In defense of children on starships

[RobertVA]

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.
__________________

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.

That makes our 9mm packing drug dealers sound downright neighborly!

 

[Myasishchev]

How much of a difference is that latter difference? Many UFP planets have an outdoor environment, but many do not.

Name for me one UFP world that's inhabited but isn't Class M.

Mars.

I agree with your points, though, except that a Galaxy-class starship at least isn't really analogous to a submarine. Doesn't mean it's a good place for kids, however.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

In any given year (season), enterprise is in mortal danger about 10 times. That's much more than any Federation world/ship that travels well-known routes.
Serving aboard enterprise is a high-risk career.
Bringing children on-board is irresponsible.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

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.

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?

And how would you know if Starships have better education and healthcare then planets?

How much of a difference is that latter difference? Many UFP planets have an outdoor environment, but many do not.

Name for me one UFP world that's inhabited but isn't Class M.

Mars.

Unless they terraformed it.

 

[Bear23]

In any given year (season), enterprise is in mortal danger about 10 times. That's much more than any Federation world/ship that travels well-known routes.
Serving aboard enterprise is a high-risk career.
Bringing children on-board is irresponsible.

Meh. It builds character!

 

[Sci]

How much of a difference is that latter difference? Many UFP planets have an outdoor environment, but many do not.

Name for me one UFP world that's inhabited but isn't Class M.

Mars.

Mars was being terraformed as of 2155 in ENT. Presumably it's considerably closer to a Class M environment by the time of the Galaxy class.

I agree with your points, though, except that a Galaxy-class starship at least isn't really analogous to a submarine. Doesn't mean it's a good place for kids, however.

Fair enough.

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.

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?

And how would you know if Starships have better education and healthcare then planets?

That's sorta my point. There's no reason to think that a starship -- which is inherently cut off from the core systems were the great universities and centers of learning and technological advancement are located -- would give its child civilians superior access to information, comforts, health care, or education than a planet. If anything, being away for ten or more years implies that life on a starship would be somewhat harder.

ETA:

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.

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.

Humanoid life evolved to live in an environment where those things existed; it's much more natural, and much healthier, to live in on a Class M planet's surface than in a floating tin can. Further -- it's the 24th Century. They have a weather modification system. You gonna tell me they don't have the capacity to thwart wildlife keep people warm or cool, use sunscreen, or practice safe swimming?

 

[Trilliam]

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.
__________________

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.

That makes our 9mm packing drug dealers sound downright neighborly!

On the radio news, they're reporting a bloke being bitten by a brown snake in Melbourne CBD today.

 

[Trilliam]

Humanoid life evolved to live in an environment where those things existed; it's much more natural, and much healthier,

Tell that to the aboved referenced bloke in Melbourne today.

 

[Myasishchev]

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.
__________________

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.

Where do you live?

 

[Trilliam]

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.
__________________

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.

Where do you live?

Southeastern Australia. We don't have crocs, tiger snakes and taipans down here (they're up in the northern part of WA, NT and QLD, but we have brown snakes (the inlaws have had them in the back yard) , funnelwebs, redback spiders.

With the temps, I was referring to the sort of summer daytime temps that you might find in the Centre/ desert regions (Uluru, Coober Peedy, Lightning Ridge, Alice Springs, Kalgoorlie etc).

 

[Sci]

Humanoid life evolved to live in an environment where those things existed; it's much more natural, and much healthier,

Tell that to the aboved referenced bloke in Melbourne today.

If the bloke from Melbourne thinks it would be healthier to live in space, I will. But I'm confident that he has more common sense than that.

 

[Trilliam]

Well, when he set off for work to day, he probably would have thought that the Melbourne CBD was safer than space, however that was before he was bitten by a venomous snake whilst going about his normal duties in a built up urban enviorment.

 

[Sci]

Well, when he set off for work to day, he probably would have thought that the Melbourne CBD was safer than space, however that was before he was bitten by a venomous snake whilst going about his normal duties in a built up urban enviorment.

And he was still right when he set off for work.

No one's arguing that planets are 100% safe. No location is 100% safe. But to argue that a planet isn't much, much safer than a space ship is just absurd.

 

[Myasishchev]

I think we're overlooking the safest place in the universe: spacedock. You don't have the dangers of starships, nor the dangers of colorful native fauna.

 

[BenRoethig]

In any given year (season), enterprise is in mortal danger about 10 times. That's much more than any Federation world/ship that travels well-known routes.
Serving aboard enterprise is a high-risk career.
Bringing children on-board is irresponsible.

Civilian ships may travel well known routes, but Starfleet ships go where they're ordered and needed. Without warning they can be assigned combat or dangerous evac missions or get into unintended trouble during a scientific mission. Also while 10 may be abnormally high its survivable for a trained crew. However, just life or death situation can be very detrimental to a child or even an untrained adult civilian.

 

[Hofner]

Well, when he set off for work to day, he probably would have thought that the Melbourne CBD was safer than space, however that was before he was bitten by a venomous snake whilst going about his normal duties in a built up urban enviorment.

And he was still right when he set off for work.

No one's arguing that planets are 100% safe. No location is 100% safe. But to argue that a planet isn't much, much safer than a space ship is just absurd.

Yep. And in the case of Starfleet space ships, they're expected to put themselves in harm's way if a situation warrants it. Even sacrifice themselves. To update a line from Kirk to the 24th century: "In order to avoid interstellar war, this ship, its crew and their children are considered expendable."

Robert