Was the D an experimental ship?

[judge alba]

mind you i dont think they used the separation to take the famlies to safty in best of both worlds (not it would be safe near the cube).
hadn't relised they did the seperation thing in arsenal of freedom. really must watch more trek.

 

[Saito S]

And there is no need for a science officer when Data seemed to fill the role just fine.

So your whole point is that she shouldn't be part of the bridge crew? How does she evaluate crew performances then? And the fact that she'd only behind Captain and XO in importance when it comes to alien life forms (which is the primary mission of the ship) means nothing?

Again, you seem to think that the role is that of a therapist, but it's much more than that. She is an officer as well and a alien expert and acts in an advisory role.

Your way of thinking is wrapped around a 20th century "shrink" and it's not the same at all.

On these points: This is true of Troi as she was originally envisioned, perhaps, and certainly of how she was in the show in the last couple seasons. But the fact is, that's not how she came off during seaons 1-5 for the most part. She acted like she really was first and foremost a therapist. More often than not, unless it was a Troi-centric episode, her presence on the bridge (and she was almost always there) didn't amount to much. Add to that the idea that she was supposedly a full officer, yet wore that ridiculous outfit instead of a uniform (the one really great thing Jelico did for the Enterprise was rectifying that mistake! ), and in "Disaster", she didn't know what a containment breach was. The idea that any officer or crewman wouldn't know that is absurd. So while it made sense in theory, the reality of the show was a little dodgy.

As for Data, he was certainly quite capable as a scientist, but the idea that there was no "Science Officer" is pretty unrealistic with respect to established Starfleet crew structure. Data was the Chief of Operations, which is a department of it's own. So is Science. Someone has to be the department head for all the blue-uniformed extras you see at the bridge science stations (among other places). The reason we didn't see a Chief Science Officer (and that Data basically filled that role) is because it's a TV show. No one had been cast in that role, so it was absent.

You'd think that Starfleet would realize that having children on board starships was a bad idea after the, oh I don't know, first 40 or so disasters involving starships. Hell, you'd think Picard would have realized that after the children were KIDNAPPED by aliens.

For a ship that was repeatedly put in potential combat situations (BOBW, Redemption, Chain of Command, Generations, etc), doesn't having children on board make no sense whatsoever? What do they do, make a detour to the nearest starbase to dump off the kiddies whenever it looks like things are getting dangerous? At least they got rid of the kids for the Ent-E.

Agreed. Ronald D. Moore once said he thought of the whole families/children on the ship as exactly what I think of it as: an (ultimately failed) experiment. He put it best when he said that "There was always something awkward about Picard ordering the ship into battle situations with kiddies running through the corridors. And no matter how much lip service we paid to the "our families are part of our strength" concept, it never seemed very smart or very logical to bring the spouse and kids along when you're facing down the Borg, or guarding the Neutral Zone, or plunging the ship into uncharted spatial anomalies."
I think there was some merit to it when the Federation went through a relatively peaceful time (pre- and early TNG), but it's an unsound concept in the universe of Trek anytime post TNG season 4. Continuing on this topic...

Only if you think children are more valuable as adults, or their survival more important than that of grown-ups. Which may not be true of the brave new world of the 24th century any more.

I find that to be a rather... odd, viewpoint. And one that there is zero evidence for on the show.

It made sense for soldiers up until very recently: what was the point of having a family if one would never see it? Back then, the inability to see the family while on leave was due to the inability to traverse the vast overland or overseas distances from one's assignment to one's home. Today, that's no longer an issue - but it will be an issue again if our troops get aboard starships that stay away for years at an end.

Tough. If you want to be the type of father/mother who is really around for their kids, then don't join Starfleet. Or, take one of the many thousands upon thousands of postings that are either on one of the huge starbases (keep your kids with you), planetside (keep your kids with you), or on a ship that has a static assignment in a core sector (always within several hours travel time of whichever Fed planet, where your kids live). If you accept an assignment to a ship on deep-space exploration duty, or patrol duties along hostile borders... you can't keep your kids with you. Make the choice.

My take on it (which will be applied to the Trek stories that I am always working on) was that it was something that was scaled back heavily as the reality of just how dangerous shipboard life in the late 24th century was became more apparent. However, on certain ships, bringing a spouse/significant other on board would be allowed under certain conditions. Specifically, I envisioned that the civilian in question would be given a battery of tests (psychological, mostly) to determine if they can really handle the realities of life (and the potential for sudden death) aboard a Starfleet vessel. Only in those cases where the person passed the test (and signed all the "I understand that I'm putting myself in extreme danger, and my family won't hold Starfleet or the Federation responsible if I die" wavers) would they be allowed to live on the ship. And some ships wouldn't allow this at all (though peacetime Galaxy-class ships, with their deep-space exploration assignments, likely would allow for this).
And children would never be allowed. You want to have kids, again, you make the choice: see them only when you can get shoreleave, or arrange for a different assignment.
Referring to families on the E-E:

Don't be so sure. They could well still be there even if we don't see them.

I highly doubt that. I will grant that I don't have any more direct evidence against there being families on board than you have direct evidence for it. That's just my gut feeling.

 

[Timo]

I find that to be a rather... odd, viewpoint. And one that there is zero evidence for on the show.

The reason we value kids today is rather banal, really. It's hardwired to our biologies to be protective of certain cuteness features (which is why we rather idiotically like plush toys and tamagochis, too), because at one point in our evolution (or the evolution of preceding mammals) it was advantageous to give children extra protection to guarantee survival of the species. That was back when we could barely support one or two kids at a time; with agriculture, things changed, and litters of dozens were more common, with less worry about half a dozen of them dying. Yet today, the biological pressure is off, and all that remains is psychology. There really isn't that much logic today in choosing to save a child rather than an adult from a sinking car if both can't be helped...

One wonders if the show doesn't actually support a change in attitudes. Remember TNG? Virtually every time we saw a child, there was only a single parent at most to care for him or her, and he or she was typically left alone for extended periods of time. If orphaned, she or he was subjected to even more solitude, and expected to cope all alone. Clearly, at least some of the velvet gloves of today were off, even if futuristic others may have been introduced.

Tough. If you want to be the type of father/mother who is really around for their kids, then don't join Starfleet.

But what if Starfleet doesn't want that sort of rabble? What if they vastly prefer personnel with fatherly or motherly qualities? Today's militaries screen out undesirables whenever they can afford to, too; perhaps Starfleet wants to weed out the social misfits?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saito S]

The reason we value kids today is rather banal, really. It's hardwired to our biologies to be protective of certain cuteness features (which is why we rather idiotically like plush toys and tamagochis, too), because at one point in our evolution (or the evolution of preceding mammals) it was advantageous to give children extra protection to guarantee survival of the species. That was back when we could barely support one or two kids at a time; with agriculture, things changed, and litters of dozens were more common, with less worry about half a dozen of them dying. Yet today, the biological pressure is off, and all that remains is psychology. There really isn't that much logic today in choosing to save a child rather than an adult from a sinking car if both can't be helped...

One wonders if the show doesn't actually support a change in attitudes. Remember TNG? Virtually every time we saw a child, there was only a single parent at most to care for him or her, and he or she was typically left alone for extended periods of time. If orphaned, she or he was subjected to even more solitude, and expected to cope all alone. Clearly, at least some of the velvet gloves of today were off, even if futuristic others may have been introduced.

But what if Starfleet doesn't want that sort of rabble? What if they vastly prefer personnel with fatherly or motherly qualities? Today's militaries screen out undesirables whenever they can afford to, too; perhaps Starfleet wants to weed out the social misfits?

Timo Saloniemi

I suppose the argument can be made that there isn't much of a logical reason, per se, to save a kid rather than an adult. But it still seems like the right thing to do. I wouldn't call it "banal", personally...

I will admit that the amount of time children were shown to be alone on the show was significant, and seemed out of place with this "our families are our strength" business. And that one ep about the kid who loses his mother, then there's all these scenes with him alone... That actually made no sense to me. Putting aside that he's a kid... someone he loves died. Adult or child, you'd need some support. As for them being raised by single parents, I don't really see how that affects things one way or the other.

Now, I do have major problems with your last paragraph. First off, as for Starfleet preferring personnel with "fatherly or motherly qualities"... they don't. They don't dislike the notion (Crusher, Sisko), but we have seen high-ranking officers who put career ahead of building a family when faced with that choice (Riker, Troi as well, in "Haven"), and a rather famous captain who really dislikes kids (Picard, of course).

That said... rabble? What "rabble"? People who have little or no desire to have kids, or those who have them but choose to pursue a career that they know will keep them away for long periods of time... such people are "social misfits" whom the modern military and/or Starfleet would consider to be "undesirables"? If that's somehow not what you're saying, than I misinterpreted you very badly, but that's how it reads. And if that IS what you're saying, it's an absurd notion in the context of Trek, and an offensive one in the context of real life.

 

[Timo]

But what we find offensive today is very different from what we have found offensive before, suggesting the future might hold surprises as well.

Forcing children into solitude sounds like a Spartan thing to do - and while many things about that long-lost city-state have been perverted in history writing, either deliberately or accidentally, Sparta and its ideals did exist. What we do to our kids today might be considered hating and brutalizing them, from the 24th century viewpoint...

Let's also remember that the 24th century people are quick to take offense on many 20th century customs and mores and attitudes. They dislike enslaving of animals for food, yet freely engage in fishing or riding, exercises which encompass both the food and enslavement aspects of animal care. They could easily consider people disinterested in familial ambitions "rabble" or even "sick of mind", just like they send to insane asylums people who perform crimes for the profit motive.

My provocative choice of words was merely to bring to focus the way how today's militaries have very clear views of whom they want and whom they don't, though. There is only a small niche for murderous psychopaths or gun fetishists there, and even less for habitual thieves or assorted abstainers or religious fanatics or physically unfit. Many things are considered in creating units that stay cohesive and obedient yet full of initiative and motivation in the demanding circumstances of military life. Further consideration is made in picking individuals or units for tasks of representation important for the public image of the service or the nation it serves.

It might well be that Starfleet feels it cannot form functional units without including a certain percentage of parents with children. The theories or hard experience of that era may dictate that crews lacking families and children will collapse during long exploratory missions, or will send a political message that will badly hurt the UFP. Thus, it would harshly shun certain types of people, perhaps stigmatizing them socially in the process.

More probably, though, it will shun people types more or less equitably, aiming for enforced diversity. Perhaps a starship cannot be launched on a mission of anticipated diplomatic representation without at least one noticeably disabled, prosthetics-wearing person, at least one member of each gender and sexual orientation, and at least one person under 15 and over 75 aboard?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Praetor]

Maybe families in the 24th century would simply rather risk dying together than live apart?

Our modern sensibilities once indicated 'women and children first' off the sinking ship and now a lot of women resent the former part. Who's to say that children wouldn't grow to resent the notion that they should go without their parents so they live?

 

[Saito S]

They could easily consider people disinterested in familial ambitions "rabble" or even "sick of mind", just like they send to insane asylums people who perform crimes for the profit motive.

But they don't. That much, at least, is not debatable. Riker and Picard are WAY too advanced in their careers, and are shown to be highly respected officers. Neither is interested in family throughout much of their career. Picard hates kids during the first few seasons. Riker turned down a chance to settle with Troi to advance his career. Troi later turned down the marriage proposed to her, and stayed on the Enterprise.

It might well be that Starfleet feels it cannot form functional units without including a certain percentage of parents with children. The theories or hard experience of that era may dictate that crews lacking families and children will collapse during long exploratory missions, or will send a political message that will badly hurt the UFP. Thus, it would harshly shun certain types of people, perhaps stigmatizing them socially in the process.

More probably, though, it will shun people types more or less equitably, aiming for enforced diversity. Perhaps a starship cannot be launched on a mission of anticipated diplomatic representation without at least one noticeably disabled, prosthetics-wearing person, at least one member of each gender and sexual orientation, and at least one person under 15 and over 75 aboard?

I was going to say you are really reaching with your words about harshly shunning and socially stigmatizing those people, but the following paragraph presents a much less extreme view, and since you referred to it as "more probably", I will use it as the point you are arguing for.

That said, I still don't buy it, personally. There are LOTS of species in the Federation. One-hundred fifty, if you take that number (having been used in dialog to refer to how big the Federation is, i.e. "one-hundred fifty worlds") to mean that there are 150 homeworlds, meaning 150 species, which is the interpretation that I use. The point is, there are many species, each with their own customs and cultural idiosyncrasies, and though some are physically and physiologically similar to humans, some are VERY different. It wouldn't make any sense to me for Starfleet to push for certain quotas of certain species, or genders, or sexual orientations, or anything of the sort, and there's not really any evidence in the shows that such a system is in place.

Returning to the base topic of kids on ships for a moment: in "The Bonding" (the one referenced earlier by both of us, where the kid's mom dies and he's seen sitting by himself through much of the ep), Picard takes the opportunity to rail against having kids aboard, citing situations like this one as reasons why it's not a good idea. The fact that the kid is left to cope all by himself as far as we can tell remains an enigma with respect to my interpretation of all this... not sure how to rationalize that beyond "Out-of-universe writing goof", frankly.

Maybe families in the 24th century would simply rather risk dying together than live apart?

Our modern sensibilities once indicated 'women and children first' off the sinking ship and now a lot of women resent the former part. Who's to say that children wouldn't grow to resent the notion that they should go without their parents so they live?

But women were trying to stop the active oppression of their rights, and fight to be treated as equals to men; this was another example of an old-fashioned viewpoint that treated the two genders as unequal. Children have never taken on such a battle, and I don't think it would make sense for them to. Children are less of a unified group than women (and really, neither "women" nor "men" are "unified groups" either, except in the most loose sense), and for adults to treat them with greater care isn't linked to treating them unfailry, because (unlike with women vs. men) children actually ARE different in key ways, less able than adults to protect themselves from most threats, and (usually) much more naive and less knowledgable about the realities of life than adults. Your idea that children could at some point in the future grow to resent these notions is an interesting one, but IMO, inapplicable in Trek. Simply because for children to demonstrate such a viewpoint would require them to be portrayed as somewhat different than real children with regard to how they mature, when they learn about various aspects of life, etc. While Trek has shown that the level of education for the average young child is certainly higher for Federation citizens than in real life, they still generally show children behaving like children. They are not depicted as being all that different in many ways.

 

[Praetor]

Maybe families in the 24th century would simply rather risk dying together than live apart?

Our modern sensibilities once indicated 'women and children first' off the sinking ship and now a lot of women resent the former part. Who's to say that children wouldn't grow to resent the notion that they should go without their parents so they live?

But women were trying to stop the active oppression of their rights, and fight to be treated as equals to men; this was another example of an old-fashioned viewpoint that treated the two genders as unequal. Children have never taken on such a battle, and I don't think it would make sense for them to. Children are less of a unified group than women (and really, neither "women" nor "men" are "unified groups" either, except in the most loose sense), and for adults to treat them with greater care isn't linked to treating them unfairly, because (unlike with women vs. men) children actually ARE different in key ways, less able than adults to protect themselves from most threats, and (usually) much more naive and less knowledgeable about the realities of life than adults.

Recognized and accepted. I merely suggested the comparison to indicate that attitudes have indeed changed over time.

Your idea that children could at some point in the future grow to resent these notions is an interesting one, but IMO, inapplicable in Trek. Simply because for children to demonstrate such a viewpoint would require them to be portrayed as somewhat different than real children with regard to how they mature, when they learn about various aspects of life, etc. While Trek has shown that the level of education for the average young child is certainly higher for Federation citizens than in real life, they still generally show children behaving like children. They are not depicted as being all that different in many ways.

To be fair, they are shown behaving like modern children.

It wasn't so long ago historically in many nations (and some still) that children weren't exactly granted a 'childhood' and were expected go grow up a lot more quickly than they are now - work, get married and so on. One might argue that this was/is because of shorter life expectancy.

I might also counter-argue that Wesley Crusher was rather different, and to be less of an exception might not be all that extraordinary.