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!
Commander Raynor RayCav
Tell us something new....
Graham Kennedy
> 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.
Partially true. It has been stated repeatedly in TNG and beyond
that the "utopia" was not brought about through technology, or
at least not through technology alone. Rather, it is that mankind
itself has "evolved" in its thinking. That's an incorrect useage
of that word, but the point is that Trek is saying that by the
24th century it is human nature itself which has changed.
Now you can argue that this is a hideously unlikely prospect, and
I agree. But that's beside the point.
<snip>
> 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!
Personally, the utopian aspect of the show is the thing that
made me a fan. There is plenty of sci-fi that depicts the
future as a gloomy, dirty, horrible place. I find it
refreshing every now and again to watch a future I'd
actually want to live in.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
Graham Kennedy
> In article <3F147A63...@ditl.org>, Graham Kennedy
> <gra...@ditl.org> wrote:
>
>
>> There is plenty of sci-fi that depicts the
>>future as a gloomy, dirty, horrible place.
>
>
Yup. Or Space Above and Beyond, Lost in Space, Space 1999,
Blakes 7, UFO, X Files, Dark Skies, Andromeda...
In fact, has there *ever* been another show that actually
said things are going to work out okay in the future?
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
Paolo Pizzi
news:3F147A63...@ditl.org...
> Partially true. It has been stated repeatedly in TNG and beyond
> that the "utopia" was not brought about through technology, or
> at least not through technology alone. Rather, it is that mankind
> itself has "evolved" in its thinking.
...toward a progressive, Socialist and non-religious society.
> Personally, the utopian aspect of the show is the thing that
> made me a fan. There is plenty of sci-fi that depicts the
> future as a gloomy, dirty, horrible place. I find it
> refreshing every now and again to watch a future I'd
> actually want to live in.
Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
fozzi bear
Yep "the girl from tomorrow"
Even more interesting it does three time periods.
Bland- present day
Nightmarish -intermediate future (used to show the catalyst for:-)
Utopian- distant future.
Really was a great show, pity its only been shown in Aus & NZ (AFAIK)
Cheers
Fozzi
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
> Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> > In article <3F147A63...@ditl.org>, Graham Kennedy
> > <gra...@ditl.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> There is plenty of sci-fi that depicts the
> >>future as a gloomy, dirty, horrible place.
> >
> >
> > Like 'Firefly', 'Matrix' and 'Babylon 5', for starters. :)
>
> Yup. Or Space Above and Beyond, Lost in Space, Space 1999,
> Blakes 7, UFO, X Files, Dark Skies, Andromeda...
>
> In fact, has there *ever* been another show that actually
> said things are going to work out okay in the future?
Battlestar Galactica?
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.
William December Starr
"Paolo Pizzi" <paolopiz...@sbcglobal.net> said:
> Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
> clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
> clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
> clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
> clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
> clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
> clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
Penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin penicillin
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
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.
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.
Manny Olds
> Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
>> In article <3F147A63...@ditl.org>, Graham Kennedy
>> <gra...@ditl.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is plenty of sci-fi that depicts the
>>>future as a gloomy, dirty, horrible place.
>>
>>
>> Like 'Firefly', 'Matrix' and 'Babylon 5', for starters. :)
> Yup. Or Space Above and Beyond, Lost in Space, Space 1999,
> Blakes 7, UFO, X Files, Dark Skies, Andromeda...
> In fact, has there *ever* been another show that actually
> said things are going to work out okay in the future?
Dr Who is pretty positive, despite all the alien invasions.
--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by
one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." -- Edmund Burke
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=====
======\/====================================
Joseph Nebus
>In alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org> wrote:
>> In fact, has there *ever* been another show that actually
>> said things are going to work out okay in the future?
>Dr Who is pretty positive, despite all the alien invasions.
One of the things I like about "The Fifth Element" (a movie which
I find a like a lot more when I'm not watching it; the plot's endless
fore- and aft-shadowing gets on my nerves) is the depicted future Earth
is ... not so bad. It looks appealing in some ways, screwed up in some
other ways, kind of like today but with flying cars.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
DanielSBen
> "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.
>
> 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.
>
In the 24th century, perhaps. It's not just scitech needed, though. It
is education as well; technology is worthless without the knowledge to
go with it. Also, education is needed to overcome misconceptions. In
Africa, both are needed to combat AIDS and end hunger.
Another thing needed is to weigh risks. In southern Africa, many
countries, at the advice of the EU, are refusing US-produced food,
some of which is Genetically Modified, because it "may increase risk
of cancer" - may, not will. Uhm, i wouldn't care so much about a
possible increase in the cancer rate if my people were STARVING - and
GM food is as (if not more) nutritious than normal food.
The two things that have improved society the most are
science/technology and education. Government, religious organizations,
businesses, can all do a lot to foster it or kill it.
> >
> > 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...
>
Not necessarily. It was in TNG and later. A big theme in TOS was "we
weren't meant for paradise" - Watch episodes like "The Apple" for
example.
<snip>
> >
> > 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')
Kirk and Janeway routinely got around it or ignored it!
<snip>
Oh, and stop cross-posting to alt.space.monkey.invaders or
alt.spacebastards. They aren't Trek-relevant (i'll accept
alt.startrek.vs.starwars and rec.arts.sf.tv because ST is at least
part of what occurs there). I imagine others agree with me. And wtf
are "space monkey invaders"?
-DanielSBen
Graham Kennedy
I was going to say, never heard of it.
Actually, those who talk about the Trek utopia should remember
that it's still quite a ways off. The Star Trek prediction
for you and me is gradually worsening social conditions for the
next couple of decades, and if you survive that you might just
live long enough to see World War III kill 600 million people
and wipe out most governments. Not until Enterprise are we
supposed to conquer stuff like poverty, and not until TNG does
greed supposedly vanish.
Graham Kennedy
Please tell me that was a joke!
Graham Kennedy
> Manny Olds <old...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>
>>In alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org> wrote:
>
>
>>>In fact, has there *ever* been another show that actually
>>>said things are going to work out okay in the future?
>>
>
>>Dr Who is pretty positive, despite all the alien invasions.
>
>
> One of the things I like about "The Fifth Element" (a movie which
> I find a like a lot more when I'm not watching it; the plot's endless
> fore- and aft-shadowing gets on my nerves) is the depicted future Earth
> is ... not so bad. It looks appealing in some ways, screwed up in some
> other ways, kind of like today but with flying cars.
There were a few not so nice things... living space seemed
a bit on the low side if Bruce's apartment was anything to
go by. And what's with the police turning up and ordering
people to assume "surrender" postures inside their own houses
whenever they liked?
I'd *love* to have that scenery outside my window, though!
Graham Kennedy
> "Graham Kennedy" <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
> news:3F147A63...@ditl.org...
>
>
>>Partially true. It has been stated repeatedly in TNG and beyond
>>that the "utopia" was not brought about through technology, or
>>at least not through technology alone. Rather, it is that mankind
>>itself has "evolved" in its thinking.
>
>
Yup. Great, isn't it?
>>Personally, the utopian aspect of the show is the thing that
>>made me a fan. There is plenty of sci-fi that depicts the
>>future as a gloomy, dirty, horrible place. I find it
>>refreshing every now and again to watch a future I'd
>>actually want to live in.
>
>
> Clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
> clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
> clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
> clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
> clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
> clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
> clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
<bows>
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
JJ
"The Macho Milquetoast" <jwa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7U0Ra.102845$Io.88...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Battlestar Galactica?
>
Hoping to find a backwater colony world in hopes of hiding from a race of
machines bent on your destruction is 'good'?
Jerry Brown
<fozzi...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
<snip>
>Yep "the girl from tomorrow"
>Even more interesting it does three time periods.
>Bland- present day
>Nightmarish -intermediate future (used to show the catalyst for:-)
>Utopian- distant future.
>
>Really was a great show, pity its only been shown in Aus & NZ (AFAIK)
It was shown in the UK about 5-10 years ago. IMO, it's a pity the
rather pleasant Helen Jones wasn't in the second season though.
On the Aussie TV front, we've also had Escape from Jupiter, which
featured Chris-Foss style CGI spacecraft, and something about a
near-future underwater research station and a mer-girl whose title
escapes me.
Way way way back in the seventies, there was also Phoenix-5, a
Star-Trek wannabe with an intrepid crew of 3 and a regular villain who
made Zachary Smith look underplayed.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Tom A.
Think about it - even with everything bad, and humanity (as far as they
knew) confined to a few hundred small (for the most part) spaceships,
they still had enough standard of living to support a cassino ship.
(Obviously, zoning laws wouldn't allow gambling on any of the other ships.)
--
Tom A.
Spock: A wager?
Q: Shocked! I am shocked that gambling is going on in this hall!
_Spock vs. Q_, by Alien Voices
JJ
"DanielSBen" <Danie...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1105fd88.03071...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > 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.
> >
>
>
> The two things that have improved society the most are
> science/technology and education. Government, religious organizations,
> businesses, can all do a lot to foster it or kill it.
Education seems to be on the increase as well, and in fact the Bajorans
didn't like how complete Federation education went. (One of the reasons I
liked DS9 was that it did occasionally deal with those things in a fairly
thoughtful manner.)
>
> > >
> > > 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...
> >
>
> Not necessarily. It was in TNG and later. A big theme in TOS was "we
> weren't meant for paradise" - Watch episodes like "The Apple" for
> example.
>
But then again, "Cat's Paw" had humanity beyond thinking anything special of
rare gems or any of that kind of thing. Nothing's perfect.... but that was
true even in early seasons of TNG (where GR had a pretty free hand compared
to TOS.)
> > Bad example. For one thing, the Prime directive is not immutable. (Check
the
> > charges against Picard in 'the Drumhead')
>
> Kirk and Janeway routinely got around it or ignored it!
Drumhead gave a number for one Starfleet Captain (even if supposedly a large
one.)
Janeway was in an odd predicament (not to mention that I didn't watch much
of the last three seasons.)
>
> <snip>
>
> Oh, and stop cross-posting to alt.space.monkey.invaders or
> alt.spacebastards. They aren't Trek-relevant (i'll accept
> alt.startrek.vs.starwars and rec.arts.sf.tv because ST is at least
> part of what occurs there). I imagine others agree with me. And wtf
> are "space monkey invaders"?
>
> -DanielSBen
Oops, hit reply. Didn't even resolve those on my system. Though 'monkey
invaders' sounds suspiciously like the pseudo-religions zealots that have
decided to show here....
cmo...@nospam.com
and advanced.
"JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:LNgRa.4828$Mc.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
VetteGuy
"savage" from the 20th century. as in most of Gene Roddenberry's works with
John Saxon in the early 70's.
even the buck Rodgers remakes had a semi-utopian society upset by the
upstart,
and most recently and notably was Sly Stallone's "Demolition Man"
Peter Dimitriadis
: > In fact, has there *ever* been another show that actually
: > said things are going to work out okay in the future?
: > --
: >
: > Graham Kennedy
:
: Yep "the girl from tomorrow"
: Even more interesting it does three time periods.
: Bland- present day
: Nightmarish -intermediate future (used to show the catalyst for:-)
: Utopian- distant future.
:
: Really was a great show, pity its only been shown in Aus & NZ (AFAIK)
Not absolutely sure if it's the same one, but I think it's aired in Canada
as well. I saw most of at least the first season, and thought it was
quite nice, actually, but then I was rather young when I saw it. Wouldn't
mind seeing it again to see how it holds up.
I know it was either produced in Australian or NZ, and it had those three
time periods (with the Utopian one getting temporarily wrecked because of
time meddling of the criminal from the middle period escaping to the
'present day').. and I remember at least one nifty scene where they
essentially went back to the same time period they were before, and wound
up being the way they were mysteriously helped out of a jam the first time
around. Also the future girl had some kind of device that was lost
occasionally that I think focused psychic power or something? Is this the
same show?
Peter Dimitriadis
Graham Kennedy
>
> Oddly enough, most every utopian world set in the future falls prey to the
> "savage" from the 20th century. as in most of Gene Roddenberry's works with
> John Saxon in the early 70's.
> even the buck Rodgers remakes had a semi-utopian society upset by the
> upstart,
> and most recently and notably was Sly Stallone's "Demolition Man"
Writers most often want to show some sort of conflict. Since
utopias tend to have little of that, most often the writers
decide to show it as being perfect in terms of standard of living,
but at a cost of little freedom or creativity. The messy
old 20th century Human then comes in and shows them the value
of our simple but free ways.
That way the writer gets to create the conflict he needs to make
his story interesting, and also gets to tell his audience that
when you get down to it they are superior to those plasticised
future folk.
Strangely, Trek often does the opposite - the few times we see
Trek folk interact with present folk, the Trek ones are usually
shown as being better in most ways. The Neutral Zone is a good
example.
EvilBill[AGQx]
>> that the "utopia" was not brought about through technology, or
>> at least not through technology alone. Rather, it is that mankind
>> itself has "evolved" in its thinking.
>
> ...toward a progressive, Socialist and non-religious society.
>
It's not non-religious; for example in one DS9 ep, Kasidy Yates
comments that her mother would prefer she had a minister perform her
wedding ceremony. So Christianity in some form must still exist in the
24th century. Then of course the KLingons, Vulcans and Bajorans have
their own religious beliefs which haven't been significantly altered
by their contact with humans.
--
--
* 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]
>
> 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
> 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...
fozzi bear
Sure is, the escape paradox is what clinches it for me. It does hold up
well BTW (IMHO, of course). Basically it does so because the studio, while the
biggest (native) in Australia, is comparitively small by international
standards, hence they could only afford the minimum necessary in SFX sequences
ergo they had to concentrate on a rip-roaring story. (As I said to Gordon "what
a concept these days huh?").
Another factor I loved (and it is minutea I admit) Silverthorn is one of
the better names I have ever heard for a baddie.
Wow!, I had no idea it had been distributed so widely.
Cheers
Fozzi
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.
fozzi bear
Not to mention a damned humorous example, if one takes the ep
tongue-in-cheek that is,.
"what say son?, you'd make a heck of a side man"
Cheers
Fozzi
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> Sure is, the escape paradox is what clinches it for me. It does hold
> up
> well BTW (IMHO, of course). Basically it does so because the studio,
> while the biggest (native) in Australia, is comparitively small by
> international standards, hence they could only afford the minimum
> necessary in SFX sequences ergo they had to concentrate on a
> rip-roaring story. (As I said to Gordon "what a concept these days
> huh?").
>
> Another factor I loved (and it is minutea I admit) Silverthorn is
one
> of
> the better names I have ever heard for a baddie.
>
> Wow!, I had no idea it had been distributed so widely.
>
> Cheers
> Fozzi
It was shown in the UK about 12 years ago. Very cool series. It was
interesting too how in the second season Silverthorn was on *our* side
(I guess in his native time he just never got the break that would let
him be an ordinary decent bloke).
Was there ever a third season?
The Macho Milquetoast
> The Macho Milquetoast wrote:
> > Battlestar Galactica?
>
> Please tell me that was a joke!
I was just throwing it out there. I always thought BG was silly - basically
the Old Testament in space.
James
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.
fozzi bear
>
> Lo and behold, fozzi bear <fozzi...@optusnet.com.au> sayeth:
> >
> > Sure is, the escape paradox is what clinches it for me. It does hold
> > up
> > well BTW (IMHO, of course). Basically it does so because the studio,
> > while the biggest (native) in Australia, is comparitively small by
> > international standards, hence they could only afford the minimum
> > necessary in SFX sequences ergo they had to concentrate on a
> > rip-roaring story. (As I said to Gordon "what a concept these days
> > huh?").
> >
> > Another factor I loved (and it is minutea I admit) Silverthorn is
> one
> > of
> > the better names I have ever heard for a baddie.
> >
> > Wow!, I had no idea it had been distributed so widely.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Fozzi
>
> It was shown in the UK about 12 years ago. Very cool series. It was
> interesting too how in the second season Silverthorn was on *our* side
> (I guess in his native time he just never got the break that would let
> him be an ordinary decent bloke).
>
> Was there ever a third season?
>
To the best of my knowledge - no
But then I've already been wrong re:- the breadth of distribution so
don't take that as gospel.
Cheers
Fozzi
Ruediger LANDMANN
: Writers most often want to show some sort of conflict. Since
: utopias tend to have little of that, most often the writers
: decide to show it as being perfect in terms of standard of living,
: but at a cost of little freedom or creativity. The messy
: old 20th century Human then comes in and shows them the value
: of our simple but free ways.
"Buck Rogers" jumps (unfortunately) to mind...
--
#2 on the Official alt.horror.werewolves Troll List
Castellan of Clues, Empire of New Scotland
Revenge group: alt.drunken-bastards.ruediger-landmann
JJ
<cmo...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:bf4aqm$sqm$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> They were under the (wrong) impression that Earth would be extremely
evolved
> and advanced.
>
So in addition to everything else, they were delusional?
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
Derek
"alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise", opened the box of crayons and
scribbled the following:
>>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?
The really short golden guys from "Journey to Babel"? Maybe they
cornered the Federation contracts on waste management. They'd have
little trouble working in spaces that would be "confining" to
humans.
> 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?
Actually, the mobile emitter isn't necessary for a holographic
worker. Sickbay on Voyager had emitters but wasn't a fullblown
holodeck. And even before the mobile emitter, Janeway had emitters
installed around Voyager so that the Doctor could leave sickbay in
an emercency.
It would simply require someone to install the emitters in the
areas where holograms are expected to work. The mobile emitter just
allowed the Doctor to go anywhere, regardless of the presence of
emitters.
Derek
--
Scintillate, scintillate, globule vivific. Fain would I fathom thy
nature specific. Loftily perched in the ether capacious,
strongly resembling a gem carbonaceous.
Graham Kennedy
I seem to remember a story that the people behind it were all
religious types who wanted a Message Show. Mormons, I think?
Anyway, one of the things I like about the new miniseries
they're doing is that they seem to be toning that aspect
right the way down, along with the Von Daniken crap.
Graham Kennedy
> In alt.tv.star-trek.tos Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org> wrote:
>
> : Writers most often want to show some sort of conflict. Since
> : utopias tend to have little of that, most often the writers
> : decide to show it as being perfect in terms of standard of living,
> : but at a cost of little freedom or creativity. The messy
> : old 20th century Human then comes in and shows them the value
> : of our simple but free ways.
>
> "Buck Rogers" jumps (unfortunately) to mind...
Any series with Pamela Hensley and Erin Gray can't
be all bad. Hmmmmmm, Erin Gray... such memories... :-)
Graham Kennedy
> Lo and behold, Paolo Pizzi <paolopiz...@sbcglobal.net> sayeth:
>
>>"Graham Kennedy" <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>Partially true. It has been stated repeatedly in TNG and beyond
>>>that the "utopia" was not brought about through technology, or
>>>at least not through technology alone. Rather, it is that mankind
>>>itself has "evolved" in its thinking.
>>
>>...toward a progressive, Socialist and non-religious society.
>>
>
>
> It's not non-religious; for example in one DS9 ep, Kasidy Yates
> comments that her mother would prefer she had a minister perform her
> wedding ceremony. So Christianity in some form must still exist in the
> 24th century.
What makes you think it was a religious minister?
We have a Minister for Education in the UK...
And even if religious, why christian?
There are other mentions of religion in Trek, some
fairly positive. Most especially in Voyager. But for
the most part it is a pretty non-theistic show.
> Then of course the KLingons, Vulcans and Bajorans have
> their own religious beliefs which haven't been significantly altered
> by their contact with humans.
True enough. But they're meant to represent less evolved,
more primitive folk.
VetteGuy
"fozzi bear" <fozzi...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3F15DD0E...@optusnet.com.au...
But what, exactly is a Low Mileage Pit Woofie?
Derek
"alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise", opened the box of crayons and
scribbled the following:
> [...]
>> Then of course the KLingons, Vulcans and Bajorans have
>> their own religious beliefs which haven't been significantly
>> altered by their contact with humans.
>
> True enough. But they're meant to represent less evolved,
> more primitive folk.
Given EvilBill's statement above, are you suggesting that Vulcans are
less evolved and more primitive?
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.
William December Starr
"JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> said:
[ re "Battlestar Galactica" ]
>> They were under the (wrong) impression that Earth would be
>> extremely evolved and advanced.
>
> So in addition to everything else, they were delusional?
Yes, but enough about the ABC executives who greenlighted the show...
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
fozzi bear
Not sure if your playing or serious so am answering JIC.
If the venacular is the same as down here (no garuantee of such
afterall) then a "low mileage pit wolfie" is a very young (even
under the age of consent generally) fan from the front (standing)
rows of the audience (it ties into the term mosh-pit, or orchestra
pit for the youth challenged ;-))
Cheers
Fozzi
Derek
trek.enterprise", opened the box of crayons and scribbled the
following:
>> But what, exactly is a Low Mileage Pit Woofie?
>
> Not sure if your playing or serious so am answering JIC.
>
> If the venacular is the same as down here (no garuantee of such
> afterall) then a "low mileage pit wolfie" is a very young (even
> under the age of consent generally) fan from the front (standing)
> rows of the audience (it ties into the term mosh-pit, or orchestra
> pit for the youth challenged ;-))
Ah! It's only taken me what, 12 years to find this out? I always
wondered, but never enough to try and find out.
Makes sense, though. Of course the thick southern drawl of whatever-
his-name-was would explain the difference between "wolfie" and
"woofie."
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...
> 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
JJ
<cmo...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:bf75vb$o6h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Yeah... if it where a Berman/Braga endeavor they would have sent Lt.
Iliah
> 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.
>
>
I can remember watching ST in the early 80's, when I had a grand total of 5
stations on my TV. Yet.... I still enjoyed First Contact. The Borg were just
frosting though, and could have been replaced by Romulans, Klingons,
Dominion, or a host of other hostile races. The good part was the stuff done
to Z.C & his 'new' warp drive up and running.
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...
> 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.
>
> >
> >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
>
The Macho Milquetoast
> Ruediger LANDMANN wrote:
> > In alt.tv.star-trek.tos Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org> wrote:
> >
> > : Writers most often want to show some sort of conflict. Since
> > : utopias tend to have little of that, most often the writers
> > : decide to show it as being perfect in terms of standard of living,
> > : but at a cost of little freedom or creativity. The messy
> > : old 20th century Human then comes in and shows them the value
> > : of our simple but free ways.
> >
> > "Buck Rogers" jumps (unfortunately) to mind...
>
> Any series with Pamela Hensley and Erin Gray can't
> be all bad. Hmmmmmm, Erin Gray... such memories... :-)
Gil Gerard ain't bad either!
James
David B.
Robots?
Ruediger LANDMANN
:> It's not non-religious; for example in one DS9 ep, Kasidy Yates
:> comments that her mother would prefer she had a minister perform her
:> wedding ceremony. So Christianity in some form must still exist in the
:> 24th century.
: What makes you think it was a religious minister?
: We have a Minister for Education in the UK...
: And even if religious, why christian?
True, but in the context, religious minister *is* the most natural meaning
of the dialogue. I'm also not aware of any faith other than Christianity
that calls its clergy "ministers."
Of course, this doesn't *preclude* other explanations, but I think we can
be fairly certain of the writer's intentions (FWIW)
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. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Edward
http://www.angelfire.com/id/tomorrow/
I personally loved it and though it's ages since I saw it I think it
would stand up well to repeated viewing. The 80's time period would be
a bit dated but the furureistic ones and SFX would be ok by modern
standards as far as I remember. I love to get hold of a DVD version
somehow.
We didn't have a TV when it was being shown so every Saturday morning
we had a mad dash to get to my Grandmas house to catch it. Happy
Memories
No I don't think there was ever a third series either though I thought
the second series worked really well with the first.
fozzi bear <fozzi...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<3F15E95B...@optusnet.com.au>...
> "EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote:
> >
> > Lo and behold, fozzi bear <fozzi...@optusnet.com.au> sayeth:
> > >
> > > Sure is, the escape paradox is what clinches it for me. It does hold
> > > up
> > > well BTW (IMHO, of course). Basically it does so because the studio,
> > > while the biggest (native) in Australia, is comparitively small by
> > > international standards, hence they could only afford the minimum
> > > necessary in SFX sequences ergo they had to concentrate on a
> > > rip-roaring story. (As I said to Gordon "what a concept these days
> > > huh?").
> > >
> > > Another factor I loved (and it is minutea I admit) Silverthorn is
> one
> > > of
> > > the better names I have ever heard for a baddie.
> > >
> > > Wow!, I had no idea it had been distributed so widely.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Fozzi
> >
> > It was shown in the UK about 12 years ago. Very cool series. It was
> > interesting too how in the second season Silverthorn was on *our* side
> > (I guess in his native time he just never got the break that would let
> > him be an ordinary decent bloke).
> >
> > Was there ever a third season?
> >
>
> To the best of my knowledge - no
>
> But then I've already been wrong re:- the breadth of distribution so
> don't take that as gospel.
>
> Cheers
> Fozzi
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
> 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.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grainne Gillespie
> Even more interesting it does three time periods.
> Bland- present day
> Nightmarish -intermediate future (used to show the catalyst for:-)
> Utopian- distant future.
>
> Really was a great show, pity its only been shown in Aus & NZ (AFAIK)
>
> Cheers
> Fozzi
Not true, was shown on BBC in Britain and RTE in ireland
Grainne Gillespie
"Jerry Brown" <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote in message
news:7i5bhvov11puct8vr...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:35:44 +1000, fozzi bear
> <fozzi...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Yep "the girl from tomorrow"
> >Even more interesting it does three time periods.
> >Bland- present day
> >Nightmarish -intermediate future (used to show the catalyst for:-)
> >Utopian- distant future.
> >
> >Really was a great show, pity its only been shown in Aus & NZ (AFAIK)
>
> rather pleasant Helen Jones wasn't in the second season though.
>
> On the Aussie TV front, we've also had Escape from Jupiter, which
> featured Chris-Foss style CGI spacecraft, and something about a
> near-future underwater research station and a mer-girl whose title
> escapes me.
>
> Way way way back in the seventies, there was also Phoenix-5, a
> Star-Trek wannabe with an intrepid crew of 3 and a regular villain who
> made Zachary Smith look underplayed.
>
>
> Jerry Brown
> --
> A cat may look at a king
> (but probably won't bother)
>
> <http://www.jwbrown.co.uk>
Grainne Gillespie
> featured Chris-Foss style CGI spacecraft, and something about a
> near-future underwater research station and a mer-girl whose title
> escapes me.
Ocean Odyssey
Grainne Gillespie
Derek
"alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise" assembled, and proclaimed:
Heh. Brings back memories of "Man from Atlantis" with Patrick Duffy.
Derek
--
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world
to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton
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
fozzi bear
Thats recently been prequelled and sequelled (well kind of) with
Ocean Girl and Ocean Girl II respectively.
Cheers
Fozzi
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.
Jeff Walther
Twilight <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <3F147A63...@ditl.org>, Graham Kennedy
> <gra...@ditl.org> wrote:
>
> > There is plenty of sci-fi that depicts the
> > future as a gloomy, dirty, horrible place.
>
> Like 'Firefly', 'Matrix' and 'Babylon 5', for starters. :)
The fundamental difference, I think, is that in Star Trek there is
sufficient technology to produce the goods and services that people need
and want, without (or with very little) human labor. In the other shows
the schmoes still need to scrounge for a livlihood.
If humans are freed from the necessity of workign for their needs
("necessity"; wanting to work is a whole other thing) and the economic
system is such that folks have access to this "free" or nearly free
wealth, then that may not be utopia, but it is certainly a fundamentally
different life than anyone has lived so far.
And without the handle of economic need, many methods of coercion drop
away. Human nature being what it is, there will always be folks who seek
out avenues of power unpleasant to their neighbors, but removing economic
necessity takes out a huge field of abuse.
That's always been the "utopia" of Star Trek in my mind.
--
A friend will help you move. A real friend will help you move a body.
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.