This city's destruction does not make sense

[Locutus of Bored]

I don't see why we should draw the line there. Star Trek tells us 600 million people are going to die in a WW3. You think that is consistent with a positive future, but if the majority of those 600 million were Chinese it's not?

I don't think Star Trek is telling us the Chinese were (largely) "wiped out", much less that there's been a "genocide". I'm just trying to make sense of the dearth of Chinese people -- or really, Asian people in general -- in the future of Star Trek, which doesn't make a lot of sense when it's the most populous part of the world today.

I can think of two explanations:

1. Asia's share of the world population remains more or less the same, but for some reason Asian people don't serve as much in Starfleet. This, to me, would be the more problematic explanation, because it suggests there's still racism in the 23rd and 24th centuries.
2. Asian people are just as likely to serve in Starfleet, but Asia's share of the world population has declined. The obvious explanation for that would be World War 3, especially since we're told an Eastern Coalition fought in the war.

Since large cities in East and South Asia are both more populous and more dense than North America's, even a tit-for-tat nuclear exchange would lead to far more fatalities in the former than in the latter.

Consider: only two metro regions in the US have a population of more than 10 million: New York-New Jersey and Los Angeles. China has eight metro regions with 10+ million inhabitants. India has five. Pakistan has two. The Ho Chi Minh metro area has a population of 20 million. The Jakarta metro area has 30 million. Taipei 7 million.

It's not necessary to come up with in-universe justifications for real world casting issues and biases, it is only necessary to try and do better to alleviate those problems in the future by hiring more actors of East Asian, South Asian, and Pacific Islander descent, of which there are an abundant number in both Los Angeles and Toronto. If you (put out a) cast(ing call for) them, they will come.

 

[StarTrek1701]

We also see Paris in Picard and it had none of the skyscrapers that were in Discovery.
Picard:

Discovery:

Goes on to show how the current showrunners don't give a crap about their own internal continuity at all.

 

[Noname Given]

Goes on to show how the current showrunners don't give a crap about their own internal continuity at all.

Yeah because major city layouts and architecture don't change at all in 200 years. New York and L.A. today look EXACTLY like they did back in 1822...oh, wait...

 

[ToddCam]

Based on the casting, it would imply a very heavy white majority in Earth's population. And that Africa itself must be also genocided away, because the majority of the Black people we've seen have European names.

 

[Amasov]

Goes on to show how the current showrunners don't give a crap about their own internal continuity at all.

To be fair, the Paris seen in Picard looks more consistent with what we've seen in earlier versions of Star Trek. Discovery's 23rd century Paris is practically what I would expect if we saw the city in the 32nd century.

But previous Trek administrations didn't seem to "give a crap" either.

 

[Tuskin38]

Goes on to show how the current showrunners don't give a crap about their own internal continuity at all.

Neither did the showrunners who made TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT

TNG had a few episodes with the federation clearly using genetic engineering, but then here comes DS9 saying it's been banned for centuries. Or how Women couldn't serve on the high council according TNG and DS9, but ST6 had Gorkon's daughter leading the council.

And as the video Amasov posted above, Paris design also changed between TNG ST6 and DS9.

 

[Nerroth]

Given that, of all of the actors hired to portray characters with "Noonien Singh" in their names to this point, not one of them has been of South Asian descent, I would sooner agree with the production/casting bias argument.

-----

As an aside, there are several cities in mainland China which have had to be almost entirely rebuilt over the centuries, as much (if not more) due to natural disasters such as fire and flooding than not. The city of Kaifeng, the imperial capital during the northern Song Dynasty, being a good example of this. The Huang He (Yellow River) is perhaps the greatest single source of this natural misfortune; its frequent floods and major course alterations have led to millions of deaths in and of themselves, as its immense silt deposits literally bury the artifice of a previous generation and force their successors to build atop them. Not for nothing was irrigation a major priority for successive Chinese dynasties - as it remains for the present-day government of China.

Although, while fire and flooding are major threats to traditional wooden Chinese buildings, it appears that they are remarkably resilient in the face of earthquakes.

My point being that, if one were to expect Parisians to re-build the Eiffel Tower after the Third World War, or for San Franciscans to rebuild the Golden Gate Bridge after the Breen attack on Earth, it wouldn't be a stretch to envision the likes of the Forbidden City or the Bund to be rebuilt if necessary - even if the on-screen Franchise hasn't quite yet gotten around to showing us this on-screen.

 

[Sci]

We also see Paris in Picard and it had none of the skyscrapers that were in Discovery.
Picard:

Discovery:

Goes on to show how the current showrunners don't give a crap about their own internal continuity at all.

Paris in TNG: "We'll Always Have Paris," set in 2364...

... looks completely different from Paris in DS9: "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost," set just 8 years later in 2372:

I eagerly await your hyperbolic declaration that the TNG and DS9 showrunners didn't give a crap about their own internal continuity at all.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In a world with replicators, would creating and destroying skyscrapers at will be that out of the question?

 

[Nerys Myk]

In a world with replicators, would creating and destroying skyscrapers at will be that out of the question?

I heard that in movie trailer guy's voice.

 

[Amasov]

Look how they don't give a crap about the consistency of Starfleet Headquarters in the films.

But then look at how they suddenly do between Discovery and Picard.

 

[Tuskin38]

Don't embed images from wiki pages, it doesn't work.

 

[dupersuper]

Paris in TNG: "We'll Always Have Paris," set in 2364...

Wasn't that a holodeck program of Picard's last academy days in the 2320s?

 

[Sci]

Wasn't that a holodeck program of Picard's last academy days in the 2320s?

Good point -- I checked Memory Alpha and I mis-remembered it. It's supposed to represent Paris circa 2342, 22 years before 2364.

30 years is also a completely unrealistic time for Paris to go from looking like that -- complete with a giant tube running directly between the Eiffel Tower's legs! -- to looking like it did in DS9, so the point still stands.

 

[LisbonPlayer]

... looks completely different from Paris in DS9: "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost," set just 8 years later in 2372:

I eagerly await your hyperbolic declaration that the TNG and DS9 showrunners didn't give a crap about their own internal continuity at all.

That matte painting is a geographical abomination, those modern buildings are exactly were Notre-Dame Cathedral is, and the Eiffel Tower should be some 4 Km to the right.

 

[fireproof78]

I eagerly await your hyperbolic declaration that the TNG and DS9 showrunners didn't give a crap about their own internal continuity at all.

They don't. Clearly they are not of the body!