nice to see kids listening to classical music

[Christopher]

^The wheels on Kirk's motorcycle had no spokes. Whatever was holding the tires onto the bike was invisible, perhaps some kind of forcefield. Not really that different from a hoverbike, and it may have some advantages over a hoverbike, like maybe traction.

Or maybe it's just an indulgence. When the technology is advanced enough to allow just about anything, it's reasonable to expect designs that are motivated more by being cool than being practical. Why would a hover-technology bike have wheels "hovering" on their axes? Well, why do people today customize their cars with spinning hubcaps or oversized wheels or that bizarre bouncing-suspension thing? Why do so many single people insist on buying obscenely huge SUVs? Why do stretch Hummer limos even exist? It's because they can.

As for a source of gasoline, there are already nascent technologies that can make petroleum from plastic waste. A technology centuries ahead of ours wouldn't be limited to existing geological sources. And even today it would be possible to refit a Corvette with a diesel engine and run it on used cooking oil. Surely they still use cooking oil in the 23rd century.

"Not know what gasoline is?" That makes no sense. We have electric lights, but there are still candlemakers. We have cars, but there are still people who make horse-drawn vehicles for specialty use, or who rely on them as a matter of choice like the Amish. For that matter, there are still people around the world who still live pretty much as their ancestors did thousands of years ago. Humanity does not advance in lockstep. Today, the most advanced technology coexists alongside populations that live by traditional subsistence agriculture, horticulture, even hunting and gathering. Millions of people still live according to techniques and technologies as they existed thousands of years ago. They may carry cell phones and laptops, but they still use traditional methods to build their homes and raise their food and so forth. So there's no reason to assume that humanity would ever completely lose or forget the knowledge of its past.

And lots of people collect antiques of all sorts. This is news to you?

 

[Deckerd]

Plus the fact I sincerely doubt there will be no oil left in 200 years' time.

 

[DevilEyes]

In one of Diane Duane's early Romulan novels she refferences the classics, and includes Devo. I thought that was funny. Classic alternative yes. A classic, not so sure.

And in Doctor Who, one of the timeless classics of the ancient Earth, played 5 billion years from now in honor of Earth's impending demise, was "Tainted Love" by Soft Cell.

 

[JarodRussell]

Or maybe it's just an indulgence. When the technology is advanced enough to allow just about anything, it's reasonable to expect designs that are motivated more by being cool than being practical. Why would a hover-technology bike have wheels "hovering" on their axes? Well, why do people today customize their cars with spinning hubcaps or oversized wheels or that bizarre bouncing-suspension thing? Why do so many single people insist on buying obscenely huge SUVs? Why do stretch Hummer limos even exist? It's because they can.

Point taken.

As for a source of gasoline, there are already nascent technologies that can make petroleum from plastic waste. A technology centuries ahead of ours wouldn't be limited to existing geological sources. And even today it would be possible to refit a Corvette with a diesel engine and run it on used cooking oil.

Well then the sound department screwed that scene up. An engine running on cooking oil, or any other fuel, sounds a lot differently.

We have electric lights, but there are still candlemakers.

Can you really compare candles, which are in daily usage, to car engines, that in 200 years won't be? And if candle wax had been exploited 200 years ago, you wouldn't know what it is, would you?

Plus the fact I sincerely doubt there will be no oil left in 200 years' time.

And I guess global warming is also just a fantasy story to you?

We have cars, but there are still people who make horse-drawn vehicles for specialty use, or who rely on them as a matter of choice like the Amish.

That's a question if there will ever be 21st century Amish. I doubt that.

So there's no reason to assume that humanity would ever completely lose or forget the knowledge of its past.

Theoretically: would they abandon nuclear power/weapons (which they will never do, I know), in 50-75 years NOBODY would know how to deal with it. All the experts would have died out by then, and nobody would have re-learned it because there's no jobs. There would be a lot of literature on the subject lying around, but the knowledge would indeed be forgotten. In 100 years, they would need to start entirely from scratch.

Guess why they need till 2020 to get a man back on the moon. First reason: money. Second reason: engineers have spend the last decades for low orbit missions, Space Shuttles, the ISS. The knowledge how to get a rocket with people aboard to the moon has simply been "forgotten". The engineers and experts of the Apollo program are gone. Their knowledge is well documented, yes, but the current generation has to relearn everything before they can successfully do a new mission.

 

[Christopher]

As for a source of gasoline, there are already nascent technologies that can make petroleum from plastic waste. A technology centuries ahead of ours wouldn't be limited to existing geological sources. And even today it would be possible to refit a Corvette with a diesel engine and run it on used cooking oil.

Well then the sound department screwed that scene up. An engine running on cooking oil, or any other fuel, sounds a lot differently.

As I said, we already have ways of making petroleum artificially. The Corvette could certainly have used authentic gasoline.

Can you really compare candles, which are in daily usage, to car engines, that in 200 years won't be?

Just because I only mention one example doesn't mean it's meant to be an exhaustive list of the category. So that's a spurious objection. There are plenty of people who specialize in keeping old-time skills alive for the sake of preserving history, or simply as a hobby. Haven't you ever heard of Colonial Williamsburg?

And if candle wax had been exploited 200 years ago, you wouldn't know what it is, would you?

If you're misusing "exploited" to mean "used up" as I figure you must be, then of course I'd know what it is, because human beings have this nifty little invention called history. They write stuff down about the past, and then people in later generations read it and learn about the past. Come on, surely you've heard of the dodo bird, the passenger pigeon, the Roman Empire, the city of Troy, and other things that ceased to exist a long time ago. Why would you think that if something vanished from the world, the entire human race would forget it had existed?

We have cars, but there are still people who make horse-drawn vehicles for specialty use, or who rely on them as a matter of choice like the Amish.

That's a question if there will ever be 21st century Amish. I doubt that.

Umm, it is the 21st century right this minute. Has been for nearly a decade. And there are over 220,000 Amish around today.

If that was a typo for "23rd century," why would you assume that any given culture would cease to exist between now and then? The Federation is supposed to be a tolerant, inclusive culture. Surely they wouldn't persecute a religious community out of existence.

Besides, you thoroughly missed my point by taking my example too literally and narrowly. The point is that it's naive to assume that old knowledge would ever vanish from the face of the Earth simply because it's old. The point is that people don't march forward in lockstep and embrace or forget the same things at the same time. Humanity is a very diverse species, and the technology in everyday use across the planet Earth at this very moment runs the whole gamut of things we've invented from yesterday all the way back to hundreds of thousands of years ago, and everything in between. (Hey, you still use fire and string, don't you? Those are prehistoric technologies.) So it's illogical to assume that people only 230 years from now would've forgotten the existence of the technologies we have today, or that nobody in the world of that time would retain the knowledge of how to use the technology of this time. Progress is not so monolithic.

Theoretically: would they abandon nuclear power/weapons (which they will never do, I know), in 50-75 years NOBODY would know how to deal with it. All the experts would have died out by then, and nobody would have re-learned it because there's no jobs. There would be a lot of literature on the subject lying around, but the knowledge would indeed be forgotten. In 100 years, they would need to start entirely from scratch.

You're contradicting yourself. If it's in the literature, then it's not forgotten. People do actually read books, you know. They study the past. You know that nifty little thing called "history" I mentioned above? There are people who make a career out of studying it. Heck, I was even able to go to college, learn the stuff, and get a degree in it. So I think I'm qualified to inform you that people do, in fact, remember their history.

Besides, haven't you ever met anyone who loved antiques? Who collected them? Who studied them and learned the techniques that were used to make them? There are plenty of hobbyists as well as historians who do exactly that. (Several of them appear on Mythbusters when they test historical myths. Recently they were testing a Davy Crockett myth and they talked to a guy who wasn't only an expert in period firearms, but who had the skill to make his own animal-skin hats -- a skill that's obsolete and unnecessary today, but he still did it.) It makes no sense to assume that there would never be such a thing as an antique-lover or historian who specialized in 20th-century automobiles.

I mean, come on, we're talking about cars here. As a rule, guys dig cars (though that's a rule I'm happy to be an exception to). Whatever strange allure they have today, it will probably exist in the future as well. People will be drawn to the romance and mythology of the automobile and the culture surrounding it. Even today, a car is an ideal, a state of mind, not just a practical conveyance. So even if people don't need gasoline-powered cars in the future, the lure of history will capture some people's imagination, lead them to study and collect cars and devote the same kind of loving attention to them that automotive hobbyists do today.

 

[RyuRoots]

I think you are confused about terms. "Classical" music is Motzart, Beethoven, Strauss, etc. At first I thought this thread was relating to a good score reaching out to young people and making them interested in that style of music. I really don't thing Beastie Boys would (or more importantly should) be classified as "classical" in any age.

*facepalm*

Oh, come on, I already addressed that point myself.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Does anybody think there's any credence to the theory that the song was an inside joke reference to the old clip of William Shatner being snooty over the pronunciation of "sabotage" on the set of "Star Trek"? I don't say "sabotage", you say "sabotage", I say "sabotaage".

 

[Christopher]

^That's been debunked by the filmmakers.

 

[Deckerd]

And I guess global warming is also just a fantasy story to you?

What are you on about? The two have nothing to do with each other as regards the reserves of fossil oil left on the planet.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Well, however Jim got that car to work, he got it to work. And that was pretty interesting.

 

[Christopher]

No, Jim's stepfather got the car to work. Jim just stole it.

 

[Cyke101]

There were many Beastie Boys in Mozart's day and age. But they didn't survive.

I doubt any contemporary musician will make it into the 24th century. Elvis or the Stones maybe, I dunno. But today's classical composers, Mozart, Beethoven et al, will still be there, I believe. Same reason why Homer is still around, altogether with Shakesspeare. Some artist's work survived until now and will survive as long mankind exists.

What about the Beatles or Etta James? I'd say their work for now stands thus far. The state of Georgia adopted a work by Ray Charles as their state song. What survives and doesn't survive is a very fluid thing that can't really be predicted.

That said, I find that carriage and classical music comparison justified to show how ridiculous that scene was. 250 years, people. 250 years in the future, after several alien contacts that boosted humanity's development. Kirk lives in a world that uses matter/antimatter reactions, solar energy, fusion reactors. Mankind mastered gravity, so their vehicles are able to fly. If they travel, they beam over thousands of miles or fly shuttles. They are able to turn energy into matter! I think people here watched Trek way too long so they don't realize how advanced that future actually is. It's not about iPhones being better than communicators, that's nothing compared to the rest.

And then again, how many people collect 300 year old carriages?

How many people these days use human-powered rickshaws? Check Chicago, NYC, and San Francisco and you'll find plenty. Same thing with bicycles vs. motorcycles -- the latter's more advanced, the former is cheaper and far more accessible in terms of proliferation.

And moreover, how did he fuel the engine? 50 years from now, oil reserves will be exploited. 250 years from now, mankind will have used alternative energy sources for 200 (!) years. I doubt they will even know what gasoline is. "Daddy, what is oil?" - "You know, son, 300 years ago they burned a black liquid to create energy. And they burned so much of it, their atmosphere was full of toxic smoke, and they exploited all of their reserves of that raw oil. Only then they were forced to use the energy of sun, wind and water." - "Sounds like the stone age."

Do we know gasoline is fueling the car? Granted, the burden of proof to show that it runs on non-gasoline (say, electricity or hydrogen) would be on the movie, but we don't see evidence of gasoline.

And no, the film shouldn't expect people to make the leap to assume that no gasoline was used, either... but but but, as you point out, we're starting to use other means to power vehicles as well, and couldn't that logic easily apply to an old jalopy of a corvette?

Kirk using a bike with wheels is already borderlining stupid when we've clearly seen what kind of bike the police uses. Oh, the wheels where magnetically propelled. Big deal. Other bikes are propelled using anti-gravity engines!

And I point back to bicycles vs. motorcycles, too. Why use pedals when you can use a motor? Some people just like to use what they have without going over. Some people prefer bicycles vs. motorcycles, and perhaps the same applies to Kirk using a motorcycle rather than a hoverbike.

You find this sort of "inconsistency" all the time in Trek -- laser sutures and replicated lungs but near-sightedness is still a problem, for instance -- but it still serves to bring the viewer into the program. Why use a book when you can use a Kindle-like PADD? I've no idea, but Picard has a hearty library of books.

 

[Christopher]

How many people these days use human-powered rickshaws? Check Chicago, NYC, and San Francisco and you'll find plenty. Same thing with bicycles vs. motorcycles -- the latter's more advanced, the former is cheaper and far more accessible in terms of proliferation.

Exactly. It's a myth that new technology replaces the old. More often, new and old technologies coexist. We live in an age of electricity and nuclear power, but we still use fire. We have Velcro, but we still use string and buttons. We have farm machinery, but there are still hundreds of millions of people around the world who farm with hand tools and draft animals. I have a laptop, but right next to it are several pencils and pens and a paper notepad.

Do we know gasoline is fueling the car? Granted, the burden of proof to show that it runs on non-gasoline (say, electricity or hydrogen) would be on the movie, but we don't see evidence of gasoline.

And like I said, there's already a method for creating petroleum out of organic waste. It takes millions of years for geological processes to convert carbon compounds into petroleum, but that's because it's a haphazard process. Under controlled conditions, with the right techniques, it can be done much more quickly. So it's not true that gasoline will cease to exist once the geological reserve runs out.

For that matter, it's a myth that there will cease to be any oil on the planet once the usable supply runs out. It's just that there are limits to what it's practical to extract. More advanced methods could probably extract more.

Of course, we can assume that in the 23rd century, fossil fuels are rarely used. But it should certainly be possible for those few people who collect antique automobiles and other gasoline-powered vehicles to obtain fuel for them, and they would be few enough that their environmental impact would be insignificant. Also, just as Jim's stepfather's Corvette had a more "modern" audio and communication system installed, it could've had some kind of exhaust scrubber built in to neutralize any pollutants.

 

[JarodRussell]

Whatever, I stand by my opinion that this scene feels out of place, is badly introduced and has no effect on anything in the movie. I wouldn't say anything if Kirk had stolen a 23rd century version of a car, a shuttle, something. A 22nd century "old"timer. Something original. Or had they explained that anachronistic curiosity... But a 1960s corvette running on gasoline... sorry, it's stoopid, in my opinion.

Excuses about gasoline still common in 250 years, about Star Trek doing stuff like that before are bleh. Just because Star Trek did it before doesn't mean I liked it back then. Everyone reads books in the 24th century, that's nonsense to me. Ask your kids what a typewriter is, and you'll know what people will say about books in 250 years.

Do we know gasoline is fueling the car? [...] we don't see evidence of gasoline.

Well, we hear it.

If you're misusing "exploited" to mean "used up" as I figure you must be

Yeah, sorry, English is not my native language. Learn French and we talk about word picking.

Umm, it is the 21st century right this minute. Has been for nearly a decade. And there are over 220,000 Amish around today.

No, I actually meant a 21st century version of an Amish. Someone who stops at the current level of technology and society.

You're contradicting yourself. If it's in the literature, then it's not forgotten. People do actually read books, you know. They study the past. You know that nifty little thing called "history" I mentioned above? There are people who make a career out of studying it.

That quote proves that you didn't understand what i was saying. Yeah, it's somewhere in books. But there's a huge difference between theory and practise. And in my example, people stopped studying it because they couldn't get a job because the industry ceased to exist.

And my other example about the Moon mission, which you somehow completely ignored, should actually have explained the same thing a bit clearer.

 

[Christopher]

Whatever, I stand by my opinion that this scene feels out of place, is badly introduced and has no effect on anything in the movie. I wouldn't say anything if Kirk had stolen a 23rd century version of a car, a shuttle, something. A 22nd century "old"timer. Something original. Or had they explained that anachronistic curiosity... But a 1960s corvette running on gasoline... sorry, it's stoopid, in my opinion.

The intent was to present this as a future that grows out of our own reality, to make it grounded and relatable to an audience that isn't already immersed in a sci-fi mindset and therefore make the film accessible to a wider audience. And it clearly succeeded. So yes, one can make quibbles about the details of it, but that's hardly unique in motion pictures, and as a cinematic shorthand device, it did the job it was meant to do. It showed the viewer that this is not a totally fanciful realm unconnected to our own, but is instead a future that has roots in the world we live in. Same with having Nokia and Budweiser still around in the 23rd century (though there were clearly promotional considerations there as well).

Excuses about gasoline still common in 250 years, about Star Trek doing stuff like that before are bleh.

It was not offered as an excuse, merely a refutation of your false and ill-informed assumption that gasoline would not only have ceased to exist in 250 years but that people would have totally forgotten it ever existed. I'm sorry, but that shows a profound misunderstanding of human nature as well as geology and chemistry.

Everyone reads books in the 24th century, that's nonsense to me. Ask your kids what a typewriter is, and you'll know what people will say about books in 250 years.

A book is a book, regardless of the form it takes. Books in the past were written on scrolls or papyrus or dried bark, but they were still known as books (or the equivalent in the appropriate language). The format of book that we tend to equate with the word "book" in the current era is technically called a codex.

That quote proves that you didn't understand what i was saying. Yeah, it's somewhere in books. But there's a huge difference between theory and practise. And in my example, people stopped studying it because they couldn't get a job because the industry ceased to exist.

And my other example about the Moon mission, which you somehow completely ignored, should actually have explained the same thing a bit clearer.

You're missing the point because you're thinking of this solely in terms of whether the technology in question is in widespread use. It is a fact that people do collect antiques. It is a fact that hobbyists and historians do study and practice the techniques used in ancient times, in order to preserve knowledge that has been otherwise lost. There are people alive today who are experts in traditional woodworking and blacksmithing techniques. There are people alive today who are experts in the construction methods of medieval siege weaponry. There are people alive today who are experts in the techniques used by Paleolithic and Neolithic hunters to make stone tools. Just because most people have stopped using a technology doesn't mean there aren't hobbyists, collectors, scholars, and the like who specialize in it.

So it's not remotely implausible that Jim Kirk's stepfather could be a collector of antiques. It's not remotely implausible that he could have studied the techniques used in the maintenance and operation of pre-Space Age automotive conveyances. It's not remotely implausible that he could've obtained refined gasoline from a specialty supplier for hobbyists or from his local university's chemistry department. For all we know, he could be a historian or archaeologist whose academic specialty is the automobile era.

 

[Cicero]

There were many Beastie Boys in Mozart's day and age. But they didn't survive.

I doubt any contemporary musician will make it into the 24th century. Elvis or the Stones maybe, I dunno. But today's classical composers, Mozart, Beethoven et al, will still be there, I believe. Same reason why Homer is still around, altogether with Shakesspeare. Some artist's work survived until now and will survive as long mankind exists.

I'd think some of John Williams's compositions, at least, would have survived in the orchestral canon.

As for a source of gasoline, there are already nascent technologies that can make petroleum from plastic waste.

Also, the Navy has developed technology capable of producing jet fuel from seawater (in which carbon is dissolved). They expect to improve its efficiency enough to put it in standard use aboard carriers before mid-century.

 

[I am not Spock]

They did mention that a 'WWIII epic' swept all the award ceremonies; in Enterprise.

So contemporary movies were being made in the 22nd century. But other than that, there are few references to 'contemporary' Earth (or shall I say Federation) pop culture in Star Trek.

I figure young guys will probably always want to listen to raucous music. Until XI, it looked like rock music had completely died out in the future. Maybe the Federation banned any aggressive music like Slayer or Anthrax or whatever, and made everyone listen to classical or jazz or whatnot (it sure looked that way).

 

[DimesDan]

They did mention that a 'WWIII epic' swept all the award ceremonies; in Enterprise.

So contemporary movies were being made in the 22nd century. But other than that, there are few references to 'contemporary' Earth (or shall I say Federation) pop culture in Star Trek.

I figure young guys will probably always want to listen to raucous music. Until XI, it looked like rock music had completely died out in the future. Maybe the Federation banned any aggressive music like Slayer or Anthrax or whatever, and made everyone listen to classical or jazz or whatnot (it sure looked that way).

Didn't the Doc's holo son in an episode of Voyager listen to Klingon Opera after Torres adjusted the programme so teens still do listen to raucous music, even if it wasn't Earth in origin as I do not believe one second the Federation would ban any form of music.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Until XI, it looked like rock music had completely died out in the future. Maybe the Federation banned any aggressive music like Slayer or Anthrax or whatever, and made everyone listen to classical or jazz or whatnot (it sure looked that way).

Don't forget the little boy who listens to very dissonant rock music in an episode of TNG, prompting Picard to enter his quarters and yell, "WOULD YOU TURN OFF THAT NOISE?!?"

 

[JarodRussell]

Everyone reads books in the 24th century, that's nonsense to me. Ask your kids what a typewriter is, and you'll know what people will say about books in 250 years.

A book is a book, regardless of the form it takes. Books in the past were written on scrolls or papyrus or dried bark, but they were still known as books (or the equivalent in the appropriate language). The format of book that we tend to equate with the word "book" in the current era is technically called a codex.

My God, man!