed to more-or-less be on a scale of "lumping them all together" but there were plenty of moments where some measure of respect was shown for humans from our era. When Q appears wearing a 20th century military uniform Picard, even though he calls it a costume, says it comes from a time when humanity was making progress.
We know from the movie "First Contact" that they lauded and idolized Zepheram Cochrane a 21st century human from the post-atomic horror. They didn't even seem to mind, upon meeting him, that he wasn't everything he lived up to be and knew through all of his flaws the man he'd become.
20th century human bashing was maybe a *bit* much but the "idea" of the show was to show the faults we had today and how much better society could be if we dared to try. So Picard and company, esp. in the first couple of seasons, bashed on 20th century humans a bit more in those two years than people today probably bash on 16th/17th century humans we also don't have something of a principle or narrative we want to present.
But in a conversation about how much society has progressed or improved in the last 400 years there's a *lot* we could say against our 17th century counterparts, and it'd be very, very hard to say that, other than in some isolated parts of the world, we're not better than them.
There were plenty of pot shots taken at 20th century humanity in Star Trek IV.
Anyone that thinks we can't improve as a society between now and TNG's time probably doesn't know what "the news" is.
"Come back later, you and me can find us a couple of low-mileage pit woofies and help them build a memory."
I don't think TNG contrasting the differences were as serious, either.
I don't think TNG contrasting the differences were as serious, either.
Okay, modern day the average life span in Canada is about 81 years, the life span in places like Zambia and Angola is 38 years. Do you feel that you are better or superior to the people in those countries because you'll live longer?
And if not, then why would you feel superior to people in the past who lived shorter lives than you will today?
Comparison also to modern day military junior enlisted personnel, often single, in the barracks free (or aboard ship), food free, lodging free, uniforms free, entertainment free (or low cost).
Now modern day officers pay for their meals (except combat rations), and I think that something similar would be aboard the Enterprise. what is replicated come out of their pay, ten forward the same. Pay role deduction?
When Worf was selecting a wedding gift for the O'Brien wedding (he was looking at a vase) my assumption is that he would be paying for it, in some fashion.
There have been some references. The inventor of the Solaton Wave FTL drive expected to make money off of it. The dilithium miners in TOS were getting "rich." Joe Sisko's restaurant did good business. Ezri Dax's family had a large mining company. Corporations owned entire planets.
I think more laissez faire capitalism, and not merely capitalism. Roddenberry (and his estate) were very much interested in the acquisition of money and Roddenberry IIRC was a big part in the creation of the Ferengi. Post civil war robber barons perhaps?
Given his position on replicators, to me it would make sense that supplies he brings to his vineyard would not be replicated. Unless he has a side operation for the production of animals, veggies, fruits, he's buying things from the village and "on-line." Again all these things would be non-replicated.
And you can stop right there, for years I donated my time in a charity kitchen for street people/the homeless, the food we dished up had to conform to government health standards or we would be shut down. The same health inspectors who inspect restaurants, public schools, nursing homes, inspected us on a regular basis. And it was damned good food too, I ate it just about shift before I left (fringe benefit). Are you speaking from personal experience?
Which has enabled someone like Bill Gates (in 2013) to donate over 28 billion dollars to charity. Warren Buffet has pledged the majority of his 46 billion dollar fortune to charity.
In 2012, Mark Zuckerberg (facebook) donate a half billion to charity.
One of the thing I like about Kirk is that (like O'Brien) he came off as a "everyday" kind of guy. A kid from Iowa who got an appointment to the academy and climbed through the ranks to become a starship captain. He showed respect to a (obviously fake) 19th century Abe Lincoln, and seemed to enjoy walking a 20th century fighter pilot around his ship.
Condemnation should be focused on select individuals, would you also condemn the Blacks who lived under Jim Crow laws because they lived at the same time. Do you feel "superior" to them?
What those "idiots" were doing was ending a war, and the cities those two nuclear weapons were dropped on were both military targets.
And in that case, the condemnation would be aimed at the fraction of one percent of Humans who actually owned other Humans, and not everyone alive at the time.
Which in no way make you better than the people living then.
Is it your hypothesis that because everything we current have didn't appear all at once thousands of years ago that we are in some way intrinsically separate and different from our forebears?
Remember, these are the very people who we owe our modern day world to. The current generation didn't accomplish all of it in the last few decades.
Riker might not have understood the slang expressions, but the show sure had him living what Sonny was talking about.
Now didn't it?
Last edited:
As OP, I have to say that my original point wasn't "24th Century Humans Aren't Enlightened", but more (as my thread title suggests) that they just aren't perfect. There are inherent contradictions between what they preach, and what they actually do. And that basic human nature that they claim to have left behind centuries ago is still, more often than not, very much in evidence by their actions.
In the very same way that our modern society is NOT above the avarice that our forebears displayed.
Like us here in the 21st Century, the 24th century humans on TNG shroud themselves in the mirage of them having somehow evolved their thinking since the old days. But underneath it all, they're as human and frail as any of us, and could easily collapse back to that state with really very little prompting.
In the very same way that our modern society is NOT above the avarice that our forebears displayed.
Like us here in the 21st Century, the 24th century humans on TNG shroud themselves in the mirage of them having somehow evolved their thinking since the old days. But underneath it all, they're as human and frail as any of us, and could easily collapse back to that state with really very little prompting.
There have been some references. The inventor of the Solaton Wave FTL drive expected to make money off of it. The dilithium miners in TOS were getting "rich." Joe Sisko's restaurant did good business. Ezri Dax's family had a large mining company. Corporations in the Trek-verse owned entire planets.
Dax's family were Trill not humanand we have no proof that people paid to eat at Sisko's restaurant.
It would be practicably impossible for Earth/humans/the Federation not to have some form of currency.
Especially when we are frequently told that there *is* a galactic market out there in the Star Trek universe that other planets use. You can't be that one guy in the room without a wallet.
"We don't have money in the 24th century" is so simplistic a concept I'm afraid it just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
Imagine how Starfleet looks when it turns up on those other planets, like the bars we occasionally saw in episodes like "Gambit" and so on, only to say 'Can I have a drink on the house? It's just that we don't use money in the Federation.' They'll be eating the sidewalk in no time.
So there must be some form of 'galactic standard', probably Latinum, which even humans use for intergalactic transactions, even if never for more Earth-bound pursuits.
Especially when we are frequently told that there *is* a galactic market out there in the Star Trek universe that other planets use. You can't be that one guy in the room without a wallet.
"We don't have money in the 24th century" is so simplistic a concept I'm afraid it just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
Imagine how Starfleet looks when it turns up on those other planets, like the bars we occasionally saw in episodes like "Gambit" and so on, only to say 'Can I have a drink on the house? It's just that we don't use money in the Federation.' They'll be eating the sidewalk in no time.
So there must be some form of 'galactic standard', probably Latinum, which even humans use for intergalactic transactions, even if never for more Earth-bound pursuits.
Not to mention Joe Sisko is one of those guys in Star Trek who is totally into the whole "old school experience", a bit like Tom Paris with his 20th century fetish over on VOYAGER, and paying for your meal would be a whole part of that. Even if it means him handing out Joe Dollars to his customer on their way in the door that are only redeemable at Joe's.
I don't think even the 24c humans would consider themselves "perfect" as part of being perfect is realizing that you're imperfect just that humanity and society had evolved since the 20c. And everything we know about life on Earth, and in the Federation in general, tells us that's true.
Of course "underneath it all" what we consider to be human nature still exists, I suppose that's one credit to DS9 the war arc showed us that. But, by and large, humanity in the 24c was much, much better off than we are today and the people there didn't squabble over resources, personal wealth, territory or anything of that nature. Everyone was by and large happy and likely doing what it was they wanted to do.
My theory on "payment" more or less equates to being a fairly unconventional system that just easier to say, "We don't use money," when talking to someone from the past.
It's my theory that everyone on Earth is provided with everything they need to live a comfortable, happy, life doing what it is they please. Such a life we could probably equate to a middle or upper-middle class lifestyle today. You're provided with food and shelter and we'd probably go and say you have some sort of "allowance" for how much you can "buy" in a set period of time.
Call it money, call it energy, or whatever but it's not something we strictly think of as "money" and how much you're provided, allowed to spend, or whatever is probably pretty nebulous and hard to really quantify meaningfully.
But if you want to lay around your house all day and do nothing you can. You're provided for.
Want to start a business? You can and are provided with more resources to do so, and people eating there "spend" some of their "resources" to eat there which you in turn use to "pay" people to work there and for you to operate the business, namely to "purchase" things. People who work there get a bit more in terms of resources in order to better spend their life working for humanity.
It's probably a very complex system and hard to really explain for it to make sense to someone living in a money-based society because it creates a lot of questions on how you get people to work in a restaurant, or on on a farm, or a fishing boat, "for free." So there must be some kind of payment system in play but it's not something we can define as "money" as personal wealth is no longer a thing, everyone more or less is on the same playing field and doing what they can to serve all of humanity, rather than just themselves.
Everyone is doing pretty much what they want to do, and if they have to work in a restaurant to get a little be more as a way to do that, so be it.
Want to sit on your ass all day? Want to write books? You can do that too and you are provided for with a comfortable living as opposed to struggling to survive.
I really like the way you laid that all out, Trekker4747.
Especially apt is the "we don't use money" description to people of earlier, cash-based times. It's similar to how we might answer questions about our automobiles to someone from an era of ox-driven carts and stone tools. Just for starters, how do you explain to them getting liquid fuel from rocks in the ground?
"The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives" really does make sense from the perspective you give. In our time, we may work extra hours (if the opportunity arises) to help pay for things like car repairs, day care expenses or what have you, but acquiring money is the sole reason for doing it. And for many, even that is just not enough. After months and years of this battle with futility, it is easy to understand how many can get jaded by it. Add to that an economy which is more and more skewed to the high-end consumer, the climb gets ever steeper.
If you make 25,000 dollars a year, and your neighbor makes 250,000, and while they might be perfectly nice people, they're the ones you are forced to compete with in a 'market sense', eventually resulting in you having to relocate to an area where "your kind" live. I'm not necessarily bashing the system, I'm just saying (as you did so well) that in the Star Trek future, it's obviously different. So the less it's explained, the better - because we just wouldn't get it anyway. How are rocks used for fuel?
Especially apt is the "we don't use money" description to people of earlier, cash-based times. It's similar to how we might answer questions about our automobiles to someone from an era of ox-driven carts and stone tools. Just for starters, how do you explain to them getting liquid fuel from rocks in the ground?
"The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives" really does make sense from the perspective you give. In our time, we may work extra hours (if the opportunity arises) to help pay for things like car repairs, day care expenses or what have you, but acquiring money is the sole reason for doing it. And for many, even that is just not enough. After months and years of this battle with futility, it is easy to understand how many can get jaded by it. Add to that an economy which is more and more skewed to the high-end consumer, the climb gets ever steeper.
If you make 25,000 dollars a year, and your neighbor makes 250,000, and while they might be perfectly nice people, they're the ones you are forced to compete with in a 'market sense', eventually resulting in you having to relocate to an area where "your kind" live. I'm not necessarily bashing the system, I'm just saying (as you did so well) that in the Star Trek future, it's obviously different. So the less it's explained, the better - because we just wouldn't get it anyway. How are rocks used for fuel?
It's possible that currency (physical objects like banknotes and coins) are gone, But money as non-physical transfers of value would still be there. There are too many references to money existing.
China has had surface mining of coal (and the household use of same) since about 3500 BC. Ancient Persians employed petroleum for lighting, cooking and medicinal uses.
Based on the age of the actress who played her, Lily would have born around the year 2020. She likely had a engineering degree. Plus she possessed the marginal intelligence require to build the warp drive Phoenix.
So LMFAOschwarz ...
you're saying Lily wouldn't have been able to understand?
So LMFAOschwarz, you're saying she wouldn't have been able to understand?
Nooooo, I said (or meant) nothing of the kind! I meant that we, or her, as people of the past, don't understand the economics of the future!
I admit I didn't phrase myself all that well, as I was still working on my first cup of wake-up coffee. Thanks for the rock info!
Okay. It's possible that the improvements we've seen to their society are all down to technological improvements. ie no need to fight over resources.
Although as someone or other pointed out, we could do more to feed and take care of people, with our wealth and technology, right now...
Do you think we as people, or culture, are better than say 600 years ago? Or is that always a constant in your view?
I think it's an awful lot closer to utopia than our world, at least. What do you think is lacking? What would make it more Utopian, just out of interest?
re: optimism, I mean that which is pervasive from TNG onwards, even if it varied a bit from writer to writer. I already said I'm not accounting for, or talking about, whatever was going on in TOS.
But we know that they still compete for resources. There is still mining, looking for planets to mine is a part of what brought the Federation into conflict with the Dominion. The 23rd century war in Errand of Mercy was partly over resources and trade routes.
It's difficult to say yes, it's a hypothetical with a lot of unknowns.
I previously mentioned the food exported by Americans, food also absolutely flows out of Brazil, China, India, Australia, and other countries. But people are still hungry, many of the exporting countries have hungry people of their own.
So realistically could we today feed and care for everyone, under existing conditions? I can't say yes.
That is my position, yes. We are "better off" than our ancestors, but we are not for that reason better people than the people who preceded us.
Nor are we better than people around the world today who don't enjoy our life style.
What is present (hopefully) is individuality, I don't think it's possible for a society composed of many billions of people to have a "utopian" society that is all thing to all people. Unless you're willing to indoctrinate the population (starting at a young age) to accept "the one true way."
Utopia won't work because of the very people who compose it.
An additional part of the problem is I've read the story that introduced the term utopia, the society of the original utopia under the surface was twisted and really not very nice. The people in that story accepted societal rules that no one should have to.
Now I realize that the term utopia has moved beyond that original story and has taken on a separate generic meaning. But I do wonder just how perfect the 24th century really is.
For example, they don't have a few little jails for the rare drunk or troublemaker, these people have entire penal colonies.
If TOS isn't taken into account, then you're talking about a profound change that takes place in only several decades, as opposed to over the course of three and a half centuries.
I don't know if we're better as individuals. I think a society with democracy, and freedom of religion, and a welfare state, is rather better than feudal europe!
Well it's the generic meaning I was thinking of, rather than Thomas More's book (or whatever you had in mind). 24th century earth is not perfect, but it appears a lot closer to it than our world, if we looki at things such as opportunities, standard of living, freedom from poverty and oppression etc.
The existence of penal colonies isn't reason to assume the amount of crime is anywhere near ours. A colony could be like 50 people.
Well it's the generic meaning I was thinking of, rather than Thomas More's book (or whatever you had in mind). 24th century earth is not perfect, but it appears a lot closer to it than our world, if we looki at things such as opportunities, standard of living, freedom from poverty and oppression etc.
The existence of penal colonies isn't reason to assume the amount of crime is anywhere near ours. A colony could be like 50 people.
Similar threads
