The Star Trek Utopia
Omphalos
adequate science and technology, we can bring equality and utopia to every
man, woman, child, animal, and plant in existence.
But, as history has shown us, no matter how much science and technology
you have, a utopia in inconceivable. A utopia is an unrealistic dream that
disregards human nature. This is Star Trek's greatest fault even though it
has many things in its favor.
In several episodes in the Star Trek universe, there was an attempt to
recreate Star Wars' classic cantina scene. In all these attempts, Star
Trek failed miserably. There simply aren't enough scumbag characters in
Star Trek to make the scene truly authentic. There is no poverty or vice
in the ST universe to produce a Jabba The Hutt or a Han Solo or a Lando
Calrissian.
This is why I enjoy more believable shows such as Stargate SG-1 (of course
Stargate SG-1 isn't really a 'spaceship' show) among others, which doesn't
fool around with the Prime Directive bullshit. My opinion is that Star
Trek is too 'touchy-feely'.
Admit it folks. You have watched a Star Trek show and seen the characters
get in some sort of bad situation. How many of you have just wanted to say
"Fuck the Prime Directive"? They should be doing what needs to be done for
the good of Earth. Like that episode where Picard didn't want to download
a virus into the Borg because he thought it was immoral. Data needed to
butt rape some sense into Picard after that whopper.
I think that Star Trek would be a much better show if they got rid of the
things I mentioned above. Please don't tell me that I'm the only one who
feels like this!
Ruediger LANDMANN
: In the Star Trek universe, there is the paradigm that believes that, with
: adequate science and technology, we can bring equality and utopia to every
: man, woman, child, animal, and plant in existence.
: But, as history has shown us, no matter how much science and technology
: you have, a utopia in inconceivable. A utopia is an unrealistic dream that
: disregards human nature. This is Star Trek's greatest fault even though it
: has many things in its favor.
Agreed that it's unrealistic, but SF is about dreams, no? :) Remember the
literal meaning of the name "Utopia"...
Having said that, technological advances (and their accompanying
social changes) have made life a good deal more pleasant for the vast
majority of the population in the post-industrial West than probably ever
before.
: In several episodes in the Star Trek universe, there was an attempt to
: recreate Star Wars' classic cantina scene. In all these attempts, Star
: Trek failed miserably. There simply aren't enough scumbag characters in
: Star Trek to make the scene truly authentic. There is no poverty or vice
: in the ST universe to produce a Jabba The Hutt or a Han Solo or a Lando
: Calrissian.
Agreed. It's therefore a good thing that Trek has rarely ventured into
such areas (and when it has, it's generally been for comedy value).
: This is why I enjoy more believable shows such as Stargate SG-1 (of course
: Stargate SG-1 isn't really a 'spaceship' show) among others, which doesn't
: fool around with the Prime Directive bullshit. My opinion is that Star
: Trek is too 'touchy-feely'.
I'd hardly call SG-1 believable, but fortunately, you're free to choose
your own entertainment :)
: Admit it folks. You have watched a Star Trek show and seen the characters
: get in some sort of bad situation. How many of you have just wanted to say
: "Fuck the Prime Directive"?
Not me, but then my politics are very firmly libertarian left ;)
: They should be doing what needs to be done for
: the good of Earth. Like that episode where Picard didn't want to download
: a virus into the Borg because he thought it was immoral. Data needed to
: butt rape some sense into Picard after that whopper.
: I think that Star Trek would be a much better show if they got rid of the
: things I mentioned above. Please don't tell me that I'm the only one who
: feels like this!
I know for a fact that you're not, so don't fret, you're not alone.
But there's more that enough other entertainment out there for you
warhawks. For the rest of us, Trek generally provides a welcome
alternative :)
--
#2 on the Official alt.horror.werewolves Troll List
Castellan of Clues, Empire of New Scotland
Revenge group: alt.drunken-bastards.ruediger-landmann
Michael Rogers
Omphalos wrote:
>
> In the Star Trek universe, there is the paradigm that believes that, with
> adequate science and technology, we can bring equality and utopia to every
> man, woman, child, animal, and plant in existence.
>
> But, as history has shown us, no matter how much science and technology
> you have, a utopia in inconceivable. A utopia is an unrealistic dream that
> disregards human nature. This is Star Trek's greatest fault even though it
> has many things in its favor.
Star Trek's message is that human nature will be able to evolve and be
able to utilize technology and economics in better ways then now.
Star Trek's Earth government is deliberately vague but it seems quite
Socialistic. Well, the only possible way Socialism could work is if
there was unlimited resources or the ability to transform useless
material into unlimited resources. That way Socialism would not be the
unfair process of taking something valueble from someone who produced it
and give it to someone that hadn't.
It would also find a way to overcome the suppressing nature of Socialism
to individual achievement and innovation.
It is established, at least in TNG, that they can replicate many things
from "bulk matter", including food. So, that gives a solution to problem
number 1.
The other step is believing that human nature can evolve to solve
problem number 2 and I believe it can.
But hey, this is just an answer to a conclusion I do not believe in the
first place:
That because "Star Trek" aspires to show an arguably unreachable ideal,
it is flawed... come on now.
Mike
Janet Smith
"Omphalos" <omph...@fnc.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93B9B...@130.133.1.4...
:: I think that Star Trek would be a much better show if they got rid of the
: things I mentioned above. Please don't tell me that I'm the only one who
: feels like this!
You are not the only person who feels that way for sure, but at the same
time Gene's optimistic vision of the future is what makes Trek unique. I
don't believe in some hypothetical idea of perfection either. At the very
least, there will always be those people who find perfection annoying.
However, there is always room for belief that things can be better.
As for the PD, I do think it has been overdone.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/14/2003
The Macho Milquetoast
I'd have to say that you, hopefully, are the only one that feels that way.
TNG, granted, was politically correct in the worst sense of the term. There
was little moral relativism, however, in DS9 and Voyager - DS9 was closer to
the original than the other series. The main problem with Voyager was
characterization - a catsuit doesn't make a character!
James
The Macho Milquetoast
news:bf22t1$uno$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> In alt.tv.star-trek.tos Omphalos <omph...@fnc.com> wrote:
> : In the Star Trek universe, there is the paradigm that believes that,
with
> : adequate science and technology, we can bring equality and utopia to
every
> : man, woman, child, animal, and plant in existence.
>
> : But, as history has shown us, no matter how much science and technology
> : you have, a utopia in inconceivable. A utopia is an unrealistic dream
that
> : disregards human nature. This is Star Trek's greatest fault even though
it
> : has many things in its favor.
>
> Agreed that it's unrealistic, but SF is about dreams, no? :) Remember the
> literal meaning of the name "Utopia"...
From the Greek "eu - topia" or "good - towards"
James
Ruediger LANDMANN
: "Ruediger LANDMANN" <zzrl...@fox.uq.net.au> wrote in message
Actually, from the Greek: "ou" "topos" - "no place" "nowhere". I hadn't
heard your version before - interesting!
Nevertheless, the "nowhere" translation is supported by More using
"Nusquama" as his Latin title.
Yet again, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a kind of play on words on
More's part, and that there's an intentional ambiguity here :)
Gerald Meazell
>In the Star Trek universe, there is the paradigm that believes that, with
>adequate science and technology, we can bring equality and utopia to every
>man, woman, child, animal, and plant in existence.
>
>But, as history has shown us, no matter how much science and technology
>you have, a utopia in inconceivable. A utopia is an unrealistic dream that
>disregards human nature. This is Star Trek's greatest fault even though it
>has many things in its favor.
>
>
You're right, Star Trek's "Utopia" bears little examination. The thing
that has alway baffled me is how they get along without money. Who
picks up trash? Who cleans toilets? Who works in the sewers? In the
Star Trek Utopia, people do what they are best at and enjoy doing it.
That's fine for many professions, but what about these jobs I just
named? Who *wants* to do those jobs? Without some kind of
remuneration, they'll have a hard time finding people to do those jobs.
So, in this Utopia, do janitors live in mansions as their reward for
sweeping up? There's lots of jobs out there nobody would want except
for the money. It bears little examination, that's why they don't
examine it. I've learned not to as well.
>
>Admit it folks. You have watched a Star Trek show and seen the characters
>get in some sort of bad situation. How many of you have just wanted to say
>"Fuck the Prime Directive"? They should be doing what needs to be done for
>the good of Earth. Like that episode where Picard didn't want to download
>a virus into the Borg because he thought it was immoral. Data needed to
>butt rape some sense into Picard after that whopper.
>
I do think there will have to be something like the PD if we ever get to
a point we're dealing with planets in various stages of evolution. In
case you didn't see the follow on episode, Picard was dressed down
severly by his superiors for that little move. The other day, I was at
our county courthouse waiting for an increasingly slow civil servant to
process some documents and was thinking "Wait 'til we give this sort of
thing to the Iraqis." Sure, we could go into Iraq and appoint people
from President down to dog catcher, tell them to hold elections next
year and then leave. What the hell kind of chaos do you think would
ensue? Yeah, that's the point of the PD.
>
>I think that Star Trek would be a much better show if they got rid of the
>things I mentioned above. Please don't tell me that I'm the only one who
>feels like this!
>
Acutally, I think this is what sets Trek apart from other Sci-fi. I'm a
big SG-1 fan myself. In that show, you see Earth on the receiving end
of the PD. Neither the Asgard, the Tok'Ra, the Nox, nor the Tolen have
handed over a bunch of technology. Even if the Goa'uld existed in the
Trek universe, the Federation would be sending ships to liberate Goa'uld
planets since it has been established on several Trek series that
primitive cultures that are already exposed to advanced technology are
exempt from the PD.
--
Gerald
Cruz Gracia
First of all it's been stated in many TNG episodes and books that mankind
still has a long way to go. Mankind (in Rodenberry's vision) was able to
concentrate on other pursuits such as learning and whatnot when Earth's
internal conflicts (war, poverty, etc) was subsided. There are plenty of
scumbags (who are human) in the ST universe, but for the most part they get
dealt with. It's the 24th century....mankind was able to evolve past the
pettiness that we see today, but STILL has alot to go. That's why
charachters such as the Q have such an interest in us.....I was told that
the Mind of God (a Q book I want to read) explains much of that interest ( I
will read it when I find it).
I like ST: TNG the best because I would have never passed high school
physics....I completely understand warp mechanics when Geordi and Data start
gabbing(though I wouldn't call myself an expert) without sounding like
Stephen Hawkings (whom by the way was ON an episode and is a fan). The
technology has the potential to exist and it's foundation is real-life
science. It's awesome, and I totally become immersed. It's just good.
Cruz
"Omphalos" <omph...@fnc.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93B9B...@130.133.1.4...
Karen Chuplis
gmea...@swbell.net wrote on 7/15/03 8:13 PM:
> Omphalos wrote:
>
>> In the Star Trek universe, there is the paradigm that believes that, with
>> adequate science and technology, we can bring equality and utopia to every
>> man, woman, child, animal, and plant in existence.
>>
>> But, as history has shown us, no matter how much science and technology
>> you have, a utopia in inconceivable. A utopia is an unrealistic dream that
>> disregards human nature. This is Star Trek's greatest fault even though it
>> has many things in its favor.
>>
>>
> You're right, Star Trek's "Utopia" bears little examination. The thing
> that has alway baffled me is how they get along without money. Who
> picks up trash? Who cleans toilets? Who works in the sewers? In the
> Star Trek Utopia, people do what they are best at and enjoy doing it.
> That's fine for many professions, but what about these jobs I just
> named? Who *wants* to do those jobs? Without some kind of
> remuneration, they'll have a hard time finding people to do those jobs.
> So, in this Utopia, do janitors live in mansions as their reward for
> sweeping up? There's lots of jobs out there nobody would want except
> for the money. It bears little examination, that's why they don't
> examine it. I've learned not to as well.
>
As bad as the new Voyager novels were (too bad, up til now Christie Golden's
Voyager was very good.) they did have holograms doing all the "yuck" work.
JJ
> In the Star Trek universe, there is the paradigm that believes that, with
> adequate science and technology, we can bring equality and utopia to every
> man, woman, child, animal, and plant in existence.
OK.... so living in (a) Iowa Falls is about the same as living in (b)
Afganistan? You can insert any US city and any 3rd world country for (a) &
(b) respectively.
>
> But, as history has shown us, no matter how much science and technology
> you have, a utopia in inconceivable. A utopia is an unrealistic dream that
> disregards human nature. This is Star Trek's greatest fault even though it
> has many things in its favor.
And yet, this is entirely the basis of Star Trek...
>
> In several episodes in the Star Trek universe, there was an attempt to
> recreate Star Wars' classic cantina scene. In all these attempts, Star
> Trek failed miserably. There simply aren't enough scumbag characters in
> Star Trek to make the scene truly authentic. There is no poverty or vice
> in the ST universe to produce a Jabba The Hutt or a Han Solo or a Lando
> Calrissian.
Well, considering the entire original series was pre-Star Wars (and
therefore, didn't try to 'recreate' a damn thing), DS9 was on the ass-end of
the Federation protected space (and often outside it), Voyager wasn't
anywhere near the Federation and Enterprise predates the Federation... that
leaves TNG. What episodes tried to recreate that scene again?
>
> This is why I enjoy more believable shows such as Stargate SG-1 (of course
> Stargate SG-1 isn't really a 'spaceship' show) among others, which doesn't
> fool around with the Prime Directive bullshit. My opinion is that Star
> Trek is too 'touchy-feely'.
Hell, Stargate is about present day Earth. As for the PD, as much as people
on this board will agree with you about, listen to them scream when the USA
doesn't follow it in the here, now, and reality.
>
> Admit it folks. You have watched a Star Trek show and seen the characters
> get in some sort of bad situation. How many of you have just wanted to say
> "Fuck the Prime Directive"? They should be doing what needs to be done for
> the good of Earth. Like that episode where Picard didn't want to download
> a virus into the Borg because he thought it was immoral. Data needed to
> butt rape some sense into Picard after that whopper.
>
Bad example. For one thing, the Prime directive is not immutable. (Check the
charges against Picard in 'the Drumhead'). 2nd, it doesn't apply to the Borg
(a technologically superior enemy). 3rd, Picard's method caused an entire
Cube to go rogue from the collective. (Data didn't have to do a thing, nor
did he do a thing.)
> I think that Star Trek would be a much better show if they got rid of the
> things I mentioned above. Please don't tell me that I'm the only one who
> feels like this!
They tried that. It was called DS9. 'You're ruining Trek' was the outcry,
and so rather than following GR's example with the same tripe being spewed
about TNG (which was ignore it and keep going), they switched gears to
Voyager, stripping the gears completely and finding themselves stranded in
the middle of the Network Freeway.
William December Starr
"Cruz Gracia" <cgraci...@optonline.net> said:
> That's why charachters such as the Q have such an interest in
> us.....I was told that the Mind of God (a Q book I want to read)
> explains much of that interest ( I will read it when I find it).
Where have you heard about this book? I can't find any trace of
it at amazon.com or in a general google search.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Kaosium
> I think that Star Trek would be a much better show if they got rid of the
> things I mentioned above. Please don't tell me that I'm the only one who
> feels like this!
Utopia is a relative concept. Look at it this way, were someone from three
hundred years ago to see what we have now, he'd be astounded at our
'perfect' societies. Where he came from the entire world lived under the
tyranny of various inbred hemophiliacs and the average fellow died before he
was thirty. The lot of the average person was "Nasty, brutish, and short."
Nowadays even Ethiopian live to an average age of past fifty, and clever
Nigerians can swindle perhaps five billion dollars out of foolish avaricious
dolts half a world away from them with their computers.
Three hundred years from now it's likely to look even better, that's the
attitude Star Trek projects. At the time it was created, there was much
apocalyptic and downright horrifying projections of the future, watch
Logan's Run sometime. Star Trek postulated a future where we weren't living
in the aftermath of a nuclear wasteland, and where we weren't all slaves to
computers or something dreadful. If you prefer a grittier depiction of the
future, try the cyberpunk genre, it might appeal to you.
Regarding Picard and the Borg, I don't think you understood his point.
Should the Federation commit genocide? Would you have been horrified if NATO
had given the Russians a virus that completely wiped them out? I would have,
though the analogy is not exact, it's enough to give you pause. Good
episode, I thought, as one could at least see the other point of view as
well.
Omphalos
in news:3F149826...@swbell.net:
You do have a point. You do remember that the Asgard gave Earth the
technology to build the X-303. Also, the benevolent alien races in SG-1
don't avoid making contact with another race because of their technology.
--
__________
==\ /================================
===\ /==You know how dumb the average==
====\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
=====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
======\/====================================
Andrew Murray
> Admit it folks. You have watched a Star Trek show and seen the characters
> get in some sort of bad situation. How many of you have just wanted to say
> "Fuck the Prime Directive"?
Well the crews have done that for sure, time and time again Kirk, Picard and
Janeway.
jayembee
> "Omphalos" <omph...@fnc.com> wrote:
>> I think that Star Trek would be a much better show if
>> they got rid of the things I mentioned above. Please
>> don't tell me that I'm the only one who feels like this!
>
> You are not the only person who feels that way for sure,
> but at the same time Gene's optimistic vision of the
> future is what makes Trek unique.
Well, unique among SF TV shows. In SF literature, though...
Anyway, I'll add my voice to those who like GR's "optimistic
vision of the future". Hell, it's one of the reasons why I
like STTMP despite its many flaws. Simply aside from the
ending serving as a metaphor for the advancement of the
human race, it was remarkably (and refreshingly) free of
gunfire. Aside from the Klingons firing at V'ger in the
opening sequence, and the photon torpedo destroying the
asteroid in the wormhole, not a shot was fired throughout
the entire film. Kirk worked at finding a peaceful solution
to the problem instead of just trying to blast V'ger out of
the sky.
-- jayembee
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> Acutally, I think this is what sets Trek apart from other Sci-fi.
> I'm a big SG-1 fan myself. In that show, you see Earth on the
> receiving end
> of the PD. Neither the Asgard, the Tok'Ra, the Nox, nor the Tolen
> have handed over a bunch of technology. Even if the Goa'uld existed
> in the Trek universe, the Federation would be sending ships to
> liberate Goa'uld planets since it has been established on several
> Trek series that primitive cultures that are already exposed to
> advanced technology are exempt from the PD.
Or more specifically, cultures that have already been interfered with
by outside sources. For example, the Dominion. Or to use your SG-1
example, the Goa'uld. Or even the Asgard themselves.
To say nothing of the Aschen...
--
--
* Usenet is a black hole. Once you're in, you can never get out.
E-mail: evilbill @ lineone . net (remove spaces to e-mail)
AIM: EvilBill1782
MSN: dev...@agqx-imperium.fsnet.co.uk (do not e-mail me here!)
Web: http://www.angelfire.com/alt/evilbill/index.html
Matriarch Kheperkare - Lvl 94 Javazon - Open
Matriarch EB-Amarice - Lvl 92 Bowazon - USWest
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> You do have a point. You do remember that the Asgard gave Earth the
> technology to build the X-303.
Hmm, I thought it was reverse-engineered from Asgard and Goa'uld tech,
but then I haven't seen all of season 6 yet.
EvilBill[AGQx]
Yeah, but Kirk just got things done; Picard thought about it then got
things done; and Janeway was just nuts, which is why they made her an
admiral.
Paul Vader
>Hmm, I thought it was reverse-engineered from Asgard and Goa'uld tech,
>but then I haven't seen all of season 6 yet.
It was. However, the Asgard gave the project their best weapons and shielding
systems, as (partial) payback for all they owe to Earth, and SG-1
specifically. If you skipped the clipshow last season, you missed this
little gem where Thor helps Jack put the boot to the guys that have been
trying to take over the stargate project for years now. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Gerald Meazell
>As bad as the new Voyager novels were (too bad, up til now Christie Golden's
>Voyager was very good.) they did have holograms doing all the "yuck" work.
>
>
>
OK, but it was only during the Voyager series that they learned how to
get a hologram to exist outside of a holodeck. Who did it before then?
Also, wasn't that mobile emitter 29th century technology? (It's been a
long time since I watched VOY). So, who did all that work before then?
--
Gerald
Gerald Meazell
>Or more specifically, cultures that have already been interfered with
>by outside sources. For example, the Dominion. Or to use your SG-1
>example, the Goa'uld. Or even the Asgard themselves.
>To say nothing of the Aschen...
>
>
The Goa'uld were not interfered with. They stole all the technology
they now have. They then went around messing with primitive cultures,
but I digress.
--
Gerald
Gerald Meazell
>Lo and behold, Omphalos <omph...@xmsg.com> sayeth:
>
>
>>You do have a point. You do remember that the Asgard gave Earth the
>>technology to build the X-303.
>>
>>
>
>Hmm, I thought it was reverse-engineered from Asgard and Goa'uld tech,
>but then I haven't seen all of season 6 yet.
>
>
I'm still playing catch up, having only watched the Monday Night
marathons and am only up to season 4. The PD still applies however.
Earth, being a primitive culture which is now exposed to advanced
technology by not only finding the Stargate and making it work
(Stargate's version of Warp drive?) are now eligible to receive
technology from more advanced races as they see fit.
--
Gerald
EvilBill[AGQx]
> "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilb...@freeuk.com> writes:
>> Hmm, I thought it was reverse-engineered from Asgard and Goa'uld
>> tech,
>> but then I haven't seen all of season 6 yet.
>
> It was. However, the Asgard gave the project their best weapons and
> shielding systems, as (partial) payback for all they owe to Earth,
> and SG-1 specifically. If you skipped the clipshow last season, you
> missed this little gem where Thor helps Jack put the boot to the
guys
> that have been trying to take over the stargate project for years
> now. *
Well, season 6 hasn't even reached UK terrestrial TV yet, so I depend
on occasional DVD purchases and the downloading of eps from the Net.
So I am missing large chunks of season 6.
EvilBill[AGQx]
Yeah, was using examples of the ones who did the interfereing, not
the ones who were interfered with. <g> The Goa'uld, Asgard and Aschen
were the 'outside sources'. Sorry, should've made that clearer.
cmo...@nospam.com
back to the center of the cloud with a photon torpedo strapped to her butt
and blown V'Ger to kingdom come. The recent crop of DS9 and Voyager Star
Trek newbies would love it!!!! Like they loved the woeful First Contact.
"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:d3aeee5b.03071...@posting.google.com...
cmo...@nospam.com
different is that the mode-of-thought of this civilization is not to horde
it. It's a philosophy.
As far as cleaning toilets, I'm sure there are automated mechanisms to do
this. But even if there are "underiable" jobs left in the UFP they're
probably handled by people as "day jobs". There are actors and artisans
still left in the universe who must wait tables to get by. ;-)
The point is this. No one is starving. There are still problems of
overpopulation (as noted in ST II)... which are combated via education and
technology (terraforming lifeless planets).
"Gerald Meazell" <gmea...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3F149826...@swbell.net...
David B.
Robots?
JJ
<cmo...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:bf76gs$p48$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> The point is this. No one is starving. There are still problems of
> overpopulation (as noted in ST II)... which are combated via education and
> technology (terraforming lifeless planets).
>
>
On Earth anyway. (Where, oddly enough, most command staff was born.) Both
James Kirk and Tasha Yar came from worlds that were none too pleasant.
Which brings up another point. The great commy line of 'We don't seek to
aquire wealth.' came from a very upper class neighborhood. How many rich men
would claim that aquisition of wealth was a prime motivator in life?
cmo...@nospam.com
kid, I don't know.
It should be noted that the problems that afflicted Tarsus were temporary.
The Federation had indeed sent food supplies... but not before Kodos had to
make the hard decisions about who would live and die and thus go down in
history as a cruel tyrant.
Yes, there are some colonies that are worse off than others. On Earth,
though, everything is hunky-dory.
"JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:7lNRa.107500$Io.91...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Paul Vader
>On Earth anyway. (Where, oddly enough, most command staff was born.) Both
>James Kirk and Tasha Yar came from worlds that were none too pleasant.
Er, James Kirk came from Earth. Iowa, IIRC. *
JJ
<cmo...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:bf89n5$n93$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Well, Kirk was born in Iowa. Why his family moved to Tarsus when he was a
> kid, I don't know.
>
> It should be noted that the problems that afflicted Tarsus were temporary.
> The Federation had indeed sent food supplies... but not before Kodos had
to
> make the hard decisions about who would live and die and thus go down in
> history as a cruel tyrant.
>
> Yes, there are some colonies that are worse off than others. On Earth,
> though, everything is hunky-dory.
>
>
Wasn't it the other way around? I know he was a child when the stuff at
Tarsus happened. I guess I assumed he had moved to Iowa when the Tarsus
survivors got their 'I'm sorry' credits from the Federation.
cmo...@nospam.com
think it's a fact that he was definately born in Iowa.
"JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:bkXRa.108096$Io.92...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
EvilBill[AGQx]
>> On Earth anyway. (Where, oddly enough, most command staff was
born.)
>> Both James Kirk and Tasha Yar came from worlds that were none too
>> pleasant.
>
> Er, James Kirk came from Earth. Iowa, IIRC. *
Watch the TOS ep 'Conscience of the King'. <g>
William December Starr
<cmo...@nospam.com> said:
> I don't know. I always thought he moved to Tarsus when he was a
> pre-teen. I think it's a fact that he was definately born in Iowa.
I think the only canonical fact is that he says that he's "from"
Iowa. ("Star Trek IV: The One With The Whales")
Which could mean (1) he was born there and his family emigrated to
Tarsus, (2) he was born on Tarsus and his family emigrated to Iowa
after the colony failed, when Kirk was still young enough for him to
grow up thinking of Iowa rather than Tarsus as his "home town," or
(3) he was born in Iowa, his family then emigrated to Tarsus and then
moved _back_ to Iowa to live with relatives after the colony failed.
Or (4) something else, but I think those are the three most likely
scenarios.
Matt Huang
> adequate science and technology, we can bring equality and utopia to every
> man, woman, child, animal, and plant in existence.
>
> But, as history has shown us, no matter how much science and technology
> you have, a utopia in inconceivable. A utopia is an unrealistic dream that
> disregards human nature. This is Star Trek's greatest fault even though it
> has many things in its favor.
the general expectation is that with warp-related technologies, any
civilization can effectively harness it's resources towards whatever
ends it desires. The only aspects of human nature that would not be
satiated by default are the needs for power, dominance, knowledge, and
happyness, most of which can be provided by starfleet
>
> In several episodes in the Star Trek universe, there was an attempt to
> recreate Star Wars' classic cantina scene. In all these attempts, Star
> Trek failed miserably. There simply aren't enough scumbag characters in
> Star Trek to make the scene truly authentic. There is no poverty or vice
> in the ST universe to produce a Jabba The Hutt or a Han Solo or a Lando
> Calrissian.
they weren't exactly an attempt to recreate the cantina scene. They
just needed a place other then a starship to try some plot twists, so
they "creatively" visited a local bar
>
> This is why I enjoy more believable shows such as Stargate SG-1 (of course
> Stargate SG-1 isn't really a 'spaceship' show) among others, which doesn't
> fool around with the Prime Directive bullshit. My opinion is that Star
> Trek is too 'touchy-feely'.
so are many of the fans
>
> Admit it folks. You have watched a Star Trek show and seen the characters
> get in some sort of bad situation. How many of you have just wanted to say
> "Fuck the Prime Directive"? They should be doing what needs to be done for
> the good of Earth. Like that episode where Picard didn't want to download
> a virus into the Borg because he thought it was immoral. Data needed to
> butt rape some sense into Picard after that whopper.
it was a lot harder to wipe out the borg after they met hugh, and
grown emotionally atatched
>
> I think that Star Trek would be a much better show if they got rid of the
> things I mentioned above. Please don't tell me that I'm the only one who
> feels like this!
they tried to with DS9. The result was a much more intersting show,
which of course the touchy-feeley viewers who prefered the federation
as a bunch of whiny, moralizing pacifists hated complained about.
they also came out with a system of pure bs on voyager, where Janeway,
on alternating weeks, threatened other species with force or played
friends with them
also, enterprise is entering season 3, which promises to be very
intersting. Not only does the Ent sport a shiny new refit, but we
also get a contingent of military personnel that completes the change
from a earth-chartered expedition to an early earth warship
Joseph Nebus
How about "he was caught up on a family trip when bad things
started happening"? They do happen ... my Aunt Evelyn recalls once
when she was visiting Greece, and was having a good time in the hotel
lounge, until some grim, gravel-voiced speaker came on over the TV.
Everyone around her stopped talking and began staring at the set, and
then the TV switched to a picture of the flag and began playing the
national anthem and everyone rose. She didn't know what was going on,
but knew she was in a dangerous spot.
Had a good trip anyway, though; she just collected different
anecdotes than she expected.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jedispy
"Omphalos" <omph...@fnc.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93B9B...@130.133.1.4...
> In the Star Trek universe, there is the paradigm that believes that, with
> adequate science and technology, we can bring equality and utopia to every
> man, woman, child, animal, and plant in existence.
>
> But, as history has shown us, no matter how much science and technology
> you have, a utopia in inconceivable. A utopia is an unrealistic dream that
> disregards human nature. This is Star Trek's greatest fault even though it
> has many things in its favor.
>
> recreate Star Wars' classic cantina scene. In all these attempts, Star
> Trek failed miserably. There simply aren't enough scumbag characters in
> Star Trek to make the scene truly authentic. There is no poverty or vice
> in the ST universe to produce a Jabba The Hutt or a Han Solo or a Lando
> Calrissian.
>
> Stargate SG-1 isn't really a 'spaceship' show) among others, which doesn't
> fool around with the Prime Directive bullshit. My opinion is that Star
> Trek is too 'touchy-feely'.
>
> get in some sort of bad situation. How many of you have just wanted to say
> "Fuck the Prime Directive"? They should be doing what needs to be done for
> the good of Earth. Like that episode where Picard didn't want to download
> a virus into the Borg because he thought it was immoral. Data needed to
> butt rape some sense into Picard after that whopper.
>
> things I mentioned above. Please don't tell me that I'm the only one who
> feels like this!
Agreed. It will never happen in this reality. Star Trek is
science....uh....science....gosh....what's the word that comes after
science?
Jedispy
Ahkenaton
wrote:
>it was a lot harder to wipe out the borg after they met hugh, and
>grown emotionally atatched
Which ignores a huge point, Hugh was free and independent of the hive.
A hive mind that doesn't give a crap about that type of thinking,
which in fact, if that type of independence does enter the hive mind
in some fashion, it is quickly severed from the hive to prevent
deterrence of it's primary goal of assimilating the universe. Before
being temporarily liberated, Hugh was a biochemical powered automoton
of the hive mind. Afterwards, Picard and crew had no reason to
believe he wouldn't return to that function.
Because of Picard's decision, the events in First Contact occured,
which while resolved in a positive matter still put the fate of the
Earth, Federation and known free universe at unnecessary risk of
annihilation, in addition to any other inevitable casualties and
assimilations caused by the continued existence of the Borg.
It still drives me nuts that Janeway tried bargaining with the Borg
for free passageway through their space and naively expected them to
live up to their end of the bargain. And, of course, she chastized
her first officer for taking precautions against the inevitable Borg
doublecross. This was the point at which I stopped watching the PC
nonsense that is Voyager. How didn't half a crew full of Maquis
mutiny right there and then?
Picard and Janeway refused to accept the reality of what they were
dealing with. The Borg can't be bought. They can't be reasoned with.
And they won't stop until you are dead.....or assimilated.
JJ
"Ahkenaton" <m...@there.com> wrote in message
news:WzAaP=r5bMvFrbQgNWPT=QCPXsv=@4ax.com...
>
> Because of Picard's decision, the events in First Contact occured,
> which while resolved in a positive matter still put the fate of the
> Earth, Federation and known free universe at unnecessary risk of
> annihilation, in addition to any other inevitable casualties and
> assimilations caused by the continued existence of the Borg.
Except that this makes the incredible assumption that the Borg would have
fared worse had they gone ahead with Geordi's virus... something that we
don't know.
Another scenario might also be possible. The virus fails, and Lore runs into
a fully functional Borg vessel, seduces the Queen, and actually adds some
intelligence & visciousness to the collective.
Ahkenaton
>
>"Ahkenaton" <m...@there.com> wrote in message
>news:WzAaP=r5bMvFrbQgNWPT=QCPXsv=@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> Because of Picard's decision, the events in First Contact occured,
>> which while resolved in a positive matter still put the fate of the
>> Earth, Federation and known free universe at unnecessary risk of
>> annihilation, in addition to any other inevitable casualties and
>> assimilations caused by the continued existence of the Borg.
>
>Except that this makes the incredible assumption that the Borg would have
>fared worse had they gone ahead with Geordi's virus... something that we
>don't know.
And something that wasn't tried due to some irrational attachment to a
nonfunctioning biochemically powered Borg unit.
This is my point. Because the mechanism of the destruction of free
will and civilization in the universe was dressed in a fuzzy bunny
suit, Picard and crew decided not to try and do anything about it even
though they had a device that would deal with the problem with near
100% certainty.
JJ
Turning the main deflector dish into an offensive weapon had a near %100
certainty and it failed as well. Or should I say, a near %100 certainty by
those who know jack shit about the collective. In case one hadn't noticed,
~everything~ Starfleet had on the Borg was guesswork or given to them by
Picard (who seems to have subconciously repressed some knowledge and ability
concerning them.)
Picard made the decision. It cost the collective a Cube. We have no idea as
to the potential effectiveness of any other method devised. Picard may have
made his decision not out of sympathy, but of knowledge that Hugh's
individuality would be a worse virus than Geordi's artificial one.
Ahkenaton
>
>"Ahkenaton" <m...@there.com> wrote in message
>news:H7oaPxQwzpcPJf4PX=E6HXg...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:44:20 GMT, "JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> wrote:
>>
>
>> This is my point. Because the mechanism of the destruction of free
>> will and civilization in the universe was dressed in a fuzzy bunny
>> suit, Picard and crew decided not to try and do anything about it even
>> though they had a device that would deal with the problem with near
>> 100% certainty.
>>
>
>Turning the main deflector dish into an offensive weapon had a near %100
>certainty and it failed as well. Or should I say, a near %100 certainty by
>those who know jack shit about the collective. In case one hadn't noticed,
>~everything~ Starfleet had on the Borg was guesswork or given to them by
>Picard (who seems to have subconciously repressed some knowledge and ability
>concerning them.)
But at least they tried the dish.
And the virus was created after indepth analysis of Hugh with the
primary intention of finding a weakness in the collective. This was
hardly guesswork. It was a unique opportunity that they were
exploiting for the express purpose of saving lives and civilizations.
Instead of trying to use the virus, they opted for clouds, rainbows
and happy time feelings.
>Picard made the decision. It cost the collective a Cube. We have no idea as
>to the potential effectiveness of any other method devised. Picard may have
>made his decision not out of sympathy, but of knowledge that Hugh's
>individuality would be a worse virus than Geordi's artificial one.
Picard had no such knowledge. They had no reason to believe that
Hugh's individuality would remain in tact. In fact they commented
that his experiences would most likely be erased once he returned to
his primary function. It was a faint hope that turned out to be true,
although it only liberated a single cube. It was a slow process and
the collective was able to easily cut their losses.
The virus was practically a certainty given their testing with Hugh.
It was designed to work it's way slowly throughout the collective
before going active so that once they found it, it would have been too
late for them to cut off the affected cubes.
But Picard refrained from at least trying it because, gosh darn it,
Hugh was cute and charming.
JJ
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:32:39 GMT, "JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ahkenaton" <m...@there.com> wrote in message
> >news:H7oaPxQwzpcPJf4PX=E6HXg...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:44:20 GMT, "JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >Picard made the decision. It cost the collective a Cube. We have no idea
as
> >to the potential effectiveness of any other method devised. Picard may
have
> >made his decision not out of sympathy, but of knowledge that Hugh's
> >individuality would be a worse virus than Geordi's artificial one.
>
> Picard had no such knowledge.
First Contact, scene 1.
> They had no reason to believe that
> Hugh's individuality would remain in tact. In fact they commented
> that his experiences would most likely be erased once he returned to
> his primary function.
"They" had never been assimilated.
> It was a faint hope that turned out to be true,
> although it only liberated a single cube.
Which is a pretty big feat for the Federation which normally costs them a
large number of ships.
> It was a slow process and
> the collective was able to easily cut their losses.
And no proof they wouldn't be able to do the same to a virus that was
effectively a logic puzzle.
>
> The virus was practically a certainty given their testing with Hugh.
> It was designed to work it's way slowly throughout the collective
> before going active so that once they found it, it would have been too
> late for them to cut off the affected cubes.
How exactly did they test it on Hugh and he was still functional? How would
testing on a single drone prove it would actually enter the collective? How
would it prove that it wouldn't simply reject the virus? How would it prove
that the Queen (which only Picard subconciously knew about, again, see First
Contact) wouldn't see it and deal with it?
>
> But Picard refrained from at least trying it because, gosh darn it,
> Hugh was cute and charming.
>
Which proved incredibly effective against an invading Cube, which may have
been more effective had another Cube found it before Lore had done so.
Paul Vader
>> Er, James Kirk came from Earth. Iowa, IIRC. *
>
>Watch the TOS ep 'Conscience of the King'. <g>
Duh, we all know about that. But it only came up the once, and Kirk has
self-identified as being 'from earth' more times than that, so you have to
assume he didn't consider the Tarsus colony to be 'home', for whatever
reason. *
Ahkenaton
>
>"Ahkenaton" <m...@there.com> wrote in message
>news:syMbP4ypGE8WrC...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:32:39 GMT, "JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ahkenaton" <m...@there.com> wrote in message
>> >news:H7oaPxQwzpcPJf4PX=E6HXg...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:44:20 GMT, "JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> >Picard made the decision. It cost the collective a Cube. We have no idea
>as
>> >to the potential effectiveness of any other method devised. Picard may
>have
>> >made his decision not out of sympathy, but of knowledge that Hugh's
>> >individuality would be a worse virus than Geordi's artificial one.
>>
>> Picard had no such knowledge.
>
>First Contact, scene 1.
No. We're talking "I, Borg" here. Picard had no such knowledge
because the whole Lore/Borg fiasco had yet to happen.
And even then, with that knowledge, I still find that line of thinking
dubious.
>> They had no reason to believe that
>> Hugh's individuality would remain in tact. In fact they commented
>> that his experiences would most likely be erased once he returned to
>> his primary function.
>
>"They" had never been assimilated.
No, but they had a very good idea of how it worked because of
examining Hugh.
>> It was a faint hope that turned out to be true,
>> although it only liberated a single cube.
>
>Which is a pretty big feat for the Federation which normally costs them a
>large number of ships.
Which is still foolish when you put this into proportion and consider
that they could have made an attempt at the whole collective instead
of one insignificant cube.
>> It was a slow process and
>> the collective was able to easily cut their losses.
>
>And no proof they wouldn't be able to do the same to a virus that was
>effectively a logic puzzle.
You're either completely missing my point, or you're blatantly
refusing to accept it. The virus was designed to destroy the entire
collective. _It_was_never_given_a_chance_ because Picard thought that
a cancer tumor in the shape of a smiley face deserved a chance to
spread.
Picard had no information to suggest that the virus wouldn't work at
the time. Nor have we seen any concrete information since to suggest
that it wouldn't have worked, outside of the speculation we have
discussed here based on events that happened after "I, Borg".
Given that the further existence of the Borg = death of lives and
civilizations, my point still stands. The virus should have at the
very least been tried.
JJ
"Paul Vader" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:vho2cpm...@news.supernews.com...
> "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilb...@freeuk.com> writes:
> >> Er, James Kirk came from Earth. Iowa, IIRC. *
> >
> >Watch the TOS ep 'Conscience of the King'. <g>
>
> Duh, we all know about that. But it only came up the once, and Kirk has
> self-identified as being 'from earth' more times than that, so you have to
> assume he didn't consider the Tarsus colony to be 'home', for whatever
> reason. *
If you survived that, and then moved to that centuries equivalent of
Greenwich Village, which would you call 'home'?
JJ
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:08:38 GMT, "JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> wrote:
> You're either completely missing my point, or you're blatantly
> refusing to accept it.
Bingo! I'm refusing to accept that you are a better authority on what may or
may have not worked on the Borg than Picard. He was, at that point, the only
individual Starfleet had a hold of (other than Hugh) that was free of the
collective. 'Close examination' of one Borg drone does not equate to
intimate knowledge of the entire collective any more than taking a blood
sample gives one intimate knowledge of a human body. One can make some
strong educated guesses, but that's all they are. Guesses. Picard had more
knowledge of the Borg, as we witnessed during First Contact, where he
demonstrated his greater knowledge of the Borg by finding a weak point in
the Cube that (surprise surprise) Geordi and Data knew nothing about,
despite 'intense study of Hugh'.
Ahkenaton
>
>"Ahkenaton" <m...@there.com> wrote in message
>news:Tn0cP+Nvojx8N3...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:08:38 GMT, "JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You're either completely missing my point, or you're blatantly
>> refusing to accept it.
>
>Bingo! I'm refusing to accept that you are a better authority on what may or
>may have not worked on the Borg than Picard.
I reiterate, you're missing my point or blatantly refusing to accept
even the premise of it.
Picard was certain his virus weapon would work, but he refrained from
trying it. Why? It wasn't because, as you contend, that they didn't
have a chance or the knowledge that it possibly wouldn't work, which,
by the way, you base on information from events that happened _AFTER_
"I, Borg", and which possibilities are entirely speculation on both of
our parts.
Picard based his decision on a personal interaction with a liberated
_nonfunctioning_ member of the collective. The point, for the
umpteenth time, is that Picard didn't even try to use the virus. It
is _NOT_ about the feasability of the virus, which is what your entire
argument and speculation is based upon.
It's been fun, but this is going in circles. Later.
JJ
>
> Picard was certain his virus weapon would work, but he refrained from
> trying it.
No he wasn't. Geordi was.
>
> Picard based his decision on a personal interaction with a liberated
> _nonfunctioning_ member of the collective.
No, he based his decision on a perfectly funtional drone, born of the
collective, yet still freed from the collective.
Weather that decision was based on morality or on the vengence streak he's
been shown to have wider than the Grand Canyon is speculation. All we know
is that after talking to Hugh, he decided to not use the virus.
'The Virus would have worked.' is %100 guesswork bullshit.
M Holmes
>> Admit it folks. You have watched a Star Trek show and seen the characters
>> get in some sort of bad situation. How many of you have just wanted to say
>> "Fuck the Prime Directive"? They should be doing what needs to be done for
>> the good of Earth. Like that episode where Picard didn't want to download
>> a virus into the Borg because he thought it was immoral. Data needed to
>> butt rape some sense into Picard after that whopper.
>>
>> I think that Star Trek would be a much better show if they got rid of the
>> things I mentioned above. Please don't tell me that I'm the only one who
>> feels like this!
> I'd have to say that you, hopefully, are the only one that feels that way.
He's not. I'd like to see "Federation: Black Ops" about those key guys
in Star Fleet who have the motto "Fuck the Prime Directive!"
FoFP
C.S.Strowbridge
> The Macho Milquetoast wrote:
>>>Admit it folks. You have watched a Star Trek show and seen the characters
>>>get in some sort of bad situation. How many of you have just wanted to say
>>>"Fuck the Prime Directive"? They should be doing what needs to be done for
>>>the good of Earth. Like that episode where Picard didn't want to download
>>>a virus into the Borg because he thought it was immoral. Data needed to
>>>butt rape some sense into Picard after that whopper.
>>>
>>>I think that Star Trek would be a much better show if they got rid of the
>>>things I mentioned above. Please don't tell me that I'm the only one who
>>>feels like this!
>
>>I'd have to say that you, hopefully, are the only one that feels that way.
>
> He's not.
It depends on how literally you take the 'butt rape' part of his
suggestion.
Uploading the virus would have been genocide. Of course the targets were
responsible for genocide on many occasions, (or so we're told.) So there
should have been a moral dilemma. But I think the choice that was made
for for rating rather than for logically sound reasons.
> I'd like to see "Federation: Black Ops" about those key guys
> in Star Fleet who have the motto "Fuck the Prime Directive!"
Unfortunately it would be brought to you by the same people who's motto
is "Fuck Star Trek continuity!"
C.S.Strowbridge
David Johnston
<csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>It depends on how literally you take the 'butt rape' part of his
>suggestion.
>
>Uploading the virus would have been genocide.
<shrug> No it wouldn't. It would only be killing one individual.
The Borg are not a race. They are a person with a lot of different
bodies.
C.S.Strowbridge
> "C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:
>>It depends on how literally you take the 'butt rape' part of his
>>suggestion.
>>
>>Uploading the virus would have been genocide.
>
> <shrug> No it wouldn't. It would only be killing one individual.
> The Borg are not a race. They are a person with a lot of different
> bodies.
That's just splitting hairs.
C.S.Strowbridge
The Baron
Even then it's only assuming that you've totally given up hope on
removing any assimilated people from the collective. We've seen it's
possible - even if you don't count killing a drone as a crime, surely
killing the person behind the drone is, the individual who could
potentially be saved?
David Johnston
<csstro...@shaw.ca> wrote:
No, it isn't. Back in those days you could kill as many drones as you
wanted to and it didn't count because they weren't people. They were
just cells in a gigantic collective intelligence.
Eric Newman
Johnston) had this to say:
Speaking of Borg -- I know it's hard to tell with the pasty faces and
myriad prostheses, but don't all Borg seem to be human? Have we ever
seen a Ferengi Borg? a Cardassian Borg? a Bajoran Borg? an Andorian
Borg? I remember seeing a Romulan ex-Borg in a Voyager episode, and
Tuvok and Torres briefly became Borg, but whenever a shipload of Borg
comes along, they all seem to be human -- or at least human-appearing,
and I don't just mean humanoid as in bipedal. Did I miss something?
Kip Ingram
for the second time - first time was when it originally aired. I'm
enjoying it even more this time than I did before.
In rec.arts.sf.tv Omphalos <omph...@fnc.com> wrote:
> In the Star Trek universe, there is the paradigm that believes that, with
> adequate science and technology, we can bring equality and utopia to every
> man, woman, child, animal, and plant in existence.
>
> But, as history has shown us, no matter how much science and technology
> you have, a utopia in inconceivable. A utopia is an unrealistic dream that
> disregards human nature. This is Star Trek's greatest fault even though it
> has many things in its favor.
>
> In several episodes in the Star Trek universe, there was an attempt to
> recreate Star Wars' classic cantina scene. In all these attempts, Star
> Trek failed miserably. There simply aren't enough scumbag characters in
> Star Trek to make the scene truly authentic. There is no poverty or vice
> in the ST universe to produce a Jabba The Hutt or a Han Solo or a Lando
> Calrissian.
>
> This is why I enjoy more believable shows such as Stargate SG-1 (of course
> Stargate SG-1 isn't really a 'spaceship' show) among others, which doesn't
> fool around with the Prime Directive bullshit. My opinion is that Star
> Trek is too 'touchy-feely'.
>
Ninapenda Jibini
Do you have to work at being so stupid or does it come naturally?
Kip Ingram <kipi...@Kips-MacBook-Air.local> wrote in
news:ZTHMC.108905$6C5....@fx07.iad:
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.