TNG Child Endangerment?

[Defiler-Of-Redshirts]

I've always been a bit bothered that the Enterprise-D was filled with families with small children. Everyone knows from Federation history that deep space travel is extremely dangerous and has often resulted in the destruction of ships. The Borg battle of sector 001 is glaring proof of this, with 39 ships destroyed resulting in the deaths of 11,000 people. If I were a parent, I would never want my kids to be subjected to these interstellar dangers. I would want my kids to grow up on a normal, stable, peaceful planet.

And what purpose does it serve the Enterprise-D to be lugging around families with little kids anyway? It's a waste of the ship's resources & personnel. Did these families permanently live there like a giant, space-traveling RV? If so, why? It's a ship for interstellar space missions, not an apartment building.

 

[BillJ]

People live on and near military bases all over the world. Not seeing having families on starships as any different.

The Borg battle of sector 001 is glaring proof of this

Without amazing luck, Earth wasn't any safer than a starship. Life's a dangerous sport.

 

[saladdays]

People live on and near military bases all over the world. Not seeing having families on starships as any different.



Without amazing luck, Earth wasn't any safer than a starship. Life's a dangerous sport.

Yes. Also, wasn't the original idea to have the saucer separate to keep people out of harm's way when possible? I know it didn't work out very much because of budget or whatever though.

 

[Defiler-Of-Redshirts]

People live on and near military bases all over the world. Not seeing having families on starships as any different.



Without amazing luck, Earth wasn't any safer than a starship. Life's a dangerous sport.

It's VERY different, military bases on Earth don't face anywhere near the kind of extreme, bizarre risks one has in interstellar travel. In real life, how many people get killed on American military bases versus the thousands upon thousands of Star Trek's human deaths in deep space dealing with extreme risks which don't exist on Earth?

 

[Tosk]

How many people die in car accidents every year? They should ban kids in cars, too dangerous.

 

[BillJ]

It's VERY different, military bases on Earth don't face anywhere near the kind of extreme, bizarre risks one has in interstellar travel. In real life, how many people get killed on American military bases versus the thousands upon thousands of Star Trek's human deaths in deep space dealing with extreme risks which don't exist on Earth?

How many kids live on the San Andreas fault line in California? Or on the Coast Lines? In Hurricane regions? Tornado regions (me with two adult and one underage child)? Or in Flood areas (me again)? How many live in deadly cold climates?

How many kids made the trek across the US to California during our formative years?

Anywhere you go, life is dangerous.

 

[BigDaveX]

I think the Enterprise-D's having families on-board made sense in context of early TNG, when the Federation hadn't faced any external threats in a long time outside of the odd border skirmish with the Cardassians and there was seemingly no real threat to officers having their families accompany them in exploring the galaxy. And then the Borg and Dominion showed up, demonstrating first-hand why having so many civilians on-board what for all intents and purposes were military vessels could be an incredibly bad idea in other circumstances.

 

[Kor]

The Enterprise-D was basically a mobile base, not quite analogous to a naval ship or submarine. And bases have family housing.

Kor

 

[Defiler-Of-Redshirts]

In TNG's most morally despicable episode, "Where Silence Has Lease" PIcard and Riker's stompy-foot, hissy fit solution was to destroy the entire ship because that entity said that 1/3 of the crew may die from his experimentation. So they decided to kill 3/3 of everyone, including countless families with small children. Again, there is no logical reason to have small children on risky deep space missions. Even though it worked in that episode, I still found everyone's motives vile and stupid.

 

[Qonundrum]

Yes. Also, wasn't the original idea to have the saucer separate to keep people out of harm's way when possible? I know it didn't work out very much because of budget or whatever though.

Wasn't there an interview, citing the lack of dramatic possibilities for saucer separation (though budget may have also been an issue)? It explains why it wasn't used often after season one, only once... and most episodes did have their own specialized effects... and footage reuse was done for the saucer separation scenes from what I recall...

I wouldn't expect the thing to separate and be thrown like a frisbee every third week, but it was a neat concept - first half-hinted at in TOS' "The Apple" of all stories - that was sadly dropped. Plenty of action makes for good drama too, not just a weekly soap opera session that seasons 5 and 6 in particular became.

That and the saucer lacked warp engines. It would be a sitting duck, a fish in a barrel, a "50% SALE OFF ALL TOPS!" advert, etc.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

One of the ideas of TNG's version of the Star Trek universe is not to fear danger and accept the consequences.

It makes more sense to have children if the Enterprise were alone in deep space without real backup, and not constantly being the lead ship on all major military conflicts.

 

[NewHeavensNewEarth]

And you never know when you'll need some lil rascals to save the day.

 

[Tenacity]

I've always been a bit bothered that the Enterprise-D was filled with families with small children.

In Generations, if young Rene had been living with uncle Jean-Luc he would have been exposed to the battle with the Klingons, the explosion of the warp core, and the hard landing on the surface, but he would have lived.

He didn't survive living on Earth.

 

[XCV330]

People live on and near military bases all over the world. Not seeing having families on starships as any different.



Without amazing luck, Earth wasn't any safer than a starship. Life's a dangerous sport.

People don't take their families on board an aircraft carrier on deployment, or at forward military bases on the front lines, though. Familes on the Enterprise was just one of those wierd Roddenberryisms.

 

[XCV330]

The Enterprise-D was basically a mobile base, not quite analogous to a naval ship or submarine. And bases have family housing.

Kor

Mobile bases don't go boldly where bases have never gone before.

 

[BillJ]

...or at forward military bases on the front lines, though.

West Germany would've been the front lines if the Cold War turned hot, and people took their families with them to live there. US military families live in Seoul, South Korea, which is under direct threat from North Korean artillery.

Life is dangerous and unpredictable, and can change on a moments notice.

 

[Nakita Akita]

It's life.
Would it have been better to leave your kids on a plent to be raised by a family member or a friend?
Remember that's what the crazy Doctor lady did and a weird Crystaline entity destroyed the Safe planet.
No place is 100% safe even only Earth, right now.

 

[at Quark's]

Pfah. The Enterprise-D isn't nearly as bad in that respect as Hogwarts, a place specifically destined for children.....

 

[Spot261]

It's VERY different, military bases on Earth don't face anywhere near the kind of extreme, bizarre risks one has in interstellar travel. In real life, how many people get killed on American military bases versus the thousands upon thousands of Star Trek's human deaths in deep space dealing with extreme risks which don't exist on Earth?

Bear in mind though we tend to see all the extreme stuff happening to an elite crew on the outskirts and zapping into crises, that's what makes it entertaining TV. The majority of ships and crews would have much more mundane existences and keeping families together would be seen as an advantage where it came to retention of personnel.

 

[Spot261]

Mobile bases don't go boldly where bases have never gone before.

In fairness the Enterprise rarely does either.