I knew I'd learn something new here. Lol
Yeah, she's not quite that. It seems that way. but I see what you mean.
New To Voyager
- Thread starter Garren
- Start date
I knew I'd learn something new here. Lol
Yeah, she's not quite that. It seems that way. but I see what you mean.
I meant smart of the Federation.
The whole series was a Gilligan Effect wasn't it?
Most SJWs don't pick fights with space bums, or threaten terminally-ill people with "the deadliest of force".
I am reflecting about that and I know I would too if they wanted to chop me up without consent to save their own. worst the mad one killed an officer to wear his face to impress a woman. I get they're dire but I'd show my teeth. Enlightenment would be their medical genius they have as result of the phage rather than selfishly gut people.
The Andromeda ones I bought were home made, yes. Burned.
I don't know why all the real people don't decide they want a day off if there's no money. Or a week off. Or a few years off from their boring ass job.
Only the hard core nut jobs have jobs, but only the super nutty take awful jobs because it takes 9 awful jobs, to finally work their way up to a good job.
Every waiter Joesph Sisko hires in his restaurant, thinks that if s/he works hard enough, or long enough that he can take over the business when Jacob retires or dies.
Remember, no money = no personal property. Joe does not own the business, and it's not a business. No one buys meals off him, and he doesn't buy his ingredients or pay a power bill. "Siskos" is almost certainly a heritage landmark site Joe administers for the local government, otherwise imminent domain would have turned the place into a replimat 2 generations earlier.
You would have to wonder if there is a black market run by the maitre d? That there is a short cut, beyond waiting on a reservations list for 3 years, to acquire a table, and if Joe collects a percentage?
The human philosophy of self improvement might mean that if you make the world more liveable, the world is more liveable to live in. So if every one works as hard as they can, every one benefits. Hallelujah!
Every waiter Joesph Sisko hires in his restaurant, thinks that if s/he works hard enough, or long enough that he can take over the business when Jacob retires or dies.
Remember, no money = no personal property. Joe does not own the business, and it's not a business. No one buys meals off him, and he doesn't buy his ingredients or pay a power bill. "Siskos" is almost certainly a heritage landmark site Joe administers for the local government, otherwise imminent domain would have turned the place into a replimat 2 generations earlier.
You would have to wonder if there is a black market run by the maitre d? That there is a short cut, beyond waiting on a reservations list for 3 years, to acquire a table, and if Joe collects a percentage?
The human philosophy of self improvement might mean that if you make the world more liveable, the world is more liveable to live in. So if every one works as hard as they can, every one benefits. Hallelujah!
I bet the Feds are choking with laws. One of those waiters would not be allowed to just start cooking stuff on the street and "selling" it.
If Global Security concludes that you're homeless, or without a useful function on Earth, you will be frog marched onto colony ship and given an estate to manage the size of Rhode Island on a planet that no one worthwhile is interested in living on yet.
If above is true, then the maximum number of children (and spouses) a drone worker on Earth should be allowed to generate is also dictated by which planet they live on. Or more accurately, that the immensity or lack thereof of their living allowance is dictated by "job" and that their living allowance (living space + allowed number of family members + consumables + necessities.) is also greater the further their homeworld is from Earth.
Even if you are the president, if you have too many children, a number that is probably considerably larger than the presidents personal secretary is allowed to have, lets say 15 kids, you still might might be asked to live someplace else that has room for all your children as soon as you have 16.
The flip side on this is that if you are the important Federation drone taking care of business on Earth, and you divorce your spouse, then that person and possibly any of your combined children, that you are less than interested in continuing to look after, will be deported if their living allowance is now independently based on only their own importance to the Federation and they are not a useful part of the mechanism keeping Earth and the Federation running.
Usefulness not entitlement.
I know I am making it sound like status, but really, Earth is just full of important people doing important things that need elbow room to continue making sure that the Federation stands, and yes that does include all the menial jobs like emptying Rubbish bins, at least until those jobs were taken over by holograms and all the former trash collectors are now governing outer colony worlds.
As more advanced holographic slaves replace the menial human workforce on Earth, does that mean that the living allowances for the remaining Federation citizens still on Earth are increasing or that different labour departments are allowed more drones?
Can you see the Federation allowing Unions to fight the holoassimilation of human labour resources? I know I certainly can't.
Would you rather be a waiter on Earth or the Governor of a distant moon? The two jobs probably have the same security clearance and require the same citizen status yet provide starkly contrasting living allowances, because there are massive incentives to leave earth behind and massive ongoing punitive penalties to stay on Earth.
Earth is small.
Also it seems like the Federation is leasing the Planet entirely and that there might not actually be a human government on Earth at all.
There is no human homeworld.
If above is true, then the maximum number of children (and spouses) a drone worker on Earth should be allowed to generate is also dictated by which planet they live on. Or more accurately, that the immensity or lack thereof of their living allowance is dictated by "job" and that their living allowance (living space + allowed number of family members + consumables + necessities.) is also greater the further their homeworld is from Earth.
Even if you are the president, if you have too many children, a number that is probably considerably larger than the presidents personal secretary is allowed to have, lets say 15 kids, you still might might be asked to live someplace else that has room for all your children as soon as you have 16.
The flip side on this is that if you are the important Federation drone taking care of business on Earth, and you divorce your spouse, then that person and possibly any of your combined children, that you are less than interested in continuing to look after, will be deported if their living allowance is now independently based on only their own importance to the Federation and they are not a useful part of the mechanism keeping Earth and the Federation running.
Usefulness not entitlement.
I know I am making it sound like status, but really, Earth is just full of important people doing important things that need elbow room to continue making sure that the Federation stands, and yes that does include all the menial jobs like emptying Rubbish bins, at least until those jobs were taken over by holograms and all the former trash collectors are now governing outer colony worlds.
As more advanced holographic slaves replace the menial human workforce on Earth, does that mean that the living allowances for the remaining Federation citizens still on Earth are increasing or that different labour departments are allowed more drones?
Can you see the Federation allowing Unions to fight the holoassimilation of human labour resources? I know I certainly can't.
Would you rather be a waiter on Earth or the Governor of a distant moon? The two jobs probably have the same security clearance and require the same citizen status yet provide starkly contrasting living allowances, because there are massive incentives to leave earth behind and massive ongoing punitive penalties to stay on Earth.
Earth is small.
Also it seems like the Federation is leasing the Planet entirely and that there might not actually be a human government on Earth at all.
There is no human homeworld.
Last edited:
What was earth's population at First Contact?
Maybe earth is still a long way from refilling itself after all that death. With the weather control huge hunks of it that are difficult to live in now could all be parks (we'll just assume they have other ways of protecting ecosystem critters). This way there is even more space.
Earth is just one big government park with a few sites for old timey colour like Sisko's restaurant. I imagine people who grow up there would have a hard time adjusting elsewhere.
Maybe earth is still a long way from refilling itself after all that death. With the weather control huge hunks of it that are difficult to live in now could all be parks (we'll just assume they have other ways of protecting ecosystem critters). This way there is even more space.
Earth is just one big government park with a few sites for old timey colour like Sisko's restaurant. I imagine people who grow up there would have a hard time adjusting elsewhere.
We have almost 6 billion now. If steps are taken to slow the increase in population before 2050, we are still looking at a population far in excess of 10 billion strong, maybe.
600 million is a drop in the bucket.
Given how missiles target the sorts of places you we can't really do with out, it's likely that the 9.4 billion people left behind where not the smartest or most prepared to fight and/or rebuild now that the c-team had graduated to the a-team.
Remember how the Vulcans then locked humanity into the solar system for a hundred years?
They were stuck in there only with each others sexuality and no escape.
Then when Earth "volunteered" as the Federation seat, did a million or a billion aliens move in and set up shop?
So much crossbreeding.
The wardrobe is terrible, the special effects are old, and I hate, HATE there weapons fire.
But then you have okay actors acting well from not intolerable scripts.
And then there's this guy...
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3_Lv-BOU-A[/yt]
But then you have okay actors acting well from not intolerable scripts.
And then there's this guy...
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3_Lv-BOU-A[/yt]
I assumed it was Sexy Jewish Woman.
I liked Q2. Don't you "Aunt Kathy", me 
Homestead was sad.
I forgot that Endgame was a two-in-one episode like Caretaker, so I thought I had more to watch but no. Only two more and I will be finished. I hate finales. Even if they are good it's still sad.
Homestead was sad. I forgot that Endgame was a two-in-one episode like Caretaker, so I thought I had more to watch but no. Only two more and I will be finished. I hate finales. Even if they are good it's still sad.
I liked Q2. Don't you "Aunt Kathy", me
I forgot that Endgame was a two-in-one episode like Caretaker, so I thought I had more to watch but no. Only two more and I will be finished. I hate finales. Even if they are good it's still sad.
Q2 was kind of a drag. But Q helped the crew in the end and solved my question, "What's happening with the Q baby?"
Homestead was sad. I was surprised he was written to stay behind and I knew the show was rapping up.
You noticed that that was John DeLancie's real kid playing Q's kid?
Similar threads
