Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Star Trek Utopia

22 views
Skip to first unread message

Omphalos

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 5:32:45 PM7/15/03
to
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'.

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

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 5:53:19 PM7/15/03
to

Tell us something new....

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 6:04:19 PM7/15/03
to
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.

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

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 7:06:13 PM7/15/03
to
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?

Ruediger LANDMANN

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 7:31:45 PM7/15/03
to
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"...

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

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 7:42:34 PM7/15/03
to
"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.

...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

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 7:35:44 PM7/15/03
to

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

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 8:02:36 PM7/15/03
to

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

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 8:16:27 PM7/15/03
to

"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

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 8:19:58 PM7/15/03
to
"Omphalos" <omph...@fnc.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93B9B...@130.133.1.4...

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

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 8:21:23 PM7/15/03
to
"Graham Kennedy" <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:3F1488E5...@ditl.org...

> 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

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 8:23:41 PM7/15/03
to
"Ruediger LANDMANN" <zzrl...@fox.uq.net.au> wrote in message
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

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 9:05:28 PM7/15/03
to
In alt.tv.star-trek.tos The Macho Milquetoast <jwa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: "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

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 9:13:52 PM7/15/03
to
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

Cruz Gracia

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 9:24:29 PM7/15/03
to
I disagree with you totally.

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

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 11:10:58 PM7/15/03
to
in article 3F149826...@swbell.net, Gerald Meazell at
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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 1:04:36 AM7/16/03
to
In article <Kj0Ra.1136$qf6...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>,
"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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 1:05:39 AM7/16/03
to

"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.

>
> 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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 1:19:40 AM7/16/03
to
In article <hP1Ra.33539$QD2.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
"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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 5:06:22 AM7/16/03
to

> 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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 6:40:07 AM7/16/03
to
In alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise Graham Kennedy <gra...@ditl.org> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 9:25:01 AM7/16/03
to
On Tue 15 Jul 2003 09:13:52p, Gerald Meazell <gmea...@swbell.net> wrote
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=====
======\/====================================

http://31337.pl

Joseph Nebus

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 9:17:32 AM7/16/03
to
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.

Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Murray

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 10:05:31 AM7/16/03
to

> 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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 12:48:51 PM7/16/03
to
"JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> wrote in message news:<D25Ra.4088$Mc.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...

> "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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 1:01:03 PM7/16/03
to

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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 1:01:32 PM7/16/03
to

Please tell me that was a joke!

Graham Kennedy

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 1:05:22 PM7/16/03
to
Joseph Nebus wrote:
> 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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 1:06:22 PM7/16/03
to
Paolo Pizzi wrote:
> "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.
>
>
> ....toward a progressive, Socialist and non-religious society.

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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 1:30:57 PM7/16/03
to
"Janet Smith" <djan...@netscape.net> wrote:

> "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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 2:26:51 PM7/16/03
to

"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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 2:35:21 PM7/16/03
to
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)

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)

<http://www.jwbrown.co.uk>

Tom A.

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 2:50:29 PM7/16/03
to

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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 2:57:05 PM7/16/03
to

"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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 3:59:09 PM7/16/03
to
They were under the (wrong) impression that Earth would be extremely evolved
and advanced.

"JJ" <tyg...@flash.net> wrote in message

news:LNgRa.4828$Mc.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

VetteGuy

unread,
Jul 17, 2003, 4:05:47 PM7/17/03
to

"Graham Kennedy" <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:3F1585D2...@ditl.org...
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"

Peter Dimitriadis

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 6:33:21 PM7/16/03
to
fozzi bear (fozzi...@optusnet.com.au) wrote:
: > 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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 6:52:26 PM7/16/03
to
VetteGuy wrote:

>
> 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]

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 7:08:13 PM7/16/03
to
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. 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]

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 7:11:23 PM7/16/03
to
Lo and behold, Gerald Meazell <gmea...@swbell.net> sayeth:

>
> 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...

fozzi bear

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 7:14:13 PM7/16/03
to

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]

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 7:12:43 PM7/16/03
to
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.

EvilBill[AGQx]

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 7:16:18 PM7/16/03
to
Lo and behold, Andrew Murray <SPAMadBUS...@iinet.net.au> sayeth:

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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 7:17:34 PM7/16/03
to

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]

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 7:18:31 PM7/16/03
to
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?

The Macho Milquetoast

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 7:45:54 PM7/16/03
to
"Graham Kennedy" <gra...@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:3F1584EC...@ditl.org...

> 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

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 7:54:37 PM7/16/03
to
"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. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

fozzi bear

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 8:10:03 PM7/16/03