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!
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.
Mox Fulder
> 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.
Reality check here. Human "history" is *insignificant* when compared to
the history of the "world," or even other species. There is no way to know
what humanity will be like in 1,000 or 100,000 years, much less in
10 million years, if it lasts. And it just might.
Of course, the 23rd century would be too soon for the significant changes
in society as proposed in Star Trek, but that is not the point. If Star
Trek had been set 10 million years from now, we could not relate to it.
Roddenberry's purpose was the opposite: to comment on his society through
a work of fiction.
[...]
> 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'.
Well, you know what they say about opinions.
> 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.
You don't understand the Prime Directive at all. TNG's Pen Pals had a nice
little discussion about it. Watch and pay attention.
> 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!
Irrelevant. The quality of your arguments does not depend on how
many people agree with you. Massive crossposting deleted.
--
Al Ruffinelli <alv...@accesscom.com>
http://www.turning-pages.com/xf/
http://www.turning-pages.com/xf101/
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.
BlakGard
>>>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?
Well, in "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" it was kind of realistically
(if you don't count the campy 80s pop cultural view of the future) a
mixed bag, but mostly things looked like they would work out okay
in the future.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
BlakGard
>> >>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?
1. That wasn't the future.
2. Things really did work out okay for the Galacticans.
BlakGard
>: 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 :)
Indeed... but I'm able to forget the stretching of physics and wondering why
almost
everyone in the universe speaks English parts. :)
The Highlander (aka Gordon)
> >> >> 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?
>
> 1. That wasn't the future.
> 2. Things really did work out okay for the Galacticans.
Dr. Who?
Thunderbirds?
Fireball XL5?
OK, I'm done.
BlakGard
>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"
No.
From the Greek "ou - topos" or "no place."
The Highlander (aka Gordon)
> >: 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 :)
>
> Indeed... but I'm able to forget the stretching of physics
Hey, it's science Fiction!
> and wondering why
> almost everyone in the universe speaks English parts. :)
Hey, it's drama.
I suspend disbelief also. :-)
BlakGard
>>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?
The people of the federation need not these things. When phasers can destroy
things so simply and replicators create things so simply there's little need
for
them.
BlakGard
>> 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.
>
>Reality check here. Human "history" is *insignificant* when compared to
>the history of the "world," or even other species. There is no way to know
>what humanity will be like in 1,000 or 100,000 years, much less in
>10 million years, if it lasts. And it just might.
>
>Of course, the 23rd century would be too soon for the significant changes
>in society as proposed in Star Trek, but that is not the point.
I don't know. Look at the technology that's present in Star Trek and imagine
how
that would affect us.
Interstellar travel, so there's room enough for practically everyone to do
whatever
they want.
Transporters, so it's easier to get around and meet different cultures and
learn
from them.
Translators, so it's easier to understand them.
In the 24th century:
Replicators, so there's little need for greed.
Beyond the technology is the fact that the universe is teeming with lifeforms.
That's
bound to have a unifying affect on humanity. Why worry about the colour of that
guy's skin when the guy over there has antennae and the woman over there has
pointy ears?
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
>>
>>
>>> 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
> Graham Kennedy 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...
>>
>>said things are going to work out okay in the future?
>>
>>
>>Graham Kennedy
>>
>>Creator and Author,
>>Daystrom Institute Technical Library
>>http://www.ditl.org
>
>
> 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)
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
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
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
>
>
>>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
> "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?
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> Beyond the technology is the fact that the universe is teeming with
> lifeforms. That's
> bound to have a unifying affect on humanity. Why worry about the
> colour of that guy's skin when the guy over there has antennae and
> the woman over there has pointy ears?
>
Not to mention the group over there with pallid skin and a bunch of
cybernetic implants!
Oh, and those f'ugly Cardassians, too ;)
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
Mox Fulder
[...]
> 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.
That is .sig material.
Massive crossposting deleted.
--
Al Ruffinelli <alv...@accesscom.com>
http://www.turning-pages.com/xf/
http://www.turning-pages.com/xf101/
Zombie Elvis
and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness:
blak...@aol.comix.net (BlakGard) wrote in
<20030716022818...@mb-m28.aol.com>:
> >: 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 :)
Actually, once you get past its central conceit (crackpot theories 1,
regular theories one million -- hey there's a scifi series where
things turn out pretty well, Futurama), SG1 is pretty cool. It does a
good job with the exploring strange new worlds concept that modern
Trek has such a hard time with these days.
>
> Indeed... but I'm able to forget the stretching of physics and wondering why
It's no worse than what you see on Trek.
> almost
> everyone in the universe speaks English parts. :)
That part's easy, they're all originally from Earth!
--
"I am First Omet'iklan, and I am dead. As of this moment, we are all
dead. We go into battle to reclaim our lives. This we do gladly, for
we are Jem'Hadar. Remember, victory is life."
-- Omet'iklan
"I am Chief Miles Edward O'Brien. I'm very much alive, and I intend
to *stay* that way."
-- O'Brien
Roberto Castillo
roberto...@ameritech.net
http://www.enteract.com/~castillo
BlakGard
>>
>> Hoping to find a backwater colony world in hopes of hiding from a
>> race of machines bent on your destruction is 'good'?
>
> 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.
Yeah... when they weren't battling hunger, disease, and Cylons.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
BlakGard
>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 :)
>
>Actually, once you get past its central conceit (crackpot theories 1,
>regular theories one million -- hey there's a scifi series where
>things turn out pretty well, Futurama), SG1 is pretty cool. It does a
>good job with the exploring strange new worlds concept that modern
>Trek has such a hard time with these days.
>>
>> Indeed... but I'm able to forget the stretching of physics and wondering
>why
>
>It's no worse than what you see on Trek.
True enough.
>> almost everyone in the universe speaks English parts. :)
>
> That part's easy, they're all originally from Earth!
And of course, everyone on Earth speaks English. :\
The last time I checked, Earth has hundreds of different living languages.
Even onthe off chance that one of these SG-1 cultures originated from a
Germanic/Anglo-Saxon part of Earth, the languages would have diverged
extensively. Even trying to read/speak Old English is not that simple.
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
>>
>>
>
>The people of the federation need not these things. When phasers can destroy
>things so simply and replicators create things so simply there's little need
>for
>them.
>
So what do you do? When you take a crap, do you wipe yourself then pick
up a phaser and blast the mess? What about little kids? Do you let
them blast away with a phaser. OK, so it goes to some sort of 23rd
century septic tank that does the blasting. Sooner or later that
thing's got to break down and someone's going to have to wade through a
bunch of crap to fix it. Again, who does that?
--
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.
EvilBill[AGQx]
> In alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise EvilBill[AGQx]
<evilb...@freeuk.com>
> wrote: [...]
>> 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.
>
> That is .sig material.
>
Yay, I get quoted in someone's sig! <g>
> Massive crossposting deleted.
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)
--
#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: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...
Mirror Spock
mount and spoke thus:
>Well, Kirk was born in Iowa. Why his family moved to Tarsus when he was a
>kid, I don't know.
>
Wasn't Kirk a midshipman during the Tarsus incident? I don't remember
all that well.
* Robinson
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>
EvilBill[AGQx]
Nope, he was - I think - 13 years old. Or it might have been 14.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BlakGard
>> evolved and advanced.
>
> So in addition to everything else, they were delusional?
No. Hopeful. Considering they had the same parent civilization as Earth, they
believed Earth would have similar technology. Flawed logic, but logic
nonetheless.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
BlakGard
>> phasers can destroy things so simply and replicators create
>> things so simply there's little need for them.
>
> So what do you do? When you take a crap, do you wipe yourself
> then pick up a phaser and blast the mess?
Maybe a sonic bidet? ;)
Seriously though... I'm talking about the waste. Everything
happens the same as normally, it's just the waste is disposed of
differently. Take your dump. Wipe. Flush. ZAP!
> OK, so it goes to some sort of 23rd century septic tank that
> does the blasting. Sooner or later that thing's got to break
> down and someone's going to have to wade through a bunch of
> crap to fix it. Again, who does that?
Feh.
BlakGard
>>>>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...
The typical and contextual reference mandates a religious minister.
> And even if religious, why christian?
Because a ministers are typically Christian, and usually (but not always)
Protestant.