What's Earth like in the 24th Century?

[T'Girl]

The major cities in a nuclear war would include ones that house the governments that have access to nuclear weapons. You bomb your political (and militaristic) enemies first.

That would include London.

That assumes that the UK is one of the combatants in the 3rd WW.

I really believe that when Riker said "most of the major cities have been destroyed and there are few governments left" that he was talking only about the cities and governments of the combatants, and not generally.

In a future where you could work from anywhere and energy is cheap, I imagine there being much more mobility overall.

If there is a world wide transporter system, then I would imagine that ease of travel would be a given, people might use it for relatively short distances. However I don't know that people would be able to "work from anywhere," Some people (most?) would still be working in a set location.

.

 

[Arpy]

We should also consider that there are likely millions of human beings in space habitats between planets or moons. Large stations housing countless people, whether of older spindle designs or perhaps even larger ones using artificial gravity tech in mind-blowing new ways.

It might be interesting if there were even individual homes in nets of smaller free-floating structures, and different cultures of people who also like to "swim" to their neighbor's or spacejump to Earth or Luna or wherever.

There would be millions, billions Federation-wide, who develop interesting, vast, soaring cultures not as tied to planetside living. Yet who'd also not be as in dystopian lit be anything but environmentalists who care about the quality of planet-life as they would a high quality of space-life, and the ability to dart back and forth at will.

 

[Arpy]

Boring. That's why the interesting people are out in space.

Like Harry Kim and Travis Mayweather?

Travis Mayweather isn't from the 24th century.

Right. Which proves you can be boring regardless where you're from. On the other hand, Kirk was born in I o w a and he was plenty interesting.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Like Harry Kim and Travis Mayweather?

Travis Mayweather isn't from the 24th century.

Right. Which proves you can be boring regardless where you're from. On the other hand, Kirk was born in I o w a and he was plenty interesting.

He didn't stay in Iowa.

 

[robau]

Like a planet wide San Angeles.

Be well.

 

[hux]

That assumes that the UK is one of the combatants in the 3rd WW.

I really believe that when Riker said "most of the major cities have been destroyed and there are few governments left" that he was talking only about the cities and governments of the combatants, and not generally.

Wouldn't the combatants in a nuclear "world war"... be the nations that have nuclear weapons?

Otherwise, it's just nuclear powers nuking non-nuclear countries for some unknown reason.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Fairly boring. Bad clothes, everyone walking around being bland, enjoying meaningless conversations over replicated food in a variety of beautiful parks flanked by hideous buildings.

(Judging by the shows.)

 

[BillJ]

Boring. That's why the interesting people are out in space.

+1

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

In a nuclear war, you bomb the most populated cities? Because that's tactically useful?

The major cities in a nuclear war would include ones that house the governments that have access to nuclear weapons. You bomb your political (and militaristic) enemies first.

That would include London.

Trek's World War III couldn't have been a truly global, apocalyptic nuclear conflict. Major cities might have had EMPs detonated above them, but perhaps that was the extent of it. So many cities - New York, London, San Francisco, etc. - are still standing in Trek's time that there's no way they could have been rebuilt from the ground up in only a hundred years or so. After a full nuclear war, infrastructure and technology worldwide would be completely destroyed, and there'd be no way to rebuild from that. You can't rebuild a city if there's nothing - or, indeed, no one - left to rebuild it WITH.

Even if there was anything left to use to rebuild...hell, look at how long it takes to construct just ONE BUILDING in any major city - it's decades at least. Multiply that by a thousand or more, and you get an idea of just how long it would take to completely reconstruct a city of millions, from scratch. Probably several centuries at least.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the Vulcans helped in the cleanup and rebuilding. Maybe that's why they held Earth's space program back for so long - it was considered "payback".

 

[scotpens]

. . . Even if there was anything left to use to rebuild...hell, look at how long it takes to construct just ONE BUILDING in any major city - it's decades at least.

Excuse me? It took only 1 year 45 days to build New York's Empire State Building -- and that was in 1931.

 

[Timo]

Besides population and geographical size are of minor importance when it comes to determining if a citiy is a major one. Other factors come into play.

We hear Riker say "major". Beyond that, the existence of "other factors" is pure speculation. For all we know, the aim of the war was to create human casualties, perhaps as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign (see "Eugenics Wars" immediately before or perhaps during WWIII, and Colonel Green's campaign afterwards).

Wouldn't the combatants in a nuclear "world war"... be the nations that have nuclear weapons?

Only if they couldn't avoid it!

We haven't had a nuclear exchange so far, apparently because of the "exchange" part. But if the opportunity ever presented itself of solving a problem by nuking somebody who can't nuke you back...

The other possibility, and the more Trek-like one, is that somebody found a way to defend against ICBMs and SLBMs. That could mean London and Moscow would be invulnerable, but Cairo and Mexico City defenseless.

Whatever the effects of the war, they don't appear to be lasting. Not only are there no ruins or radiation pits - nobody speaks of WWIII, and nobody carries a grudge. Unlike with the earlier Eugenics Wars, which still affect UFP or at least Earth politics in the 24th century!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Arpy]

I don't take Trek too seriously when it shows city-scapes. Skylines are inconsistent show to show and movie to movie, let alone adequately accounting for Trek's in-universe history (WWIII) or really wowing with realistic future architecture, city planning, and changes in urban life.

I always feel directors say to the art department, "Just slap some 'futuristic' high-rises next to some landmarks people will recognize. They'll be on screen briefly and only matter as identifying geographic location, not in any realistic world-building sense."

I don't really accept any city-scape at face value for these reasons any more than I do fleet battles with far too few classes of ship on screen, far too close to each other, flying far to simply, with far too few shield bubbles and weapons firing, and doing too little damage. Oh, and looking far too CG.

You have to imagine Federation buildings to be more than simply taller versions of contemporary skyscrapers.

 

[Timo]

Skylines are inconsistent show to show and movie to movie

...So perhaps people in the future like to fiddle? Modern construction (and deconstruction!) technologies would no doubt allow for the Empire State Building to be moved fifty meters north and reduced in height by two and a half floors over a weekend.

Then again, any scenery is probably customized for the viewer anyway: a window shows what the user wants to see...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tarek71]

Earth is the capital world of the United Federation of Planets and probably something like 1.5 trillion people. What do you imagine it's like in the future?

The Trek future, or our future? I don't think our future will be alot like what we see on Trek. With genetic engineering, neural interface, 3 d printing, AI, Nano and micro technology? We could have engineered people with extensive Nano and micro tech implants who can live for thousands of years.

3-D printed people who don't need schools because they can download lifetimes of knowledge and practical experience through their neural interfaces. Robots and androids are ubiquitous.

Advanced sublight ships might make it to good fractions of the speed of light. Although there might be some breakthrough propulsion physics that really could allow for some sort of FTL.

I get the impression that the technologies that could vastly augment human capability and transform humans were strictly limited after the Eugenics War in the Trek universe. Not just genetic engineering.

And something must have been done to slow AI. In our world, I think we may see Datas in our own lifetimes in the 21st century. Certainly long before the 24th, and I would expect a very, very large number of them.

 

[T'Girl]

. . . Even if there was anything left to use to rebuild...hell, look at how long it takes to construct just ONE BUILDING in any major city - it's decades at least.

Excuse me? It took only 1 year 45 days to build New York's Empire State Building -- and that was in 1931.

Look how fast China builds entire cities.

 

[MacLeod]

The actual build time might only be a few years, but from drawings to completion might be close to a decade

 

[Arpy]

Was it Roddenberry who imagined cavernous underground cities as a way to address the stresses of overpopulation on the ecosystem? Perhaps some older cities too expand down as well as up? Works for the Andorians and the Ocampa.

San Francisco in TMP was smaller than it is today, with nature being allowed to grow in areas previously overrun by urban sprawl.

Cities on and underneath the water may also address environmental concerns. It would also allow for Seaquest crossovers

 

[Timo]

The new movies give us vast aboveground arcologies. Perhaps those allowed conventional cities to shrink in the other timeline, too - but in this timeline, San Francisco chose not to shrink after all.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[MacLeod]

Skylines are inconsistent show to show and movie to movie

...So perhaps people in the future like to fiddle? Modern construction (and deconstruction!) technologies would no doubt allow for the Empire State Building to be moved fifty meters north and reduced in height by two and a half floors over a weekend.

Better have International Rescue on standby if you want to move the Empire State Building.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Excuse me? It took only 1 year 45 days to build New York's Empire State Building -- and that was in 1931.

Look how fast China builds entire cities.

But in both of those cases...the buildings were constructed in a world that had not suffered a world-shattering nuclear war. Throw that into the mix, and it'll make everything a LOT harder.