World War On Earth In Post ST:TNG Era?

[Sci]

While it's probably safe to say that there's still some scarcity of resources, canonical Trek has been pretty clear in arguing that everyone in the UFP lives in such a state of what we would today call wealth that the accumulation of it is no longer a driving concern.

And, yes, in particular, it has been very well-established that energy production is cheap and efficient and plentiful. After all, we're dealing with a society where any two-bit nincompoop can get his hands on his own private, warp-capable ship (Harry Mudd, Bashir's dad, etc.).

And on top of that, the essential idea behind Trek is that humanity has made a conscious, deliberate decision to unify and to put aside the regional antagonisms of the past. That's not something that's gonna be undone. If you do, it's not Star Trek anymore, it's just another generic sci-fi war show.

Go read Honor Harrington or watch Starship Troopers if that's what you want.

 

[Dayton3]

While it's probably safe to say that there's still some scarcity of resources, canonical Trek has been pretty clear in arguing that everyone in the UFP lives in such a state of what we would today call wealth that the accumulation of it is no longer a driving concern.

And, yes, in particular, it has been very well-established that energy production is cheap and efficient and plentiful. After all, we're dealing with a society where any two-bit nincompoop can get his hands on his own private, warp-capable ship (Harry Mudd, Bashir's dad, etc.).

And on top of that, the essential idea behind Trek is that humanity has made a conscious, deliberate decision to unify and to put aside the regional antagonisms of the past. That's not something that's gonna be undone. If you do, it's not Star Trek anymore, it's just another generic sci-fi war show.

Go read Honor Harrington or watch Starship Troopers if that's what you want.

Every "two-bit nincompoop" today can get his hands on his own small ship capable of trans oceanic voyages.

As for the "essential idea behind Trek".

That comes more from the sayings of a dying Roddenberry and occasionally the statements of former CBS censor Michael Piller rather than from the totality of things seen onscreen.

And be honest, it wouldn't kill Star Trek to have a war break out on Earth.

 

[JoeZhang]

And be honest, it wouldn't kill Star Trek to have a war break out on Earth.

With oiled up man on man action and no women appearing?

What makes you think energy in the 24th century is plentiful.

Everything we see on screen about earth and the federation and pretty much everything the characters say - a post monetary economic entity that has energy shortages would be a pretty strange beast.

 

[Sci]

And, yes, in particular, it has been very well-established that energy production is cheap and efficient and plentiful. After all, we're dealing with a society where any two-bit nincompoop can get his hands on his own private, warp-capable ship (Harry Mudd, Bashir's dad, etc.).

Every "two-bit nincompoop" today can get his hands on his own small ship capable of trans oceanic voyages.

A small ship capable of trans-oceanic voyages isn't going to be capable of generating enough energy to travel faster than the speed of l light. Hell, Star Trek features lifepods that could fit in people's living rooms capable of generating enough energy to travel faster than the speed of light. Energy is obviously plentiful in the Federation.

As for the "essential idea behind Trek".

That comes more from the sayings of a dying Roddenberry and occasionally the statements of former CBS censor Michael Piller rather than from the totality of things seen onscreen.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about the "perfect humanity" concepts. I'm referring to the essential concept of human political and cultural unity. And, yes, that was present from the very beginning, from the first time Captain Pike called it the United Earth Ship Enterprise, even if the Enterprise's state allegiance was later retconned to the Federation. But the idea of human unity has been present from the very beginning and is a fundamental conceit of the program, as fundamental as warp drive, transporters, and human-looking aliens. You get rid of that, it's not Star Trek anymore.

And what would even be the POINT of doing a war on Earth, anyway?

 

[Dayton3]

As a science fiction writer said

"War might be hell but for science fiction war is heaven"

Plus

"Wars are the punctuation marks of history"

Finally,

They are exciting.

 

[Sci]

As a science fiction writer said

"War might be hell but for science fiction war is heaven"

Plus

"Wars are the punctuation marks of history"

Finally,

They are exciting.

Okay. But wouldn't it be better for Trek, if it's going to tell stories about war, to tell them about wars with alien civilizations -- and to then afterwords depict the process by which those aliens and the Federation can make peace? What would be the POINT of an intra-human war?

 

[Dayton3]

As a science fiction writer said

"War might be hell but for science fiction war is heaven"

Plus

"Wars are the punctuation marks of history"

Finally,

They are exciting.

Okay. But wouldn't it be better for Trek, if it's going to tell stories about war, to tell them about wars with alien civilizations -- and to then afterwords depict the process by which those aliens and the Federation can make peace? What would be the POINT of an intra-human war?

For one it would take Star Trek in a new and completely unexpected direction.

 

[Sci]

As a science fiction writer said

"War might be hell but for science fiction war is heaven"

Plus

"Wars are the punctuation marks of history"

Finally,

They are exciting.

Okay. But wouldn't it be better for Trek, if it's going to tell stories about war, to tell them about wars with alien civilizations -- and to then afterwords depict the process by which those aliens and the Federation can make peace? What would be the POINT of an intra-human war?

For one it would take Star Trek in a new and completely unexpected direction.

No, it would take Trek in the same direction every single war movie, ever, has gone in, only with phasers instead of guns. Booooooooooooooooooriiiiiiiiiiiiiing.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Earth has a world government (United Earth) in Trek's time, but the old national boundaries didn't cease to exist. Nations like the US, England, France, etc. are still existing as distinct entities.

I'm not sure we can come to this conclusion, we know the names are still used but we don't really know what it defines beyond geographic areas who's borders we can't define.

If the names exist, then so do the nations. It's the logical conclusion.

I'm sure Riker has a line like "what used to be the United States of America".

No, he doesn't.

I'm also not sure how nationalism can exist in a world where people can work in one city and live in another on the other side of the world and go out to a third for dinner and have complete freedom of movement.

States still exist in the USA, yet people can do all those things you mentioned (more or less).

Defining yourself as a citizen of a certain area must seen like something out of the Stone Ages.

People still do that too. Ask all those people who consider themselves a citizen of their state first, and the USA second. And yes, they do exist.

It would make as much sense as me fighting my neighbours in the next street over.

That happens too...

 

[Sci]

I'm also not sure how nationalism can exist in a world where people can work in one city and live in another on the other side of the world and go out to a third for dinner and have complete freedom of movement.

Defining yourself as a citizen of a certain area must seen like something out of the Stone Ages. Picard was quite happy with his french heritage but can anyone see Picard or any other character fighting in a regional war between france and england?

I think the thing to keep in mind here is that the word "nationalism" doesn't necessarily mean a belief in the superiority of your own group over others or in the right of your group to oppress others. "Nationalism" can mean a lot of different things, and amongst them is a simple sense of connection with other members of a larger communal identity; another definition might be the belief in the right of the members of that community to determine their own political unities. Back in the day, that notion was considered liberal -- after all, it mean that nations that were under the rule of foreign kings had the right to liberate themselves and determine their own self-governance. Things being as they are, of course, the idea mutated -- nationalism ceased to be about saying, "Hey, we have rights, too" and became about saying, "We fuckin' ROCK and everyone else sucks."

But it's more than possible to imagine that nationalism survived in the sense of continued pride in one's nation within the larger community of United Earth and the larger community of the Federation. No, Picard would never fight a war with England -- that kind of nationalism is dead and buried in Trek's time. But he'd almost certainly continue to feel pride in the achievements of France, in the beauty of its culture and language, in the principles established in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, in Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité. It's like family -- you may not think of yours as being better than anyone else's, but you still love it in a way that you can't anyone else's.

 

[Dayton3]

For people ridiculing the idea of a war between humans on Earth being something that Star Trek would never do...

...please remember that in the Original Series, The Next Generation, and early on DS9 that no one would ever seriously considered doing an ongoing conflict like the Dominion War as part of Star Trek.

Roddenberry (though he wasn't always right) loathed the idea of a war on Star Trek as being "boring". Same with Rick Berman just a couple of years before the Dominion War story.

 

[Pavonis]

Sure, Star Trek can do war, no question of that. But war between humans? A Human Civil War? Why? What are they fighting over? What are the roots of such a conflict? You just haven't come up with any reasons that can fit within the constraints of known 24th Century Human morals and attitudes.

 

[Sci]

For people ridiculing the idea of a war between humans on Earth being something that Star Trek would never do...

...please remember that in the Original Series, The Next Generation, and early on DS9 that no one would ever seriously considered doing an ongoing conflict like the Dominion War as part of Star Trek.

Not really. TOS featured two ongoing cold wars with the Klingons and the Romulans, and featured numerous instances, most famously "Errand of Mercy," where they almost flared up into hot wars. TNG established that a rather long and brutal war had been fought bween the Federation adn the Cardassians, and between the Federation and the Talarians and the Federation. And of course the Federation itself was founded in the wake of a war between Romulus and Earth.

There was never anything un-Trekkian about the idea of a war between the Feds and aliens.

 

[Dayton3]

For people ridiculing the idea of a war between humans on Earth being something that Star Trek would never do...

...please remember that in the Original Series, The Next Generation, and early on DS9 that no one would ever seriously considered doing an ongoing conflict like the Dominion War as part of Star Trek.

Not really. TOS featured two ongoing cold wars with the Klingons and the Romulans, and featured numerous instances, most famously "Errand of Mercy," where they almost flared up into hot wars. TNG established that a rather long and brutal war had been fought bween the Federation adn the Cardassians, and between the Federation and the Talarians and the Federation. And of course the Federation itself was founded in the wake of a war between Romulus and Earth.

There was never anything un-Trekkian about the idea of a war between the Feds and aliens.

But they were never a featured part of the series.

They are part of the backgrounds.

 

[Dayton3]

Sure, Star Trek can do war, no question of that. But war between humans? A Human Civil War? Why? What are they fighting over? What are the roots of such a conflict? You just haven't come up with any reasons that can fit within the constraints of known 24th Century Human morals and attitudes.

You could simply have a charismatic leader arise in a nation or in an alliance of nations on Earth and promote the idea of them having a birthright or destiny to rule and making up lists of supposed grievances and injustices they have suffered.

And be honest, about the only humans of the 24th century we see are the humans within Starfleet. Which is an artificial para military culture in the very least.

We have little information about how the billions of people on Earth feel.

 

[Pavonis]

You could simply have a charismatic leader arise in a nation or in an alliance of nations on Earth and promote the idea of them having a birthright or destiny to rule and making up lists of supposed grievances and injustices they have suffered.

Rule what? Earth? The Federation? The whole galaxy?

You can write a story about a war on Earth in the 24th century, using all the technology that has been depicted in Star Trek, but it wouldn't be Star Trek anymore. It'll just be a generic military science fiction story.

 

[Sci]

You could simply have a charismatic leader arise in a nation or in an alliance of nations on Earth and promote the idea of them having a birthright or destiny to rule and making up lists of supposed grievances and injustices they have suffered.

Rule what? Earth? The Federation? The whole galaxy?

You can write a story about a war on Earth in the 24th century, using all the technology that has been depicted in Star Trek, but it wouldn't be Star Trek anymore. It'll just be a generic military science fiction story.

Yeah. The essential theme that all of Trek has in common, from ENT to VOY to TMP to NEM, is human unity and human peace.

 

[JoeZhang]

Sure, Star Trek can do war, no question of that. But war between humans? A Human Civil War? Why? What are they fighting over? What are the roots of such a conflict? You just haven't come up with any reasons that can fit within the constraints of known 24th Century Human morals and attitudes.

You could simply have a charismatic leader arise in a nation or in an alliance of nations on Earth and promote the idea of them having a birthright or destiny to rule and making up lists of supposed grievances and injustices they have suffered.

As someone else said - rule what? What sort of injustices are those people living in a post-economic future suppose to be fighting against? The replicators doesn't make a particular good creame brule?

 

[Timo]

Indeed. The average people living in the Trek universe as outlined in the TOS or TNG era shows wouldn't have a reason to think that war would make things better. They would eagerly turn against those who thought war was a good thing, and they would trust their government's mighty Starfleet to do the crushing of these silly dissidents. The "charismatic leaders" would be leading from Elba II.

Assume that something does change radically for the worse. The people would still remember how good things were when there was a unified Earth in a unified Federation under the watch of Starfleet. That's what they'd strive for, not strife and infighting - much like some people on Russia might still yearn for the plentiful Soviet times, despite some minor misgivings.

If the people of Trek's 23rd or 24th centuries didn't know of the good times that unity had brought, then they might be more prone to infighting. But it's too late for that, really. Any insurgency would be on the lines of Starfleet vs. lunatics, with the majority cheering for Starfleet.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Borg451]

Who would be fighting who? its like Modern Countrys that are in the past were many smaller States and have become such intertwined that you wouldnt have any part of it break off and have a war..

Earth is like that in 24th Century..

Earth has a world government (United Earth) in Trek's time, but the old national boundaries didn't cease to exist. Nations like the US, England, France, etc. are still existing as distinct entities.

And some nations even today can fall into civil war quite easily.

yeh but those are shit nations.. the UE is like one of the decent nations...

not some nation with dust and flies and 'lets give kids guns to fight in our war'.. Pathetic