Nonsense. Nobody has the right to endanger another person without that person's consent. Since children are incapable of consenting, their parents/guardians therefore do not have the right to endanger them.
In defense of children on starships
- Thread starter Xerxes1979
- Start date
Nonsense. Nobody has the right to endanger another person without that person's consent. Since children are incapable of consenting, their parents/guardians therefore do not have the right to endanger them.
Isn't that a judgement call however? Danger exists no matter where one lives. Allowing a family policy on starships probably resulted in more surviving children overall in the grand scheme of things. The danger to Molly O'brien was always less than 1.0. The alternative was non-existence.
Besides if a child or adult buys it on a starship it most likely will be a painless death when the warpcore explodes and vaporizes you.
You mean the Enterprise that didn't exist because it exploded in the previous movie?
You mean the Enterprise that didn't exist because it exploded in the previous movie?
Nope the Enterprise of the future after the Federation judged the risk of dealing with aliens who brought a different moral sense to the fray. Aliens who would ignore the pawns repreasented by starships to go for the king and queen represented by the planets and so called safe areas.
Yes, but you're wrong. A planet is always safer than a tin can in space, especially since that very tin can is the thing that's supposed to sacrifice itself to protect the planet.
No, it's really not. Travel aboard a military vessel charged with defending the state is inherently a huge danger.
Evidence?
No, the alternative was for Molly to be sent to a Federation core planet to be raised by either one of her parents or by a trusted friend or relative whilst Miles and/or Keiko continued to serve aboard the Enterprise.
Wonderful justification for child endangerment, that.
You mean the Enterprise that didn't exist because it exploded in the previous movie?
Nope the Enterprise of the future after the Federation judged the risk of dealing with aliens who brought a different moral sense to the fray. Aliens who would ignore the pawns repreasented by starships to go for the king and queen represented by the planets and so called safe areas.
The safe areas that ships like the Enterprise are charged with protecting at all costs, thereby making those areas inherently safer than those ships.
The Federation council disagrees. You have the example of one ship per generation, they have a wider base of knowledge. And while you may think the Enterprise is a battlestar first and foremost, the Federation sees a different primary use for her in advancing Federation goals.
And they're being stupid.
And now you're appealing to hidden knowledge to support your argument. "The characters must know something we don't that makes it okay!"
For the record, Ronald D. Moore said during his DS9 days that Starfleet abandoned the families-on-starships idea.
I never said it was a battleship first and foremost, I said it was a military vessel that had a legal obligation to protect the Federation. That doesn't mean its first role is combat. But it does mean that that is a role, and one that can't just be overlooked.
Nothing is safe. By that logic, parents shouldn't be allowed to own automobiles or have indoor plumbing, as car accidents and bathroom accidents are two major causes of death for healthy children.
On familes on starships really would work, for 90% of the Federation's fleet. Most ships never went anywhere near serious danger. Families on ships of the line was the problem. The Galaxy Class was designed to be a powerful military resource, and an explorer. It was made to go into unknown and dangerous situations regularly. That was the problem.
But on a science vessel, or a supply transport, or a diplomatic ship, or even a medical ship, civilians wouldn't have been in any serious danger, nor would they have been a hinderance.
Well, people in history have previously expected children to comprehend and behave as "little adults," so why not a backslide in the 24th century? It could be that 24th century children are more well-educated to the point where they might all appear to be wunderkinds, even if they really aren't. I didn't say I agreed or that it made sense.
Not since about the 1400s.
Go grab a developmental psychology test book, then come back
Note my bolded emphasis. Go have a reread, check your condescending tone at the door, then come back.
Actually it was the aliens trying to contact Troi that drove the crew nuts, the rift thing they were in just stopped the engines from working.
especially since it takes more hits and firepower to destroy one planet then to destroy one or more starships, plus warping away doesn't help much with a drive system that once breached has a greater chance of not being ejected and blowing up the ship.
Well, people in history have previously expected children to comprehend and behave as "little adults," so why not a backslide in the 24th century? It could be that 24th century children are more well-educated to the point where they might all appear to be wunderkinds, even if they really aren't. I didn't say I agreed or that it made sense.
Not since about the 1400s.
Go grab a developmental psychology test book, then come back
Note my bolded emphasis. Go have a reread, check your condescending tone at the door, then come back.
Was that aimed at me, or the poster I was responding to?
I wasn't being condescending, I'm in the middle of studying for a Developmental Psych exam. The previous poster seemed to be suggesting that the cognitive development of children will be different in 300years. I was curious to know what they based that on (the topic is somewhat "front of mind" for me at present).
So, the net effect of no children onboard, on say, the 10year deep space missions that the TNG Enterprise was supposed to be on, would mean that being posted to the ship would either mean missing your children growing up, or not having kids. What of children born during the mission? Packed off home to grandparents? Or would one of the parents have to resign their commission and return to Earth (how 1950s)?
I don't think it's 1950s to argue that a parent should keep his or her child out of an environment that is significantly riskier than a stable home life. And, yes, if you have a child with another office whilst on a tour of duty aboard a ship, that kid needs to be sent to a planet, an actual home, posthaste. I make no value judgments as to whether or not they ought to stay in Starfleet, resign, have one parent be there, or have a relative or trusted third party take custody for the duration of the tour. But under no circumstances should the child be allowed to stay aboard the ship for any longer than necessary.
And if you can't make that choice, then I don't think you ought to be in Starfleet.
Not just that, but you've got to ask yourself what the developmental impact of being raised aboard a starship, denied the exposure to a normal planetary environment, would be on a child. I can't imagine that being cooped up for years at a time in a floating tin can, however large, is particularly good for a child. Would you raise a child on an aircraft carrier, even if it was safe?
For someone not making a value judgement, that sounds a lot like one.
Not too much different to kids in the outback on large cattle/sheep stations/rural and remote regions of the NT and WA woth your nearest neighbours hundreds of kms away, being educated by "School of the Air". The classrooms whenever shown on TNG reminded me of one teacher schools (a bit Little House on the Prairie).
Last edited:
You misunderstand. I said that I'm not making a value judgment about what choices are made to facilitate the rearing of a child off-ship, not that I make no value judgements. I do make a value judgement about keeping the kid on-ship. But as far as I'm concerned, both parents resigning from Starfleet, one parent rearing the child on-planet, both parents accepting a planet-bound post, having a relative rear the child, or having a trusted third party rear the child, are all equally valid choices. They're all equal so long as the child is off the ship.
Of course it's different. It's completely different. One situation is raising children on a planet, in a Class-M environment. The other is raising them in the enclosed bulkheads of a pressurized tin can, away from natural air, the natural environment, and an actual sun.
How much of a difference is that latter difference? Many UFP planets have an outdoor environment, but many do not. Either they are not Class M, or they have an urban mode of living, one that is not all that different from a mile-long starship's innards.
In most respects, the E-D was probably a richer environment for children to grow than the average UFP planet would have been. More access to information and inspiration, more comforts, better health care, better education. For the occasional touch of non-holographic dirt and grass, the kids did field trips, as mentioned in "Angel One" - and probably came back complaining it wasn't as good as the real, i.e. holodeck, thing.
Timo Saloniemi
In most respects, the E-D was probably a richer environment for children to grow than the average UFP planet would have been. More access to information and inspiration, more comforts, better health care, better education. For the occasional touch of non-holographic dirt and grass, the kids did field trips, as mentioned in "Angel One" - and probably came back complaining it wasn't as good as the real, i.e. holodeck, thing.
Timo Saloniemi
You know I think the opening minutes of the new Star Trek movie make a good argument aganist having kids on Starships.
It also doesn't have taipans, red belly black snakes, yellowbelly black snakes, brown snakes, freshwater crocs, daytime temps in the 40sC....also probably not too many cases of sun-related melanoma, funnelweb bites, redback spider, sea snakes, tiger snakes, green tree snakes, drownings.
Name for me one UFP world that's inhabited but isn't Class M.
Of course living in an urban area is very different from living inside the metal cage of a starship. The big difference? You can go outside! There's a reason that sailors aboard submarines need leave.
What possible reason do you have to think that a Federation planetary settlement wouldn't have access to the same information, comforts, health care, and education that can be found aboard a starship?
