If you could live in the ST Universe rather than ours, would you?

[The Rock]

Absolutely, as long as I could bring my family, loved ones, and friends along with me.

The thing for me is that my life sucks, a lot. There's not much hope for me in this world. Also, I don't believe our world in general will really get any better. In fact, I think things are just gonna get worse for the human race from here on out. We're too corrupt, too greedy, and too spiteful for any real positive change to take place.

So yes, I would happily live on the Star Trek earth without a second thought.

 

[T'Girl]

The thing for me is that my life sucks, a lot.

Maybe that's the reason I opted not to go, my life is profoundly the opposite of "suck," and I believe that the good in the world far out-weights the bad.

I am trying to get a handle on why some people would go, while others wouldn't.

For you Austin, would it be more what you'd be head towards, or more what you's be leaving behind?

.

 

[BillJ]

The thing for me is that my life sucks, a lot. There's not much hope for me in this world. Also, I don't believe our world in general will really get any better. In fact, I think things are just gonna get worse for the human race from here on out. We're too corrupt, too greedy, and too spiteful for any real positive change to take place.

But the Star Trek world doesn't exist without a lot of pain and innovation from the world we currently inhabit.

 

[Jeffe525]

I want to live in this universe with the option of visiting that one occasionally.

Although there are some who would argue that is what I am doing now.

Yep. Me too, and my wife would agree.

I wonder... if I moved to the 24th century, would I stay up half the night binge watching home videos from my life in the 21st century? Hmm?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I tend to think actual culture isn't that far different than current culture, only minus all the war, poverty and hatred. Remember 'No money' does not mean 'No currency'. Your currency is influence and prestige and if you want to make money just go to a non-Federation planet.

 

[Tracy Trek]

Maybe, but the 23rd century, not the 24th. I think I would like studying the history and cultures of other worlds.

 

[dswynne1]

In my fantasy, I would want to be immortal (or, at least ageless), and live out the years, so that I can "visit" both the 23rd and 24th century. Living through the Eugenics War, World War III and the post-Apocalypse (in my fantasy, you would have the world dealing with zombies, talking apes, global freeze zones, mutants, road warriors and killer AIs, etc., before transitioning to the world of Star Trek, with first contact with the Vulcans) would be off-putting, but early exploration in space (i.e. Archer's Era), protecting the final frontier (i.e. Kirk's Era) and galactic expansion (i.e. Picard's Era) would be neat to experience. If not immortal, I would simply jump from era to era, living in each era for a few years, just to get the feel of zeitgeist of the time. I would come back to the 21st century from time to time, just to visit those close to me from time to time. If asked what I've been up to, I simply would say that I was seeing the world. I don't know if I would tell the truth, but I would definitely be as honest about it as I possibly can. Only when I know when the Apocalypse will occur, would I take as many people as I can, making sure that them going into the future would not change the timeline itself.

Food for thought.

 

[Tarek71]

And why or why not?

YES. Without a doubt. Sure there is the occasional intergalactic war or serious alien threat, but the 24th century is a much better world than the one we live in.

Of course! Not even a moments hesitation. As long as it's somewhere from the 2160s to the 31st century. I wouldnt want to live in the Trekverse 21st century.

 

[CRM-114]

I said "no" in a previous post, but I think I arrived at the real reason. It seems to me like people are making the mistake of assuming that watching Star Trek would prepare you for living in that world.

If you really think about it, the views of the Star Trek universe are very narrow, usually shown through the perspective of a handful of people. The episodes are usually depicting the views of the various crews as the "right" view, and seem to take it as their responsibility to "educate" others. Oftentimes, the Starfleet crews seem to take an contemptuous attitude toward civilians, and civilians in turn often seem to resent Starfleet's presence. It also seems like Starfleet has an astounding amount of influence in the running of Federation affairs.

It has been argued in some quarters that the Star Trek universe (the Federation, in particular) depicts a benevolent military dictatorship. The more time goes on, the more this view seems to become apparent to me.

 

[T'Girl]

It has been argued in some quarters that the Star Trek universe (the Federation, in particular) depicts a benevolent military dictatorship. The more time goes on, the more this view seems to become apparent to me.

I have argued (and found evidence) that the Members have the real power in the Federation, and that the Council only has designated power in limited areas.

But some episodes do seem to depict a disturbingly centralize governing body, a dictatorship in all but name. Backed up by a ridiculously powerful fleet of "exploration ships" which are equipped with weapons of mass destruction.

The Council ... we never hear of elections.

 

[CRM-114]

It has been argued in some quarters that the Star Trek universe (the Federation, in particular) depicts a benevolent military dictatorship. The more time goes on, the more this view seems to become apparent to me.

I have argued (and found evidence) that the Members have the real power in the Federation, and that the Council only has designated power in limited areas.

But some episodes do seem to depict a disturbingly centralize governing body, a dictatorship in all but name. Backed up by a ridiculously powerful fleet of "exploration ships" which are equipped with weapons of mass destruction.

The Council ... we never hear of elections.

This just hearkens back to a point I've made time and time again; for the hundreds of hours of Star Trek that exists, we learn very little about life in the Federation, since it's all filtered through the idealized view of Starfleet.

This is actually one of the things that intrigues me about Renegades if it can find its way. We're so used to using life through the Starfleet perspective, that idealized view may not match the "reality" of life in the Federation.

 

[dswynne1]

It has been argued in some quarters that the Star Trek universe (the Federation, in particular) depicts a benevolent military dictatorship. The more time goes on, the more this view seems to become apparent to me.

I have argued (and found evidence) that the Members have the real power in the Federation, and that the Council only has designated power in limited areas.

But some episodes do seem to depict a disturbingly centralize governing body, a dictatorship in all but name. Backed up by a ridiculously powerful fleet of "exploration ships" which are equipped with weapons of mass destruction.

The Council ... we never hear of elections.

This just hearkens back to a point I've made time and time again; for the hundreds of hours of Star Trek that exists, we learn very little about life in the Federation, since it's all filtered through the idealized view of Starfleet.

This is actually one of the things that intrigues me about Renegades if it can find its way. We're so used to using life through the Starfleet perspective, that idealized view may not match the "reality" of life in the Federation.

I think it's assumed that since humanity exist in an ideal society, the governance of the Federation is managed to the point of clockwork efficiency to the point that a typical politician knows what is best for the good of all. I mean, we're talking about Gene Roddenberry's idealism, yes?

As I read your reply, I think your objection to living in this "ideal world" stems from the fact that there isn't any competing interests within Federation. We see no evidence of different political parties, and we certainly see no evidence of different special interest groups. I think that you assume that there is more than enough "group think" (i.e. utopianism) that you assume that the only power within the Federation is Starfleet, mainly based upon those episodes where you have the occasional rogue Starfleet admiral. We certainly Section 31 in existence to know that it's not all a bed of roses. Personally, I think that you'd be more at home in the world of BABYLON 5 and SERENITY because you are more comfortable with social friction (good or bad). At least in those environments, you can see the "bad guys" coming, not so in STAR TREK (well, there is Section 31, but they exist to make sure that the Federation is a paradise, which is almost "gestapo-like", for a lack of a better term).

Food for thought.