Nice observations. I’d add that technology is both the creator and cure of all major problems, underscored by in-universe science, and if it ever becomes about hugs, faith and love saving the day, it’s wandering too far into Who territory.
@@Lumibear. tech is treated as ammoral, eg the Genesis device, if used in a propper way could turn an S planet into an M type, if used the other way, you could garden Kronos, and turn klingons to berries. Phasers were chosen over rifles because they could be used as tools, same goes for other items.
I would mention that Star Wars only since Disney has “Hyperspace” been a magic button that made long distances into nothing. It used to take time. That first jump we all saw in the Falcon was many many hours, they didn’t get to the remains of Alderan in 15 minutes. In ESB the Falcon without hyperspace took weeks to travel to Bespin. Slave 1 was able to discern the possible end of their journey and tell the Empire so the could get there before them and trap them.
@@josebrown5961 that’s interesting. I do like the idea of hopping into another dimension for hyperspace, kind of like how subspace or fluidic space works in trek.
I remember having a discussion about Star Trek captains with some friends (before Discovery and even the Abrams reboots were a thing) and how they each treated rules like the Prime Directive. Our conclusions were as follows. Kirk: Broke the rules whenever he was SURE he was right, and being the luckiest man in the universe he always was. Picard: Broke the rules when he was sure he could persuade even the harshest critic, in writing, that he was justified, and was enough of a scholar to pull it off. Sisko: Broke the rules whenever he felt like it, and got away with it by suppressing knowledge of what happened and working out in the galactic boonies where there was a lot less follow-up. Janeway: Broke the rules more rarely than the rest and only when she was particularly emotional, and got away with it by being on literally the wrong side of galaxy. Archer: There literally weren't any rules yet, his screw ups are why there are rules later.
Excellent analysis! As a lifelong fan (started at age 4 with first run TOS), I agree. I think that, unfortunately, Janeway’s relationship to rules is clearly influenced by misogyny. A captain who is a woman has to be more perfect than any man (so, like Picard but more so, making sure everything is justified), but allowances are made for her to be occasionally “hormonal” or “emotional”, which of course we know men never are. [insert eyeroll here] Please note I’m not saying this is how it SHOULD be, just that this affected how her character was written during VOY. I am only about halfway through the second season of Prodigy, so I’m less clear about her portrayal in the modern era. She seems to be following that still, though, with her feelings about Chakotay (and the main character youths, to a lesser degree) influencing what she does and allows.
@@DawnDavidson "I think that, unfortunately, Janeway’s relationship to rules is clearly influenced by misogyny." I'm not sure how Janeway's relationship to rules has anything to do with the hatred or mistrust of women. Are you sure misogyny is really the word you want to use?
They only ignored everything the first season and after all the blowback, they started walking things back. By the end of the 2nd Season the Klingons had hair again, the spore drive was a highly classified secret, Spock's adopted sister was "erased from existence" and the show was set far enough in the future that they were allowed to do whatever the f**k they wanted with the sets, costumes, technology, etc. I do appreciate them going back to obviously color-coding the uniforms for ease of telling departments apart, though. I find that convention very helpful.
@@GiantFreakinRobotBut still, it did exist and it did form the basis of early Trek, upon which everything else is founded. Absolutely agree that some of these rules have been discarded, especially the “no conflict” one, because otherwise there is literally no story. Everlasting peace is dull, which is why the concept of heaven is so hard to write about, and the concept of hell spawns infinite storylines in all of TV/film. Even the Klingons’ idea of heaven (Stovokor) has conflict in it!
@@GiantFreakinRobotDead, but not for the best. Before, the writers had to be creative to write conflicts, to give people a real reason. Most conflicts were between humans and aliens. Nowadays we have constant arguing and bickering and whining on a starship. How are they supposed to work together?
Rule #1.5 Space Is Big, and therefore Help Isn't Coming. The crews in Star Trek generally have to figure stuff out on their own, even though there must surely be excellent experts in the Federation (or beyond) that might have insight to their problems. Sure, in many cases the issue of the week could be solved by a quick subspace call to Starfleet Medical, or by engaging the services of an actual lawyer, or through consulting other people who've visited such-and-such a planet, but where'd the fun be in that? Star Trek has a way of throwing the characters into uncomfortable situations that go beyond their primary role, and I think that's a defining feature of the franchise (which I must say, I love).
PRECISELY. My rant was longer. "Very well done indeed. However, an addendum. Latin gerund, way the by...like agendum, memorandum. Agenda, plural, 'things which should or must be done." Manyway, revenons à nos moutons. It is impossible for carbon DNA life to live on another local planet, or travel interstellarly. We will never know how common life is, but it took a fifth of the age of the universe to develop complex cells, eukaryotes, here. Multicellular life will be rarer still, aware life rarer, tech life...5 centuries only, HERE, until coal gone.....rarer still. In time as well as in space. Future tech is THE fantasy cult, similar to theisms...magical thinking. Antireality antihistory antilogic anti-science cults are contagious. Unfortunately, after high tech and pollution/population collapse civilization, the Asimovian Interregnum will last...unpredictably long....but very. And such antireality cults will live longer than our very brief tech era...during which multitudes deny the science that, like vaccines, protects and supports them. But there is no vaccine for stupid, or crazy. I m not qualified to understand these higher math, physics, chemistry, biology. But my family has three generations of significant scientists in several areas of hard studies. I do know enough to say no one will be coming BACK from Mars, ever. High and even medium tech will disappear with coal...oil/gas gone in app. a century. Science fantasy of the future is a new cult, at base magical thinking, like theisms and superstitioning systems in general. Here is a list of factors...far from all-inclusive: When oil and gas, the recoverable part, USING FOSSIL FUEL TO MINE, HIGH TECH...is depleted, in a century, at most, and only sulfurous bituminous coal for even mining uranium, or making solar and wind power devices, even greenhouses with GLASS...the CO2 acidifying oceans will kill first coral, then shellfish...a different form of Calcium Carbonate, aragonite and , I forget name...by then all sea mammals extinct, then all bony fish... CO2 may stay aloft a thousand years, but SO2 from coal rains down as acid in a year...AND IT SLOWS WARMING, a lot, while ALOFT...It Get !?! Polar ice decreasing reduces reflective albedo, methane release from permafrost decline will be a major factor... And when every port in the world has to be moved 'upstream'... Well, a billion, or 2, peeps will have to move....maybe 50 million from low-lying Bengal alone... I suggest "Limits to Growth", 1972 version, and Jared Diamond's "Collapse"... The "Population Bomb" Paul Ehrlich's predictions inferior to his analysis. Peter Zeihan too, while Noam Chomsky talks of past and present, and no sane person thinks our species, genetically as competitive as cooperative, and evolutionarily geared for small groups, extended-family/tribes. ...but all generalists or interdisciplinarians are generally careful to point out uncertainties of such informed guesstimations. Malthus I have only briefly examined. Scientific method must vary with each study, each experiment...context forms factoring and analysis- synthesis. But as time 'progresses', new data clarifies predictabilities. We, or some of us, know much more, now. Fossil fuels gone, no high tech ever again, even if we survive the Anthropocene...some of us, that is. Only cellulose can be anaerobically heated to charcoal and then coke, artificial coal...no more modern medicine let alone high tech like BICYCLES. When it costs more fuels to mine fuels than produced...HAND AND HOOF. NO mining... until Antarctica is de-iced...long time, mile thick...and the much smaller hidden land mass there can be mined. Not much! In 2 centuries max...no more sea oil...tech too expensive for that. Mistake me not...I have studied science fantasy, and languages, literature, much more, for 65 years. My family watched star Trek from the first show...making fun of the puerile fantasy of tech and physics and biology and... I love good fantasy. But must accept reality. HINT. Pale imitations of quality breed like metastasizing cancerous cells. Science fiction and magical fantasy were better, in many ways, in the formative period. reread Edith Nesbit and Narnia, Pohl'Kornbluth, Niven and Asimov, not the endless stream of clones that seemed AI before same. Note that Musk is an insane in SOME areas, and borderline neo-Nazi~~~but not so kray as to get in a rocket himself. Klown klones like Branson and Bezos, the What Me Worry? kids...almost as pre-infantile as Tramp. Object and idea permanence sketchy at best... Multiplanetary!!! Impossible to get peeps back from Mars alive...NASA estimated first death in months of a trip about as long as human gestation...ON THE OUTWARD trip out. Oh, spend a trillion...maybe. By that time the planet will have refocused back to LOCAL REALITY. 'OUR' biosphere. MT GanGreene's 'Peach Tree Dish'. Where everything is just peachy." And you may forget fusion power...people at the Forrestal Tokamak project, in Princeton, where I lived and went to college, told me in '70s, same as my parents in '60s, fusion power is a laughable fantasy. Even someone as pro-tech as Sabine Hossenfelder is close to agreeing... Study the developmental stages of Auguste Comte, proto sociologist, and jean Piaget, developmental psychologist. Most humans atre literal/infantile. Some are, SOMETIMES, adolescent...speculativehypothetical, but lacking scientific method...probablity/impossibility elided, theory and data ignored or confused. Humans are genetically cooperative...in small groups, 'extended families.' But cooperation trumps it, under pressure. It is always easier to believe a simplistic oversimplified, or even fantasy version of reality than to spend much time in interdisciplinarian/generalist study and research. In the REAL reasonable rational meaning of...SEARCH AGAIN AND AGAIN, as one can only approximate reality with thought and language. Good luck with that. Another superimposed fantasy. Luck. May the universe continue to ignore us. There is life on one planet. More we can never know. Byee, peeple.
Very well done indeed. However, an addendum. Latin gerund, way the by...like agendum, memorandum. Agenda, plural, 'things which should or must be done." Manyway, revenons à nos moutons. It is impossible for carbon DNA life to live on another local planet, or travel interstellarly. We will never know how common life is, but it took a fifth of the age of the universe to develop complex cells, eukaryotes, here. Multicellular life will be rarer still, aware life rarer, tech life...5 centuries only, HERE, until coal gone.....rarer still. In time as well as in space. Future tech is THE fantasy cult, similar to theisms...magical thinking. Antireality antihistory antilogic anti-science cults are contagious. Unfortunately, after high tech and pollution/population collapse civilization, the Asimovian Interregnum will last...unpredictably long....but very. And such antireality cults will live longer than our very brief tech era...during which multitudes deny the science that, like vaccines, protects and supports them. But there is no vaccine for stupid, or crazy. I m not qualified to understand these higher math, physics, chemistry, biology. But my family has three generations of significant scientists in several areas of hard studies. I do know enough to say no one will be coming BACK from Mars, ever. High and even medium tech will disappear with coal...oil/gas gone in app. a century. Science fantasy of the future is a new cult, at base magical thinking, like theisms and superstitioning systems in general. Here is a list of factors...far from all-inclusive: When oil and gas, the recoverable part, USING FOSSIL FUEL TO MINE, HIGH TECH...is depleted, in a century, at most, and only sulfurous bituminous coal for even mining uranium, or making solar and wind power devices, even greenhouses with GLASS...the CO2 acidifying oceans will kill first coral, then shellfish...a different form of Calcium Carbonate, aragonite and , I forget name...by then all sea mammals extinct, then all bony fish... CO2 may stay aloft a thousand years, but SO2 from coal rains down as acid in a year...AND IT SLOWS WARMING, a lot, while ALOFT...It Get !?! Polar ice decreasing reduces reflective albedo, methane release from permafrost decline will be a major factor... And when every port in the world has to be moved 'upstream'... Well, a billion, or 2, peeps will have to move....maybe 50 million from low-lying Bengal alone... I suggest "Limits to Growth", 1972 version, and Jared Diamond's "Collapse"... The "Population Bomb" Paul Ehrlich's predictions inferior to his analysis. Peter Zeihan too, while Noam Chomsky talks of past and present, and no sane person thinks our species, genetically as competitive as cooperative, and evolutionarily geared for small groups, extended-family/tribes. ...but all generalists or interdisciplinarians are generally careful to point out uncertainties of such informed guesstimations. Malthus I have only briefly examined. Scientific method must vary with each study, each experiment...context forms factoring and analysis- synthesis. But as time 'progresses', new data clarifies predictabilities. We, or some of us, know much more, now. Fossil fuels gone, no high tech ever again, even if we survive the Anthropocene...some of us, that is. Only cellulose can be anaerobically heated to charcoal and then coke, artificial coal...no more modern medicine let alone high tech like BICYCLES. When it costs more fuels to mine fuels than produced...HAND AND HOOF. NO mining... until Antarctica is de-iced...long time, mile thick...and the much smaller hidden land mass there can be mined. Not much! In 2 centuries max...no more sea oil...tech too expensive for that. Mistake me not...I have studied science fantasy, and languages, literature, much more, for 65 years. My family watched star Trek from the first show...making fun of the puerile fantasy of tech and physics and biology and... I love good fantasy. But must accept reality. HINT. Pale imitations of quality breed like metastasizing cancerous cells. Science fiction and magical fantasy were better, in many ways, in the formative period. reread Edith Nesbit and Narnia, Pohl'Kornbluth, Niven and Asimov, not the endless stream of clones that seemed AI before same. Note that Musk is an insane in SOME areas, and borderline neo-Nazi~~~but not so kray as to get in a rocket himself. Klown klones like Branson and Bezos, the What Me Worry? kids...almost as pre-infantile as Tramp. Object and idea permanence sketchy at best... Multiplanetary!!! Impossible to get peeps back from Mars alive...NASA estimated first death in months of a trip about as long as human gestation...ON THE OUTWARD trip out. Oh, spend a trillion...maybe. By that time the planet will have refocused back to LOCAL REALITY. 'OUR' biosphere. MT GanGreene's 'Peach Tree Dish'. Where everything is just peachy." And you may forget fusion power...people at the Forrestal Tokamak project, in Princeton, where I lived and went to college, told me in '70s, same as my parents in '60s, fusion power is a laughable fantasy. Even someone as pro-tech as Sabine Hossenfelder is close to agreeing... Study the developmental stages of Auguste Comte, proto sociologist, and jean Piaget, developmental psychologist. Most humans atre literal/infantile. Some are, SOMETIMES, adolescent...speculativehypothetical, but lacking scientific method...probablity/impossibility elided, theory and data ignored or confused. Humans are genetically cooperative...in small groups, 'extended families.' But cooperation trumps it, under pressure. It is always easier to believe a simplistic oversimplified, or even fantasy version of reality than to spend much time in interdisciplinarian/generalist study and research. In the REAL reasonable rational meaning of...SEARCH AGAIN AND AGAIN, as one can only approximate reality with thought and language. Good luck with that. Another superimposed fantasy. Luck. May the universe continue to ignore us. There is life on one planet. More we can never know. Byee, peeple.
I would add another rule that they never really outright say but is largely understood: Almost everyone acts like mature mentally balanced adults, unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise. I realized this on my last STNG rewatch when I hit "The Neutral Zone" episode. That's the one where they revealed the new Romulans, and had a side plot of thawing out some cryonically frozen people from roughly our time. The entitled rich guy had the most trouble adjusting. The telling bit is he gets in trouble for using the coms panel when he shouldn't and literally just taking the turbolift straight to the bridge. They never lock the coms panel after he uses it, Picard comes and yells at him. They don't put security on the door -- to start with or even after he misbehaves. Why? Because it never even enters their heads that a grown-assed human would even do something so out of line and immature. Even when he gets out of line they don't do anything more than tell him it's not appropriate behavior -- expecting that to be enough to sort him out. We all know the split we're talking about here. There are adult humans walking around who are grown-ups and there are adult humans who got older without maturing. That's a core component as to why the Federation works. Most of its citizens are grown-ups as opposed to children who got older. Nobody is breaking stuff just because they can, nobody is starting political movements because someone's sexual habits make them feel weird. Most Federations citizens shown have a mature live and let live, curious, attitude. Nobody is hoarding resources because daddy didn't love them. Because the available resources are so near infinitely large there's nothing remarkable about doing so. In fact it would be weird enough to prompt people to ask if you're okay and can they help you. Instead insufficient paternal affection prompts running off to Starfleet to prove yourself, or drives you to earn the real credit of the realm: achievement and accolades. There's still conflict because there's still plenty of other causes behind the grown-ups getting weird, especially on a starship. There's still plenty of ego-driven conflict, but it's fundamentally different from the world we live in where we have ostensibly adult people causing real harm to others for childish reasons.
What you describe is the core of Roddenberry's vision. He expressed it for writers of the time in more specific rules like "no conflicts between main characters". Incidentally, thats part of the source of the bad blood with Ellison [original City script had a bad egg in the crew].
I really like what you're pointing out here, as what you describe as "out of line and immature" is the result of traumatized individuals acting out their maladaptive coping mechanisms... *most* people currently alive have *some* degree of unresolved trauma, and their out of line and immature actions show it. In Star Trek, that trauma is either resolved, or never occurred in the first place... so they simply don't find those out of line and immature actions compelling, as they don't have the resultant maladaptive coping mechanisms.
another rule - when you see episodes about Time Travel or Holodeck, that is the production trying to save money by finding an excuse to use old period costumes collecting dust in storage.
It also allows them to include other genres to the shiny future. Compare the enormous spaces in 2001 spacecraft with real stations and rockets!!! Fantasy needs elbow room. And there is the added dimension, metacognitively, self-referentializing, of the crew 'play-acting' as a break from THEIR futuristic 'reality'... Picard had fun with that, after all the Shakespeare the actor did. Faves the fantasies of the shy nerd officer, who also was bioengineered to have a super--intellect, Dwight somebody? And the end of Whorf as cowboy, with Enterprise sailing into the sunset, after Whorf poses in front of...A LOOKING GLASS. Real rabbit hole dive. Here was my rant/comment. " Very well done indeed. However, an addendum. Latin gerund, way the by...like agendum, memorandum. Agenda, plural, 'things which should or must be done." Manyway, revenons à nos moutons. It is impossible for carbon DNA life to live on another local planet, or travel interstellarly. We will never know how common life is, but it took a fifth of the age of the universe to develop complex cells, eukaryotes, here. Multicellular life will be rarer still, aware life rarer, tech life...5 centuries only, HERE, until coal gone.....rarer still. In time as well as in space. Future tech is THE fantasy cult, similar to theisms...magical thinking. Antireality antihistory antilogic anti-science cults are contagious. Unfortunately, after high tech and pollution/population collapse civilization, the Asimovian Interregnum will last...unpredictably long....but very. And such antireality cults will live longer than our very brief tech era...during which multitudes deny the science that, like vaccines, protects and supports them. But there is no vaccine for stupid, or crazy. I m not qualified to understand these higher math, physics, chemistry, biology. But my family has three generations of significant scientists in several areas of hard studies. I do know enough to say no one will be coming BACK from Mars, ever. High and even medium tech will disappear with coal...oil/gas gone in app. a century. Science fantasy of the future is a new cult, at base magical thinking, like theisms and superstitioning systems in general. Here is a list of factors...far from all-inclusive: When oil and gas, the recoverable part, USING FOSSIL FUEL TO MINE, HIGH TECH...is depleted, in a century, at most, and only sulfurous bituminous coal for even mining uranium, or making solar and wind power devices, even greenhouses with GLASS...the CO2 acidifying oceans will kill first coral, then shellfish...a different form of Calcium Carbonate, aragonite and , I forget name...by then all sea mammals extinct, then all bony fish... CO2 may stay aloft a thousand years, but SO2 from coal rains down as acid in a year...AND IT SLOWS WARMING, a lot, while ALOFT...It Get !?! Polar ice decreasing reduces reflective albedo, methane release from permafrost decline will be a major factor... And when every port in the world has to be moved 'upstream'... Well, a billion, or 2, peeps will have to move....maybe 50 million from low-lying Bengal alone... I suggest "Limits to Growth", 1972 version, and Jared Diamond's "Collapse"... The "Population Bomb" Paul Ehrlich's predictions inferior to his analysis. Peter Zeihan too, while Noam Chomsky talks of past and present, and no sane person thinks our species, genetically as competitive as cooperative, and evolutionarily geared for small groups, extended-family/tribes. ...but all generalists or interdisciplinarians are generally careful to point out uncertainties of such informed guesstimations. Malthus I have only briefly examined. Scientific method must vary with each study, each experiment...context forms factoring and analysis- synthesis. But as time 'progresses', new data clarifies predictabilities. We, or some of us, know much more, now. Fossil fuels gone, no high tech ever again, even if we survive the Anthropocene...some of us, that is. Only cellulose can be anaerobically heated to charcoal and then coke, artificial coal...no more modern medicine let alone high tech like BICYCLES. When it costs more fuels to mine fuels than produced...HAND AND HOOF. NO mining... until Antarctica is de-iced...long time, mile thick...and the much smaller hidden land mass there can be mined. Not much! In 2 centuries max...no more sea oil...tech too expensive for that. Mistake me not...I have studied science fantasy, and languages, literature, much more, for 65 years. My family watched star Trek from the first show...making fun of the puerile fantasy of tech and physics and biology and... I love good fantasy. But must accept reality. HINT. Pale imitations of quality breed like metastasizing cancerous cells. Science fiction and magical fantasy were better, in many ways, in the formative period. reread Edith Nesbit and Narnia, Pohl'Kornbluth, Niven and Asimov, not the endless stream of clones that seemed AI before same. Note that Musk is an insane in SOME areas, and borderline neo-Nazi~~~but not so kray as to get in a rocket himself. Klown klones like Branson and Bezos, the What Me Worry? kids...almost as pre-infantile as Tramp. Object and idea permanence sketchy at best... Multiplanetary!!! Impossible to get peeps back from Mars alive...NASA estimated first death in months of a trip about as long as human gestation...ON THE OUTWARD trip out. Oh, spend a trillion...maybe. By that time the planet will have refocused back to LOCAL REALITY. 'OUR' biosphere. MT GanGreene's 'Peach Tree Dish'. Where everything is just peachy." And you may forget fusion power...people at the Forrestal Tokamak project, in Princeton, where I lived and went to college, told me in '70s, same as my parents in '60s, fusion power is a laughable fantasy. Even someone as pro-tech as Sabine Hossenfelder is close to agreeing... Study the developmental stages of Auguste Comte, proto sociologist, and jean Piaget, developmental psychologist. Most humans atre literal/infantile. Some are, SOMETIMES, adolescent...speculativehypothetical, but lacking scientific method...probablity/impossibility elided, theory and data ignored or confused. Humans are genetically cooperative...in small groups, 'extended families.' But cooperation trumps it, under pressure. It is always easier to believe a simplistic oversimplified, or even fantasy version of reality than to spend much time in interdisciplinarian/generalist study and research. In the REAL reasonable rational meaning of...SEARCH AGAIN AND AGAIN, as one can only approximate reality with thought and language. Good luck with that. Another superimposed fantasy. Luck. May the universe continue to ignore us. There is life on one planet. More we can never know. Byee, peeple. "
Like Doctor Who, when they run out of money and every episode is set in the streets of London. It's like a Time Lord getting a flat tire... but always in England.
It needs some additional new rules: 1. No stories involving children 2. The holodeck needs an off button 3. Seatbelts should be compulsory on the bridge 4. Starfleet admirals all need to be replaced by competent people.
Holodeck does have that, but they typically have a plot reason why nobody can get to it for the stereotypical trapped in a holodeck episode, or where if they take it offline something worse happens. Not always though, for sure. For 4, we have that one in real life too. (In all organizations pretty much.) So good luck...
Also, no magic or totally antireality fantasy...impossible future tech, alien contacts, necessary for space opera. BUT. The 'mind and reality are the same' of the 3-fingered alien who helps Wil Wheaton!!!...Teilhard de Chardin's "Phenomenology of Man", AC. Clarke's Vanamonde, in "Against the Fall of Night", the 'evolution-accelerating teleological machine' of an early Outer Limits, with david McCallum getting huge head telepathy, telekinesis overnight. Jack vances Eight Fantasms and Magicks... Of course, with dr, Strange and superheroes... Mutation as a pure magic, the us versus them of 'muggles' and 'NONmutants...Please! Manyway, my rant longer. " Very well done indeed. However, an addendum. Latin gerund, way the by...like agendum, memorandum. Agenda, plural, 'things which should or must be done." Manyway, revenons à nos moutons. It is impossible for carbon DNA life to live on another local planet, or travel interstellarly. We will never know how common life is, but it took a fifth of the age of the universe to develop complex cells, eukaryotes, here. Multicellular life will be rarer still, aware life rarer, tech life...5 centuries only, HERE, until coal gone.....rarer still. In time as well as in space. Future tech is THE fantasy cult, similar to theisms...magical thinking. Antireality antihistory antilogic anti-science cults are contagious. Unfortunately, after high tech and pollution/population collapse civilization, the Asimovian Interregnum will last...unpredictably long....but very. And such antireality cults will live longer than our very brief tech era...during which multitudes deny the science that, like vaccines, protects and supports them. But there is no vaccine for stupid, or crazy. I m not qualified to understand these higher math, physics, chemistry, biology. But my family has three generations of significant scientists in several areas of hard studies. I do know enough to say no one will be coming BACK from Mars, ever. High and even medium tech will disappear with coal...oil/gas gone in app. a century. Science fantasy of the future is a new cult, at base magical thinking, like theisms and superstitioning systems in general. Here is a list of factors...far from all-inclusive: When oil and gas, the recoverable part, USING FOSSIL FUEL TO MINE, HIGH TECH...is depleted, in a century, at most, and only sulfurous bituminous coal for even mining uranium, or making solar and wind power devices, even greenhouses with GLASS...the CO2 acidifying oceans will kill first coral, then shellfish...a different form of Calcium Carbonate, aragonite and , I forget name...by then all sea mammals extinct, then all bony fish... CO2 may stay aloft a thousand years, but SO2 from coal rains down as acid in a year...AND IT SLOWS WARMING, a lot, while ALOFT...It Get !?! Polar ice decreasing reduces reflective albedo, methane release from permafrost decline will be a major factor... And when every port in the world has to be moved 'upstream'... Well, a billion, or 2, peeps will have to move....maybe 50 million from low-lying Bengal alone... I suggest "Limits to Growth", 1972 version, and Jared Diamond's "Collapse"... The "Population Bomb" Paul Ehrlich's predictions inferior to his analysis. Peter Zeihan too, while Noam Chomsky talks of past and present, and no sane person thinks our species, genetically as competitive as cooperative, and evolutionarily geared for small groups, extended-family/tribes. ...but all generalists or interdisciplinarians are generally careful to point out uncertainties of such informed guesstimations. Malthus I have only briefly examined. Scientific method must vary with each study, each experiment...context forms factoring and analysis- synthesis. But as time 'progresses', new data clarifies predictabilities. We, or some of us, know much more, now. Fossil fuels gone, no high tech ever again, even if we survive the Anthropocene...some of us, that is. Only cellulose can be anaerobically heated to charcoal and then coke, artificial coal...no more modern medicine let alone high tech like BICYCLES. When it costs more fuels to mine fuels than produced...HAND AND HOOF. NO mining... until Antarctica is de-iced...long time, mile thick...and the much smaller hidden land mass there can be mined. Not much! In 2 centuries max...no more sea oil...tech too expensive for that. Mistake me not...I have studied science fantasy, and languages, literature, much more, for 65 years. My family watched star Trek from the first show...making fun of the puerile fantasy of tech and physics and biology and... I love good fantasy. But must accept reality. HINT. Pale imitations of quality breed like metastasizing cancerous cells. Science fiction and magical fantasy were better, in many ways, in the formative period. reread Edith Nesbit and Narnia, Pohl'Kornbluth, Niven and Asimov, not the endless stream of clones that seemed AI before same. Note that Musk is an insane in SOME areas, and borderline neo-Nazi~~~but not so kray as to get in a rocket himself. Klown klones like Branson and Bezos, the What Me Worry? kids...almost as pre-infantile as Tramp. Object and idea permanence sketchy at best... Multiplanetary!!! Impossible to get peeps back from Mars alive...NASA estimated first death in months of a trip about as long as human gestation...ON THE OUTWARD trip out. Oh, spend a trillion...maybe. By that time the planet will have refocused back to LOCAL REALITY. 'OUR' biosphere. MT GanGreene's 'Peach Tree Dish'. Where everything is just peachy." And you may forget fusion power...people at the Forrestal Tokamak project, in Princeton, where I lived and went to college, told me in '70s, same as my parents in '60s, fusion power is a laughable fantasy. Even someone as pro-tech as Sabine Hossenfelder is close to agreeing... Study the developmental stages of Auguste Comte, proto sociologist, and jean Piaget, developmental psychologist. Most humans atre literal/infantile. Some are, SOMETIMES, adolescent...speculativehypothetical, but lacking scientific method...probablity/impossibility elided, theory and data ignored or confused. Humans are genetically cooperative...in small groups, 'extended families.' But cooperation trumps it, under pressure. It is always easier to believe a simplistic oversimplified, or even fantasy version of reality than to spend much time in interdisciplinarian/generalist study and research. In the REAL reasonable rational meaning of...SEARCH AGAIN AND AGAIN, as one can only approximate reality with thought and language. Good luck with that. Another superimposed fantasy. Luck. May the universe continue to ignore us. There is life on one planet. More we can never know. Byee, peeple. " BIT longer.
Also, no magic or totally antireality fantasy...impossible future tech, alien contacts, necessary for space opera. BUT. The 'mind and reality are the same' of the 3-fingered alien who helps Wil Wheaton!!!...Teilhard de Chardin's "Phenomenology of Man", AC. Clarke's Vanamonde, in "Against the Fall of Night", the 'evolution-accelerating teleological machine' of an early Outer Limits, with david McCallum getting huge head telepathy, telekinesis overnight. Jack vances Eight Fantasms and Magicks... Of course, with dr, Strange and superheroes... Mutation as a pure magic, the us versus them of 'muggles' and 'NONmutants...Please! Manyway, my rant longer. " " Very well done indeed. However, an addendum. Latin gerund, way the by...like agendum, memorandum. Agenda, plural, 'things which should or must be done." Manyway, revenons à nos moutons. It is impossible for carbon DNA life to live on another local planet, or travel interstellarly. We will never know how common life is, but it took a fifth of the age of the universe to develop complex cells, eukaryotes, here. Multicellular life will be rarer still, aware life rarer, tech life...5 centuries only, HERE, until coal gone.....rarer still. In time as well as in space. Future tech is THE fantasy cult, similar to theisms...magical thinking. Antireality antihistory antilogic anti-science cults are contagious. Unfortunately, after high tech and pollution/population collapse civilization, the Asimovian Interregnum will last...unpredictably long....but very. And such antireality cults will live longer than our very brief tech era...during which multitudes deny the science that, like vaccines, protects and supports them. But there is no vaccine for stupid, or crazy. I m not qualified to understand these higher math, physics, chemistry, biology. But my family has three generations of significant scientists in several areas of hard studies. I do know enough to say no one will be coming BACK from Mars, ever. High and even medium tech will disappear with coal...oil/gas gone in app. a century. Science fantasy of the future is a new cult, at base magical thinking, like theisms and superstitioning systems in general. Here is a list of factors...far from all-inclusive: When oil and gas, the recoverable part, USING FOSSIL FUEL TO MINE, HIGH TECH...is depleted, in a century, at most, and only sulfurous bituminous coal for even mining uranium, or making solar and wind power devices, even greenhouses with GLASS...the CO2 acidifying oceans will kill first coral, then shellfish...a different form of Calcium Carbonate, aragonite and , I forget name...by then all sea mammals extinct, then all bony fish... CO2 may stay aloft a thousand years, but SO2 from coal rains down as acid in a year...AND IT SLOWS WARMING, a lot, while ALOFT...It Get !?! Polar ice decreasing reduces reflective albedo, methane release from permafrost decline will be a major factor... And when every port in the world has to be moved 'upstream'... Well, a billion, or 2, peeps will have to move....maybe 50 million from low-lying Bengal alone... I suggest "Limits to Growth", 1972 version, and Jared Diamond's "Collapse"... The "Population Bomb" Paul Ehrlich's predictions inferior to his analysis. Peter Zeihan too, while Noam Chomsky talks of past and present, and no sane person thinks our species, genetically as competitive as cooperative, and evolutionarily geared for small groups, extended-family/tribes. ...but all generalists or interdisciplinarians are generally careful to point out uncertainties of such informed guesstimations. Malthus I have only briefly examined. Scientific method must vary with each study, each experiment...context forms factoring and analysis- synthesis. But as time 'progresses', new data clarifies predictabilities. We, or some of us, know much more, now. Fossil fuels gone, no high tech ever again, even if we survive the Anthropocene...some of us, that is. Only cellulose can be anaerobically heated to charcoal and then coke, artificial coal...no more modern medicine let alone high tech like BICYCLES. When it costs more fuels to mine fuels than produced...HAND AND HOOF. NO mining... until Antarctica is de-iced...long time, mile thick...and the much smaller hidden land mass there can be mined. Not much! In 2 centuries max...no more sea oil...tech too expensive for that. Mistake me not...I have studied science fantasy, and languages, literature, much more, for 65 years. My family watched star Trek from the first show...making fun of the puerile fantasy of tech and physics and biology and... I love good fantasy. But must accept reality. HINT. Pale imitations of quality breed like metastasizing cancerous cells. Science fiction and magical fantasy were better, in many ways, in the formative period. reread Edith Nesbit and Narnia, Pohl'Kornbluth, Niven and Asimov, not the endless stream of clones that seemed AI before same. Note that Musk is an insane in SOME areas, and borderline neo-Nazi~~~but not so kray as to get in a rocket himself. Klown klones like Branson and Bezos, the What Me Worry? kids...almost as pre-infantile as Tramp. Object and idea permanence sketchy at best... Multiplanetary!!! Impossible to get peeps back from Mars alive...NASA estimated first death in months of a trip about as long as human gestation...ON THE OUTWARD trip out. Oh, spend a trillion...maybe. By that time the planet will have refocused back to LOCAL REALITY. 'OUR' biosphere. MT GanGreene's 'Peach Tree Dish'. Where everything is just peachy." And you may forget fusion power...people at the Forrestal Tokamak project, in Princeton, where I lived and went to college, told me in '70s, same as my parents in '60s, fusion power is a laughable fantasy. Even someone as pro-tech as Sabine Hossenfelder is close to agreeing... Study the developmental stages of Auguste Comte, proto sociologist, and jean Piaget, developmental psychologist. Most humans atre literal/infantile. Some are, SOMETIMES, adolescent...speculativehypothetical, but lacking scientific method...probablity/impossibility elided, theory and data ignored or confused. Humans are genetically cooperative...in small groups, 'extended families.' But cooperation trumps it, under pressure. It is always easier to believe a simplistic oversimplified, or even fantasy version of reality than to spend much time in interdisciplinarian/generalist study and research. In the REAL reasonable rational meaning of...SEARCH AGAIN AND AGAIN, as one can only approximate reality with thought and language. Good luck with that. Another superimposed fantasy. Luck. May the universe continue to ignore us. There is life on one planet. More we can never know. Byee, peeple. "
Haha I can't count the number of times where the admirals were just insufferable people or just plain villainous. With the exception of Kirk of course.
Yes but in the Kelvin Trek they tried to destroy the ship and make us care about it but it was just meh. The big old ship got chopped up and we just didn’t care. Especially when they replaced it at the end of the film.
Not all beings in TOS were. Off hand, I can think of the rock beast, that thing that looked like a giant amoeba and an intelligent space probe. There are probably more.
This is likely true, evolution churns out similar designs to fill niches. Eyes have been evolved at least 9 different times, for example. Body design is the same. On our world, crustaceans keep evolving into crabs. The body design has occurred independently so many times and stayed there that there is reason to believe that life in that context will ALWAYS evolve to resemble a crab. The biological metaphysics of intelligence require an ability to facilitate interaction with the environment. A body plan like a human is a proven efficient form, and as such, it is quite likely that intelligent terrestrial life that evolved under similar circumstances on other planets would resemble earth. Yeah octopi are intelligent too, but they didn't violate the rule. They have 8 arms to facilitate interaction with the environment, they don't need legs because living underwater counteracted the oppressive force of gravity that stipulated the upwards evolution of terrestrial life. (Which is also why our body language revolves around the notion of escaping gravity. I.e. feeling low/down... Frowns point to the ground as of the mouth was overcome by gravity, whereas smiles move upwards directly to counteract it. It is an extraneous expenditure of energy that signals a life form has concluded it has the ability to spend energy extraneously, likely because it is in a circumstance where conditions are beneficial to it. Just like when things make us smile)
Producer Rick Berman once said (and I'm paraphrasing) to an audience of fans asking about how to get an idea or a script submitted, "Write for a period piece. That period has limitations. As long as you stick to the limitations, we'll take a look."
Others have referred to “Bread and Circuses.” In “Balance Of Terror” the episode begins with a wedding in a nondenominational chapel. In “The Ultimate Computer” Kirks mentions how Daystrom felt murder was “against the laws of God and Man.”
Yes, but that was /Daystrom's/ thoughts/beliefs/morality, not those of Kirk or Starfleet. The point of that episode was lost on me at the time, but it was to do with Daystrom building an AI based on /his own/ engrams, not those analysed and sorted and assessed by peer review - his.own.engrams Kirk used this against the computer by learning of D's favouring the d penalty by knowing exactly what buttons to push to drive the computer into a self-defeated situation. Much like Picard did with that woman in Drumhead.
In the Voyager episodes Scorpion Pts 1&2 Janeway has a discussion with Leonardo di Vinci in the holodeck about the power of the imagination. He tells her when one reaches the limits of theirs its time to appeal to a higher imagination. He suggests they stop by a chapel and appeal to God. She demures but gets an idea to appeal to the Devil instead. They mean the Borg of course but you can't have the one without the other. Then there's the episode The Good Shepherd.
A better Trek show than a couple of the other more modern shows, IMO. I LOVED The Orville! Honestly, I think it broke ground for Lower Decks, showing that a Trek-like show could be both played for laughs AND still convey a lot of depth. Took me a bit to get used to it - I was not much of a Seth McFarlane fan already - but I grew to really love it. Wish they’d do more. :)
I love the humor in that show. But there are certain episodes that delve into deep science fiction and philosophy that absolutely floored me with how good they were. The episode where they go to the planet where people decide each others fate based on their popularity. Absolutely brilliant and relevant to these modern times.
I am not a Trekie, but I admire its devotion to the rules. Star Wars absolutely ruined itself by thinking that it could routinely bend and break the rules for plot convenience or because people would think it was cool. Now nobody knows what you can and can't do in that universe, and as a result, nobody cares.
"Now nobody knows what you can and can't do in that universe, and as a result, nobody cares." should be tattooed on the foreheads of every executive and writer involved in science fiction. It'll also make them easier to spot when the Eugenics Riots start. Also, ones that write or approve fix-it-with-time-travel stories are simply chunked down the oubliette. Thats how it'll be when I become Galactic Overlord.
The whole "no money" thing didn't exist until ST4 in 1986. Go watch TOS and you'll see there are frequent mentions of a monetary system in the Federation. The Trouble with Tribbles referred to them as credits, but getting paid was really a thing.
They were lots of references to money in TOS. Harry Mudd was being paid for his work as an asteroid finder. Captain Tracy wanted to sell the secret to longevity that he found on the omega planet. I don’t think he was only planning on selling that to the Ferengi. Also, several times Kirk told someone that they had earned their pay for the week. Money was definitely part of TOS. The writers wisely did not feel the need to explain the entire future economic system in an episode, just like the riders of a cop show would feel the need to explain the entire American economic system and world banking system in an episode.
@@thecaptain6730 Kirk told Spock, “The Federation has invested a great deal of money in our training.” (TOS: “Errand of Mercy”) When Kirk later asked Spock, “Do you know how much Starfleet has invested in you?”, Spock began to respond “One hundred twenty two thousand, two hundred-” before Kirk cut him off. (TOS: “The Apple”) This clearly indicates that there was a monetary figure involved in Spock’s Starfleet training.
@@GiantFreakinRobot While they were discussing the M-5, Richard Daystrom’s latest computer breakthrough, McCoy told Kirk, “The government bought it, then Daystrom had to make it work.” (TOS: “The Ultimate Computer”) How did the Federation buy Daystrom’s computer if there’s no money and everyone just does things to better themselves or society?
After it was discovered that the Horta was intelligent and only defending its eggs, Kirk told Chief Vanderberg that, if the miners could come to an agreement with the Mother Horta, the Hortas would tunnel, the miners would collect and process, and “your process operation would be a thousand times more profitable.” (TOS: "The Devil In the Dark") That explicitly demonstrates that the point of the miners’ efforts was to make money, as does their concluding conversation: CHIEF VANDERBERG: We’ve already hit huge new pergium deposits. I’m afraid to tell you how much gold and platinum and rare earths we’ve uncovered. CAPTAIN KIRK: I’m delighted to hear that, Chief. Once Mother Horta tells her kids what to look for, you people are going to be embarrassingly rich.
@@GiantFreakinRobot Wow! Thank you for the timely & thoughtful reply. The extra info is appreciated. Great video with concise writing & editing. The humor is a fresh touch too. I am an aspiring Trek Tales writer so your video is sage guidance for would-be writers. I’ve already begun 3D building a TOS-inspired science ship I imagine pioneered the use of the vertical warp core prior to its wider-scale adoption by TMP era: ua-cam.com/video/W5zKmlCsZaI/v-deo.htmlsi=dfj8XhD8olzHbPRJ I have developed a small crew in my mind and some good story concepts for development. Thanks again. See you “Out There”.
@@GiantFreakinRobot I can only think of a few things that cannot be replicated from stores of basic material supplies, and that is dilithium and Latinum. This is why these are the two most precious mineral resources in the Star Trek Universe. I believe both of them are also necessary for the most efficient Warp drives. Another is Phased Biomatter which apparently must be created using an extremely difficult process.
@@DawnDavidson Thank you for the kind words of encouragement. I love TOS era especially and would love a series with computer 3D animations of starship sequences intercut with crew interactions in a Filmation-inspired style. If no one produces one maybe I should lol?! Thanks again. See you “Out There!”.
@@ThursoBerwickwas it someone on rings of power that said orcs are racists caricatures of black people, or was that another franchise? What a self report regardless
I absolutely love it when they make an explanation fit in universe and makes for a story. Example: the change in the Klingon appearance was caused by experiments in DNA engineering that took a wrong turn.
The decision to change the looks of the Klingons was just stupid, and no in-universe explanation can plausibly fix it. Furthermore it wasn't just their looks that changed, but their whole mentality. TOS Klingons were highly advanced, civilized, but militarist and treacherous. The later Klingons were primitive barbarians that behaved like Space Vikings and were no match for the Federation anymore. Even the Klingon beliefs in the afterlife strongly resembles Valhalla. Why didn't they just introduce them as a new race?
Error: shields aren’t generated by the navigational deflector dish. The deflector dish projects a deflector beam ahead of the ship, clearing its path of particles so that the ship can safely travel at relativistic/FTL speeds. Shields are generated by the grid lines we see covering the hull.
Very interesting, well made video-- but I have to quibble with Rule #5. One of the things that made Star Trek relatable was something that our culture and our science are sadly lacking in today-- humility. Star Trek never made a definitive statement that "God does not exist." It was understood that mankind does not have the experience or the perspective to make such a statement. On the contrary, the episodes are peppered with comments that leave room for that belief. For one thing, as we find out early in the series, the Enterprise has a chapel. "Balance of Terror" opens with a wedding. The bride, Angela Martine, is kneeling at the altar in prayer before the ceremony, with Kirk looking on paternallly. After the battle with the Romulans, the episode ends in the same chapel, with Angela seeking solace in prayer as she tries to come to terms with her fiance's death. In "Who Mourns for Adonais?", the crew encounters an alien who once appeared on Earth as the Greek god Apollo and now demands that humans worship him again. Kirk's reply to him is: "Mankind has no need for gods. We find the One quite adequate." Twist that any way you like, it is still an unequivocal asertion by Kirk himself that human society retains a prevailing belief in a single deity. That belief is not unique to humans. In "Metamorphosis", Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are escorting Assistant Federation Commissioner Nacy Hedford back to the Enterprise for medical care for a disease that will kill her in days if not treated. They crash land on a planetoid where they meet Zephram Cochrane, inventor of the warp drive, who has been kept perpetually young and healthy on the planet for decades by an amorphous entity called the Companion. As Nancy Hedford is dying, the Companion somehow merges with her and restores her to health as a composite entity. When Kirk questions the Companion about how she has managed this, he says, "You cannot create life." The Companion agrees, saying, "That is for the Maker of all things." The modern strain of arrogant, militant atheists are eager to stamp out any suggestion that intelligent, creative people could possibly retain any belief in an entity beyond our comprehension who is the source of Mankind's creation-- but the Star Trek canon is what it is. You might claim that, "Well, if they were making the Original Series today they would have been aggressively, dogmatically atheistic in all their observations about the universe." But the fact is, the belief in God made it into the scripts and onto the screen repeatedly. It's canon. You can cry about it, but you can't wish it away.
Gene Roddenberry was an atheist but several times, God is affirmed "we find the One (God) sufficient". (I didn't see this until I already started replying)
"The modern strain of arrogant, militant atheists are eager to stamp out any suggestion that intelligent, creative people could possibly retain any belief in an entity beyond our comprehension who is the source of Mankind's creation-- but the Star Trek canon is what it is." I would say that your examples being all from the Original Series, made in the 60s, is a counterpoint to your argument. I can only recall one person from Starfleet being overtly religious and praying or referencing a creator deity with solid belief in its existence after TOS was produced. Dr. McCoy would mention "the Almighty" on occasion as if he still believed in the movies. What Star Trek has done in most of TOS and pretty much every episode or movie afterwards that refers to gods or god-like beings, is to show that people in the Federation (or at least in Starfleet) will always look for rational, scientific explanations to what they observe rather than place any faith in a creator or attribute something they don't understand to an unseen god. The godlike beings they do encounter are sometimes viewed with respect, sometimes viewed as dangerous, but they are not something to worshiped. And blind faith and adherence to religious dogma is consistently portrayed as something much less enlightened than rationality and skepticism. [edited for clarity]
Ah, but wouldn’t that also imply that, in order to know what the Creator’s rules are, we must all be omniscient and/or deific ourselves? Otherwise, the created never would actually know what the rules ARE. The in-universe characters are not consciously aware of these rules. Only by existing at the same level of reality can we see and understand those rules. (The universe of Xanth comes to mind here, for another example.) For me, your statement underscores my belief, which is that Thou Art God/dess (the concept that we are all a slice of divinity, choosing to understand the world through a mortal lens.) Which I am guessing was not your intent.
@@GiantFreakinRobot yes. But a lot of them go back to exactly Gene's rules. I mourn each time those are stepped on (or major continuity broken) just to satisfy some "Auteur"''s need to put his own stamp on a franchise he never liked anyway. Sorry did I say too much.
Rule 4, a.k.a. 2d space is kind of like the 180 degree rule in film. It exist to make it easier for those of us who live nearly our entire lives on the surface of a sphere so large that some people still believe it is flat despite several millennia's worth of evidence.
if you put a klingon battleship at 9c rushing towards a nebula a couple light years away, chased by the Enterprise 1 light second away, scale would make it as if both ships stayed still, you need to make them hundreds of meters apart, fliying like a WW2 fighter to convey the action, same aplies to humanoid aliens, an angry klingon breaking a table while screaming conveys better "this dude is angry" over say the horta fuming. in this context, function follows form.
The other thing about rule 4 is it is also kind of true in reality. Both our solar system and the Milky Way are shaped like flat disks. It is possible to travel in a different direction, off the elliptic plane. But as rule 1 states, space is really, really big. If you travel off that plane, you will find - nothing. Just empty space.
The 2D rule is more like locally 2D (ships typically tilt to align with each other), wide-scale spherical when in orbit (or ring shaped -- the orbit itself), and 3D on a much larger scale... then more or less 2D again on the galaxy map. Though the rule does show up in that they treat even regional maps as 2D way too often to be realistic.
'This wasn't the case yet in the original series. There was hardly ever any second starship shown on the scree. It was apparently for budget reasons, but was in fact more realistic than modern Star Trek productions, probably because in the 60s and 70s humans actually went to space and everyone knew how it looked in reality, while today there are no real manned spacecrafts anymore. Low Earth orbit doesn't count, because it is indeed 2-dimensional. There is always the Earth below. Also the visuals of space have become more unrealistic since the 70s. Back then everyone knew that space is dark and black, because they had seen real images of space. Modern Sci Fi puts lots of stuff into space, nebulae, asteroids, etc., and space itself often has a color. Nobody in the 70s would have taken these images as realistic. It started with TNG and by the time of Voyager, space had become totally surreal. Spaceships in the modern productions rather look like submarines floating through colorful tropical coral reefs, not the emptiness of space. (Modern computer games like No Man's Sky are even worse in this regard. You can't play the game without a mod making space black again.)
There is a pre-clear distinction between TOS trek and TNG and subsequent treks. In TOS they do not use physical currency, but they clearly have some sort of credit system, which we actually see them using on several occasions, and they actually talk about the ability to purchase things and expense in a modern audience would obviously understand in the context of money. So they clearly do not use actual currency in TOS, and in the voyage home, they seem more confused with the specifics of money than the concept. Which is similar to 21st century me being completely unable to fathom how 19th century British currency works, rather than not getting the concept as a whole. In TNG and afterwards, they clearly no longer use any kind of currency and they don’t really need to because they have replicators, so nothing has any real value anymore. In a world where anyone can have anything at any time, everything is value. As I understand it Latinum had value because it is the one thing that cannot be replicated. That’s fine. That makes sense to me. That is logical. The original show and subsequent shows are clearly playing under different sets of rules in that regard. What bothers me is when they forget or disregard continuity and stick replicators in the TOS era, where they clearly didn’t exist.
TOS did have some less capable version of replicators… they dispensed food in the mess hall. They just didn’t call them replicators and obviously were not as good. Given that it’s possible that replicators didn’t get good enough to have a post scarcity society until TNG. But Kirk seems really adamant that they have no money in Voyager Home
@@GiantFreakinRobot synthethizers, and you needed a 3.5 floppy disk to have a meal cooked or a vest made, it looked like an advanced chemical reaction in DISC, where Burnham makes herself a new uniform scene.
The "no-money in the future" was established in Star Trek 4 The Voyage Home, from that point forward in the franchise. Besides, that wouldn't have workd in the 60's, Gene Roddenberry would have been seen as a communist traitor, back then.
@@charlescole645 Nah. They clearly know *what* money is, they’re just confused with concepts like “exact change” and “is that a lot of money?” And we saw them using what were effectively credit cards in TOS. If you grew up in an all-electronic currency situation where you never saw cash - as is actually the case with a fair number of zoomers - you’d have trouble with that too. I know Kirk says “they’re still using money,” but just last week I overheard someone kids at the gas station: “you got any money?” “No, I just have my card.” I don’t think they are explicitly post-currency-of-any-sort until TNG
Yes, TOS referenced money, currency, and the ability to purchase things often. In several scripts written by Roddenberry himself, money is referenced and people being paid for working is referenced. It was Nicolas Meyer who created the whole “huh…what’s money… I have never heard of that before.” Concept for Star Trek IV as a joke. It added to the “fish out of water” concept of the movie. It had nothing to do with replicators. TNG writers and beyond were more familiar with Star Trek IV since it was so popular, and released right before TNG went into production, so they went with that concept of a money-free future, but that just started as Nicolas Myer’s idea of a joke.
Rule 10: All alien technology discovered by the Federation will be discovered to be incompatible with the current tech, or simply ignored and never heard of again. Technology that leads to franchise changing abilities will be explained away with treknobabble. Corby's androids? Mudd's androids, The First Federation, That brain swapping gizmo from the last TOS. The list goes on..
Maybe. Or like Stargate, the changes they make to Federation/Starfleet tech slowly integrate some of it but produce a result that still looks more human-made (like the later Stargate human ships).
excellent. agreed. My rant longer. " Very well done indeed. However, an addendum. Latin gerund, way the by...like agendum, memorandum. Agenda, plural, 'things which should or must be done." Manyway, revenons à nos moutons. It is impossible for carbon DNA life to live on another local planet, or travel interstellarly. We will never know how common life is, but it took a fifth of the age of the universe to develop complex cells, eukaryotes, here. Multicellular life will be rarer still, aware life rarer, tech life...5 centuries only, HERE, until coal gone.....rarer still. In time as well as in space. Future tech is THE fantasy cult, similar to theisms...magical thinking. Antireality antihistory antilogic anti-science cults are contagious. Unfortunately, after high tech and pollution/population collapse civilization, the Asimovian Interregnum will last...unpredictably long....but very. And such antireality cults will live longer than our very brief tech era...during which multitudes deny the science that, like vaccines, protects and supports them. But there is no vaccine for stupid, or crazy. I m not qualified to understand these higher math, physics, chemistry, biology. But my family has three generations of significant scientists in several areas of hard studies. I do know enough to say no one will be coming BACK from Mars, ever. High and even medium tech will disappear with coal...oil/gas gone in app. a century. Science fantasy of the future is a new cult, at base magical thinking, like theisms and superstitioning systems in general. Here is a list of factors...far from all-inclusive: When oil and gas, the recoverable part, USING FOSSIL FUEL TO MINE, HIGH TECH...is depleted, in a century, at most, and only sulfurous bituminous coal for even mining uranium, or making solar and wind power devices, even greenhouses with GLASS...the CO2 acidifying oceans will kill first coral, then shellfish...a different form of Calcium Carbonate, aragonite and , I forget name...by then all sea mammals extinct, then all bony fish... CO2 may stay aloft a thousand years, but SO2 from coal rains down as acid in a year...AND IT SLOWS WARMING, a lot, while ALOFT...It Get !?! Polar ice decreasing reduces reflective albedo, methane release from permafrost decline will be a major factor... And when every port in the world has to be moved 'upstream'... Well, a billion, or 2, peeps will have to move....maybe 50 million from low-lying Bengal alone... I suggest "Limits to Growth", 1972 version, and Jared Diamond's "Collapse"... The "Population Bomb" Paul Ehrlich's predictions inferior to his analysis. Peter Zeihan too, while Noam Chomsky talks of past and present, and no sane person thinks our species, genetically as competitive as cooperative, and evolutionarily geared for small groups, extended-family/tribes. ...but all generalists or interdisciplinarians are generally careful to point out uncertainties of such informed guesstimations. Malthus I have only briefly examined. Scientific method must vary with each study, each experiment...context forms factoring and analysis- synthesis. But as time 'progresses', new data clarifies predictabilities. We, or some of us, know much more, now. Fossil fuels gone, no high tech ever again, even if we survive the Anthropocene...some of us, that is. Only cellulose can be anaerobically heated to charcoal and then coke, artificial coal...no more modern medicine let alone high tech like BICYCLES. When it costs more fuels to mine fuels than produced...HAND AND HOOF. NO mining... until Antarctica is de-iced...long time, mile thick...and the much smaller hidden land mass there can be mined. Not much! In 2 centuries max...no more sea oil...tech too expensive for that. Mistake me not...I have studied science fantasy, and languages, literature, much more, for 65 years. My family watched star Trek from the first show...making fun of the puerile fantasy of tech and physics and biology and... I love good fantasy. But must accept reality. HINT. Pale imitations of quality breed like metastasizing cancerous cells. Science fiction and magical fantasy were better, in many ways, in the formative period. reread Edith Nesbit and Narnia, Pohl'Kornbluth, Niven and Asimov, not the endless stream of clones that seemed AI before same. Note that Musk is an insane in SOME areas, and borderline neo-Nazi~~~but not so kray as to get in a rocket himself. Klown klones like Branson and Bezos, the What Me Worry? kids...almost as pre-infantile as Tramp. Object and idea permanence sketchy at best... Multiplanetary!!! Impossible to get peeps back from Mars alive...NASA estimated first death in months of a trip about as long as human gestation...ON THE OUTWARD trip out. Oh, spend a trillion...maybe. By that time the planet will have refocused back to LOCAL REALITY. 'OUR' biosphere. MT GanGreene's 'Peach Tree Dish'. Where everything is just peachy." And you may forget fusion power...people at the Forrestal Tokamak project, in Princeton, where I lived and went to college, told me in '70s, same as my parents in '60s, fusion power is a laughable fantasy. Even someone as pro-tech as Sabine Hossenfelder is close to agreeing... Study the developmental stages of Auguste Comte, proto sociologist, and jean Piaget, developmental psychologist. Most humans atre literal/infantile. Some are, SOMETIMES, adolescent...speculativehypothetical, but lacking scientific method...probablity/impossibility elided, theory and data ignored or confused. Humans are genetically cooperative...in small groups, 'extended families.' But cooperation trumps it, under pressure. It is always easier to believe a simplistic oversimplified, or even fantasy version of reality than to spend much time in interdisciplinarian/generalist study and research. In the REAL reasonable rational meaning of...SEARCH AGAIN AND AGAIN, as one can only approximate reality with thought and language. Good luck with that. Another superimposed fantasy. Luck. May the universe continue to ignore us. There is life on one planet. More we can never know. Byee, peeple. " AND " Also, no magic or totally antireality fantasy...impossible future tech, alien contacts, necessary for space opera. BUT. The 'mind and reality are the same' of the 3-fingered alien who helps Wil Wheaton!!!...Teilhard de Chardin's "Phenomenology of Man", AC. Clarke's Vanamonde, in "Against the Fall of Night", the 'evolution-accelerating teleological machine' of an early Outer Limits, with david McCallum getting huge head telepathy, telekinesis overnight. Jack vances Eight Fantasms and Magicks... Of course, with dr, Strange and superheroes... Mutation as a pure magic, the us versus them of 'muggles' and 'NONmutants...Please! "
You forgot about the Original Star Trek episode that showed the Roman Empire still around in the 1960s & a new religious movement that the crew mistakes for the sun but actually they are Son worshipers. Basically Christians by another name!
There were Christians in that episode on that planet, but Christ was said to have lived 1,000s of years before, and no God appeared or was named in the episode, so I think that makes a case for it being a cultural manifestation, and not something that the crew would take as objectively real as an example of an omnipotent God.
@@thecaptain6730 I‘m not so sure about that. If I remember correctly, the way Uhura clears up the misunderstanding about „son“ instead of „sun“ in a way that‘s kind of hard to understand to people who aren’t immersed in christianity or at least confronted with it on a regular basis. Which wouldn‘t be rhetorical case if no one really believes in the christian god.
There's nothing futuristic about the idea that under the right circumstances, rules may be broken without consequence to the rule breaker. Thousands of years ago, in his classic book "The Art of War," Sun Tzu wrote that the emperor can't always know the exact situation 1,000 miles away; thus, in certain circumstances, a general may be duty bound to disobey the orders of his emperor. The general's job is to obey the intent of his emperor.
We even have the occasional spirit or letter of law debate in our ordinary justice system, regardless of distances. the Supreme Court seems to be making a mess of it lately...
@@col.strayga1389 Many years ago, a National Guard sergeant told me of "intent of the mission," which he said goes at least as far down as the sergeant level. If the commander and other officers are killed, or if a squad is separated from their unit, they can still carry out their mission.
In Bread & Circuses, Uhura pointed out that the “Romans” they had just dealt with were sun worshippers, but the leaders couldn’t poke holes in the philosophy. Then, she realized that it wasn’t the sun in the sky they worshipped, but the Son of God. Kirk commented “Christ and Caesar? Wouldn’t that be great to witness?” No one on the bridge was dismissive or hostile to the idea of Jesus existing.
I like your comment, but I think in “Bread and Circuses,” the religious backdrop was part of the epic-1950s/1960s movie era feeling that Gene Coon was trying to recreate in the episode. The episode essentially was a parody of 1950s and 60s entertainment. So, the crew might respect the idea of Christ as a movie convention. But if the crew actually believed in Christ, then they would not except the idea of a second Christ on another planet. Christian theology has been pretty consistent over the last 2000 years that Christ was incarnated and died once for all of creation. I don’t think a Christian framework would have a situation where they were multiple Christs on multiple planets. I think what Coon was going for was Ben-Hur or Quo Vadis in space. I don’t think he was attempting to make a theological statement in the episode.
@ronaldreynolds9919 I was about to post the same thing about Bread and Circuses. I think Uhura said something like "...they tried to ridicule their religion but they couldn't." That's when we get the revelation that it wasn't the Sun they were worshiping but the Son.
I always felt that this "parallel Earth" had Caesar and Jesus, and that a variation of Christianity arose from the latter (albeit more slowly). In neither case does it mean that Jesus was "God"!
One of my favorite moments of consistent tech is in an episode of Voyager where the main deflector fails, the ship gets shredded by microscopic space particles.
@@susanscott8653 it's still not cost effective now, especially for TV shows. Also the fact that it has been established for 60 years that all intelligent species in Star Trek are humanoids, it would be weird to introduce something new now, so better to just stick to the usual
@@pjl22222 those are "villains of the week" at best, not any prominent part of the ST universe. Budget is the reason there seems to be only humanoid species as far as the stories are concerned. That's why Spock is a regular guy with pointy ears and not a squid.
Mmmm, I see your point, but I feel he perhaps stated a corollary of it. Similar conditions do lead to similar solutions. Like convergent evolution on a galactic scale.
It just might be that earth was fine tuned in a universe that was fine tuned for beings who are endowed with self awareness, choice, language, thought, and fine motor skills to contemplate their existence and to grapple with morality. It's a decent theory about the 40 trillion cells we see in the mirror each day. Also worth mentioning the universe we see in the microscope, as well as the telescope. We now see that each of our cells is more complex than New York City, with some carrying more than 100 million molecular machines. We have more machines in the tip of our fingers than all the machines that human beings have made in all of history. Our brains have nearly 100 billion neurons, as many as there are stars in an average size galaxy, which is in a way like each of us being our galaxy. Our DNA pulled and stretched from our cells would stretch from the earth to the sun, then to Pluto, and then wrap around Pluto's orbit. All of the DNA from all the cells in all humans throughout all of history would reach to the center of the milky way galaxy, then stretch to the edge of the known universe, and then wrap around the universe. So in contrast to a Sagan idea of a pale blue dot and humans being insignificant, we're kind of a big deal.
6:51 Q appears on the Enterprise bridge in a flash of light. Along with his trumpet and mariachi band. The funniest part of this entire ridiculous scene is not Q. It is Worf shaking his head in defeat.
I refuse to consider anything post-2009 Star Trek as canon since they're constantly twisting, bending, or breaking lore that's been in the books for decades. Modern Star Trek feels like it's been dumbed down in order to get viewers, and yet dumbing down one of the most intelligent shows to ever air on television just drives viewers away.
The only things I even enjoyed post-Enterprise include the 2009 movie (dumb as it was I think of it as a guilty pleasure), Picard Season 3 and maybe Strange New Worlds Season 1, which was so mid that I only half watched it. None of them are head cannon.
I refuse to accept anything after the original series or phase 2 project archive materials canon. They keep breaking and bending and being loose and they changed my Klingons (my klingons were pale with kung fu facial hair, what’s with all this black face and forehead ridges) and my D-7 battle cruiser and what the fuck is a V’gr anyway 82 astronomical units, even at two astronomical units that’s dumb just like the DMA in discovery being five light years long, if my Star Trek doesn’t have fake diversity with cast members getting death, threats, and women scripts that make Margaret Thatcher happy with a fuzzy analog signal It’s not Star Trek. what is a monster maroon anyway, technicolor, blue golden red or nothing at all the wrath of Khan was a joke. Worst movie ever broke too much canon got so many facts. Wrong terrible. Terrible should never exist. Nothing after the city at the edge of forever really should be considered canon season three Rotenberry wasn’t even involved as much what is a Spock’s brain anyway, honestly the corrupt executive just wanted to push the color. My original uniform should be nothing but beige and blue turtlenecks. That’s the real Star Trek Christopher Pike. He’s too physical. I need a little bit more intellect and not this new pike want the original pike and performance or nothing at all if it’s not the original actor that I don’t want it they said it the first time there’s no Mulligan in the new universe author to that narrative so there’s actually hundred Gene Rotenberrys for each time a non-Rattenbury Ryder made a change. He didn’t approve of right up until his passing and 91. I don’t even know if unification and TNG is canon how dare they not have Leonard Nimoy only ever under Rodenberry tutelage. Disgusting.
Truly. Ppl don't understand the difference between a proper retcon(Like klingon makeup) And just wanting to lazy retell the whole thing so you can REPLACE Cultural History with the neo- Soviet ideologies like DEI policies Yeah no. Starlet was NEVER diversity - they are EXCLUSIVITY. You had to be the BEST of the BEST to even ATTEND THE ACADEMY. And the tech was meant to be REALISTIC- NOT EFFING MAGIC LORD OF THE RINGS DRUID PLANT NETWORK. No keyway this is neo-peganism That's why society is crazy These same folks WANT US TO SACRIFICE OUR IRSH CATTLE TO MOTHER GAIA. Letang is all tied togeather. Woke was just three latest iteration. They've been trying to steal our hope for the future these 25yrs ON PURPOSE think what it does to your subconscious to grow up ONLY SEEING DYSTOPIAN FUTURES. You belive that's the way its supposed to be and don't know to fight against it That's why we let them lock us down and the mulins have been filling the gap, bringing us back to medieval cultural values while promoting the destructible of all other religions. Anyone who can't see this by now just hasn't been paying attention to history. They've done these crusades for millenia. Island only raids and destroys others. Rearward history like star trek taught me : to look humanity in the eye and not lie to itself
I find this interesting. Your initial statement that they have consistent rules was amusing to me considering how often Star Trek has ignored or retconned past events, technology, and details for what ever story they decided to tell this time. In the end, however, I feel like you have listed some good rules for Trek writers in the future to adhere to if we ever want to see good trek writing again. Thanks for the interesting video.
@@GiantFreakinRobotnot sure I’d want to WORSHIP Q though. The scene where he pops into bed next to Picard comes to mind. There are definitely other reasons I would want to be saying “Oh god!” in bed! 😂
Yes, there are gods. But there isn’t God. I see the concept as similar to the maxim of “any sufficiently advanced tech will appear to be as magic.” Any beings that are sufficiently more advanced than we are will appear to be gods. But otherwise, it’s a “scientific”* or Darwinian view: The universe just happened/happens, and no single being/entity/force actively created it. *”Scientific” because the ST universe often breaks currently known scientific laws or principles.
@@GiantFreakinRobot *shudder* a cult of Q worshippers? Sounds almost as bad as a cult of Q-Anon worshippers. If we hadn't changed by the 24th, I'm sure there would be one. I mean, a tangible being you could actual call on a flip-phone who could make anything you want happen by waving his hand? If it happened right now, there's be tramplings and riots among people trying to get into his megachurch. Maybe this is another thing that replicators will/have changed.
Probably one of the reasons Star Trek Venereal Disease was so poorly received. It tried to break and rewrite both historical lore and technology in ways that didn't make sense.
Love this video! Lots to unpack but I just want to draw a point of discussion. With these 9 rules, this works well for the Star Trek with a Starship named Enterprise for television. When applied to the movies, it's not a movie but a long television episode and it feels cheated. With Deep Space 9 and Voyager (I had high hopes for Voyager), we can take these rules and bend them or ignore them and allow Star Trek to evolve. I hold DS9 to high regard because it allowed their characters to grow, change and see new perspectives. TNG, TOS never allowed their characters to grow, but to remain stagnant and beholden to the Enterprise. I won't go into specifics but no one ever leaves the Enterprise; Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Chekov and Sulu have all left the Enterprise at some point but came back. Worf, Beverly and Wesley left the Enterprise and came back. But DS9 and Voyager, you could leave and not come back. It adds to a level or realism that binds the viewer to the show and wants to see how the character move on in the absence of a friend/colleague and even remember that friend or colleague. I prefer reading the Star Trek novels than watching some of the shows if they are written well. Star Trek has made it possible for people to imagine more within the confines of a galaxy we inhabit. I am hoping that with some of these rules, they can be bent to tell a deep and profound story. Anyways, thanks again for the video!!!
not a lot of growth in the (barely) 3 seasons of TOS (though Captain's log entries sometimes claimed it), but we actually saw a fair bit of it in the 7 seasons of TNG, especially among younger characters. and the android. Worf, especially. Even Picard had some growing to do after his experiences with the Borg. Yar and Dr Pulaski left and didn't come back.
It's also important to remember that the Star Trek crew are just that - a crew - who are engaged in a job of work. They aren't just a bunch of mates who happen to be having an adventure together,
I'm not sure how the stuff after Enterprise works, but they very much do have currency in the Federation, its the Federation Credit. Crews of the various series used these for time in Holodecks, Travel, and other things. Post-Scarcity still requires power generation, and that is a resource that while mostly unlimited, cannot be tapped all at once. There's several instances of the credits being exchanged or traded, or even wagered among federation citizens and officials in ToS, TNG, DS9, and Enterprise.
Star Trek into Darkness. My biggest beef. Being able to transport from Earth to Klingus (let alone something portable that could fit in the back of a SUV). Why exactly would a civilization have starships if you can beam from one planet to another many light years away? Broke that rule, "Space is big".
In the TOS Star Trek episode "The Paradise Syndrome," where Kirk lives with the tribe like Native Americans, there is some dialog at the beginning with Spock, McCoy, and Kirk talk about an ancient master race that spread 2-armed, 2-legged species throughout the galaxy so as to prevent them from accidentally making themselves extinct. This action, done in the distant past, explains what seems to the casual Star Trek view as "unlikely coincidence," that they meet so many human-like species.
Rule #12… In the unfortunate event that a planetary crash landing becomes necessary, a PLANET will always be readily available. Additionally, the planet will always have a breathable atmosphere, along with Earth-magnitude gravity.
The thing about all starships being oriented the same way is somewhat believable in that it stands to reason that all ships' navigation systems would be programmed to line up parallel with the galactic plane as their default setting... Though there would of course be exceptions... Yes, space is 3D, but a galaxy is a hell of a lot bigger on its x and y axes than it is on its z axis.
The tech consistency and real-life plausibility is one of my favorite things about Star Trek. It's also one of my few gripes with Discovery and the magic space mushroom drive. It makes zero sense to think that a mycelial network in space would be capable of transporting things faster than light. Still, it does allow them to go on some fantastic adventures. But the 2D space thing is kind of a pet peeve to me. It really does make little sense for ships to always be oriented the same way. Though, there is the fact that the galaxy is more or less a plane so they should all be zooming around more or less on the same plane but it's totally imaginable that they would come across ships that are inverted to their perspective all the time.
I'm with you on the 2D space being a pet peeve. It makes no sense at all, and unlike the creator of this vid, I think it makes space battles less interesting to look at.
It appears you're forgetting the Episode "Bread and Circus's" Where worshipping the Son was talked about. Uhura at the End of the Episode pointed out the They weren't talking about the Sun up in the Sky but about the son of God (Jesus). Which is exactly how it would be if life existed on other Planets. Jesus would go to each Planet. So the ! God is in fact Talked about in that Episode.
Which is why Christians who enjoy the sci-fi accept that in the fictional worlds of print and film, there are no gods. Proper application of Christian theology makes it impossible for there to be any intelligent life in the universe apart from mankind here on Earth.
1. Space is big (it takes time to get anywhere) 2. Infinite diversity in infinitely human combinations (most aliens are humanoid) 3. The Milky Way is the only way (Star Trek almost never leaves it) 4. Space is 2D (almost every ship meets on the same plane in the same direction) 5. God does not exist (only godlike beeings) 6. Humans don't tip (it's a post scarcity society because of magic tech) 7. Orders are not rules (it depends on the situation you're in) 8. No true evil (an enemy is someone who hasn't become your friend yet. Everybody can change) 9. Tech consistency (machines are usually doing what and how they are supposed to) Good work! Concerning Nrs 2 and 5, Star Trek had some of the strangest aliens, like floating lights and hungry clouds. Also the godlike beeings are more than we ever saw in Star Wars. May i add that in opposition to most sci fi movies or series robots are not very common. Maybe some people in the federation have a deep mistrust against them, because of earlier incidents?
yes, alpha is where earth sits, beta is being explored, delta is opposite side to beta and gamma is oposite to alpha, from what I got, the ships that have gone out of galaxy (that we know of) were a Valiant, which got destroyed, the Enterprise TOS era (to the brim) twice, the Enterprise D, (triangulum galaxy, pushed by an alien), the Discovery (species 10).
Yes, it is. The milky way galaxy is divided into 4 quandrants: alpha, beta, gamma, delta. Earth and most other prominent planets and locations are in the alpha quadrant, with some in the beta. Gamma and delta are both on the farther side of the galaxy. Gamma is accessible through the galaxy's only known stable wormhole, and would otherwise take several decades to reach, like delta.
As an adjunct to Rule 4 (Space is 2D), this is why the very cinematic style of starship combat works. Star Trek is what tabletop game Squadron Strike calls "Mode 1 movement", because it only obeys one of Newton's three laws (2nd Law - acceleration depends on amount of force applied to amount of mass)...because a starship's forward motion magically redirects to wherever the nose is pointed under impulse drive, and the ship stops dead in its tracks when the drive shuts off, the other two laws are violated. This is why starships _usually_ act more like fighter planes than submarines. Shows like Babylon 5 and the Battlestar Galactica reboot are Mode 2 (also obeys Newton's 1st: motion is conserved unless acted upon by another force). To see Mode 3 in sci-fi (all of Newton's Law's respected), you'd have to go all the way back to 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010: Odyssey Two. Reality--based Apollo 13 is also a good example of Mode 3 ("gotta get the weight right, we were expecting you to be carrying moon rocks").
-Warp has ALWAYS been “whatever the plot demands that week.” It has always been wildly inconsistent -the anthropic principle is obvious nonsense. It’s just a budget limitation. -i always felt the “containing it to the milky way” thing was more a failure of will/imagination than anything else. However I *do* like the idea that some alien entity put a fence around it for whatever reason, and I would like to see that explored - again, the 2-D thing is a lack of imagination. I get that in the 1960s it wasn’t possible to depict it, but that restriction was less required, yet they decided to just continue treating starships as boats. - “we have no need of gods. we find the one is quite sufficient.” Captain Kirk
@@GiantFreakinRobot Really, for me, it depends on how it’s used. Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s an asspull. Just by way of contrast, you’ve got Stargate, where you can instantly walk through a magic doorway and be 100,000 LY away. But there’s inherent limitations in that (Doorway could break, you could need to put something that won’t fit through it, you can get stuck, etc) so ships are the backup method of getting around, though ships are way way way slower. Basically they use ships when they need to emphasize distance, and the gate for stories where the distance aspect isn’t really relevant. Though I think all in all my favorite is Niven’s Hyperdrive in his Known Space stories, where it’s three days to the light year, which is just fast enough to make plots happen, but just slow enough to make the complications entertaining. (Plus his starships are all glass most of the time, no opaque areas, so: Style!)
In ST:TNG they actually explain how that "2d travel" was actually in three dimensions. The captain gave directions in two degree relations: the first was in relation to the XY direction of the ship, and the second was the Z axis. An example is when a captain would call out "270 mark 15." The 270 would be to turn left 90 degrees, like surface ships or airplanes do now. The "mark 15" is based on the z axis, from straight ahead and 360 degrees straight up and down. Submarines would give the direction and call out a number of degrees up/down plane.
To add to that, I also thought that the ship entering a system would orient itself to the system plane, thereby giving a reference point for which to issue those helm commands. It would also give you a baseline for all three axis. Navigating to a star system requires a three dimensional point to plot a course to.
Rule Seven Orders are suggestions Every once in a while, The Federation brings out this Big Giant Hammer. You visit a particular planet? Death penalty You accidentally kill a crewman during an emergency? Out of the service.
@@GiantFreakinRobot In "Discovery", the Talos star system is referred to as "restricted space". I think they realized they made a mistake in the Original Series and wanted to retcon the death penalty.
Do we really know that GO7 is real ? I always thought that Mendez meant it in a figurative sense. Like 'treas_n'. People refer to that as a Capital Offence even now that we no longer have the DP. It's metaphorical, like Politicians 'st@bbing each others' backs'. The "only DP left on our books: only Fleet Command knows why" was asserted only by Mendez, and was hyperbole. Then, of course, we don't know if the Mendez at the Starbase was even real, rather than a Tal0sian projection. At the end, when Uhura says 'no action to be taken against Spock', that. Speech seems almost dismissive, as if it was no big deal. This suggests that even if action /were/ taken against Spock', it wouldn't be in the form of a DP.
@@GiantFreakinRobotNo. It wasn't a real threat. Even nowadays, there are Capital Offences on the books, which (a) are a bit ridiculous, and never intended to be used, (b) overriden by the abolition of the DP anyway.
In the episode "Who Mourns For Adonis" kirk doesn't say we've evolved beyond or don't need God anymore he tells Apolo that the ONE God (our creator) is enough that we worship him alone not the Greek God's. also in bread and circuses kirk,spock,and mcCoy were confused about why the "slaves" worshipped the sun up in the sky at the end of the episode uhura explains that it wasn't the sun up in the sky but that it was the Son of God
RULE #10: It's strongly suggested that Actors & Actresses stay true to profession (for the sake of their fans), and NOT abuse their fame by becoming Activists...😐
I appreciate that all space battles occur practically within spitting distance. Modern seafaring battleships don't even see each other when they are fighting.
Orders may not be rules, but mutiny should still be punished and not allow the person who commits it to become captain. This goes back to your first non-rule that Star Trek is always better when they follow the 9 rules not blatantly break them.
@@GiantFreakinRobotagreed. On the plus side, Burnham gets a developmental character arc. On the downside, it undermines that there are consequences at all to breaking these rules. I was late to watch Discovery, and I watched only the fifth season in more or less actual release time. I liked seasons 3 & 4 pretty well. I liked season 5 less. Though that might have been in part because they thought they’d have another season or two, and how that affected the whole story. I came away thinking the series was kinda meh, especially in contrast to SNW, LD, and even Prodigy.
Thanks for this great video and thanks for reminding me of Rule 8 but as for Rule 1 that rule was always played fast and lose even back in TOS, TNG and DS9 where warp was more the speed of plot as it most FTL system in most sci-fi series, at least that's my opinion, but I agree when warp speed is done with consistence it makes for a better story.
I've always wondered with no money anymore (on Earth), how does one acquire property? What happens if you say 'I want that beach side mansion' and someone else does too? You can't replicate realestate. How do they decide who lives where? I know there are family estates like Château Picard, but what about everyone else?
Property solves real problems which Trek does not deal with. There's an Idealism which disdains material expressions such as property rights. They wave away this core human issue with the fantasy of replicators whose cost to use is just wish fulfillment. At least they think that reason is preferred to physical fights, but they are always ready to go to the matt if they are hit first.
Trek has very seldom looked at the civilian experience, but it would make sense that property has very little value anymore. Land is plenty. There's a near-infinite amount of land and resources out there in the galaxy and it's fairly easy to get out there. We're constantly seeing colonists who venture out to new worlds just because they want a challenge. It even seems to be implied that they can easily choose their 'difficulty level' by deciding what tech to embrace and what tech to avoid. Even thinking strictly of Earth, that still lifts many of the limitations that make land valuable. Sure, you want that beach side mansion and so do I, but why do you want that *specific* mansion? Teleporters make location irrelevant: Everywhere on the planet is an instant commute to everywhere else. Industrial replicators make the building itself irrelevant: Why not get another bit of very similar beach side property, and have a completely identical mansion built on that spot? On the rare occasion where you and I still want that same piece of property, there must be some underlying reason behind that conflict which could be arbitrated. Is it a sentimental or historical claim? An arbiter could decide who has the better claim.
The two people talk to each other and figure it out? If they can both agree cooperatively which one needs it more, problem solved. Works within families and the like on a small scale all the time. Also they seem to use work products as a sort of implied social currency (not the physical products but the knowledge of who has contributed how much to society). Picard family's reputation and cultural value of tradition might make them want to avoid messing with "this is the land for the vineyard we all cherish".
Giant Freakin Robot, the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars is that the former is only set a few hundred years in the future, whereas Star Wars is somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 years of technology ahead of us. Remember that in the first movie, it was mentioned that Tattooine was settled 12,000 years beforehand, and it's in the Outer Rim, and humans may have started on Coruscant near the galaxy's center.
I wanna push back on the Star Trek economy not being communism, or beyond terms of capitalism/communism. When a society has developed post-scarcity technology, but the people owning that technology decide to still create artificial scarcity, it's still capitalism. To achieve the post-scarcity society that is portrayed as the Federation, the technology enabling post-scarcity must be accessible. Therefore, it must either be personal or public property, but never private property. Since Replicators are a means of production, that is in personal or public, but never in private ownership, that is pretty much the textbook definition of communism.
Wait where did you get the idea that there is no private ownership of replicators? Of course there is. Everyone has one in their house. We’ve even seen them.
Yes, people in Star Trek own personal replicators. These are what I referred to as personal property in my original comment. There is an important difference between private and personal property, though they are mostly treated as the same in capitalist societies.
Interesting discussion, thanks. One aspect of this is that AFAIK there was never a hint that a replicator may be used to replicate a replicator. There's plenty of "hands-on engineering" in the Star Trek universe, which in fact is the core of hundreds of episode plotlines.
If it takes 60 years for Janeway to cross the 100,000 light-years Milky Way, how long to travel the three MILLION light years to Andromeda? 1800 or so?
Heres the zeroeth law: every new show will be hated by a vocal few. Then they die off, forget their hate. Or they get drowned out. TNG was hated by TOS fans. DS9 was hated because it wasnt on a ship and was serialized. Voyager was hated because it didn't have the federation as a backdrop and some "sigh" didnt like a female captain. Enterprise was hated because of its theme song ( no really..the hate was that petty) and becase it was a prequel. Really no one remembers any of this anymore, but i keep receipts. All of these shows now have a fond place in fandom now. So its adorable when some idiots think their hate is something unique, new, or is shared. It isnt and wont be.
I disagree ehat you hate is not tge show ir the story it is that it dares to us Star Trek in its name. Wad there myself Star Tek 2009. Discovery was a show that tried to be different. It successfully made its own niche of fans. What it also did bring fans back to a dead franchise... Besides some novels and Star Trek online their wasn't much going on. And now see all this fans coming to old trek and paying it tribute.
this is a kernel of truth to this; however the word "hate" has lost it's meaning in today's social media driven world. For instance, I don't "hate" STD, but I stopped watching after S4E1 & I highly doubt I'll ever go back & finish the series bc I strongly disliked it. Yes, it's true that in almost everything in life, ppl don't react well to the "new" - but it's not true that "new" eventually becomes beloved.
VERY well informed Trek video. It sounds like they've read Roddenberry, in print, from their original dates of publications.Very well done. Just like the Enterprise was THE central Trek character. Star Trek has become something of a religion. Literally. Right down to having its own scriptures and CANON.
The 2-D-orientation of ships can be explained by a convention that the 'upper' and the 'lower' side of the galactic plane is somehow defined between the space travelling races, like we nowadays use the north pole as the upper side of maps. Yeah, for sure not all stars are in an one-layer-disk arround the galactic centre, so there have to be many travels between two systems that are going 'up' or 'down' to a certain degree, but overall the orientation could stay the same, as if we drive up or down a hill. And when another ship comes directly from the destinated planet, two ships will face each other in the same orientated way, like two cars driving towards each other always have the wheels on the road, regardless if the street is in the mountains or in a plain.
unless said cars are in an accident lol. I guess that is more to convey the attitudes and intentions of the ships, remember hearing that the Bird of Prey was designed to look like a vile bully by being so bullbous and squat, the D'deriex warbird is designed to look altive and disdainful to other ships, and the Enterprise to be a sail ship, tall and elegant. if you made the 'prise meet a warbird belly up it would make you think the thug was drunk, and thus less of a threat.
That last one about consistency is 'more honoured in the breach than the observance.' So many writers created things that were magical and wonderful and.... forgotten about the next episode. Any claim to 'consistency' is a pipe dream and doesn't line up with what they've given us over the decades.
You are wrong about “God does not exist.” I suggest the final scene of “Bread and Circuses.” Listen to Uhura and Kirk. Star Trek TOS did not hate God. That came later.
@@GiantFreakinRobot That’s a point. I enjoyed TOS when it was new. I’m very sad that J.J. Abrams has ruined Star Trek AND Star Wars. All mainstream shows today are forced into the same political mould.
@@GiantFreakinRobot Arguably could be a social desert of knowledge among the writers, not necessarily defining it in-world. Depends on if we let the current in-world reality be defined by the limited knowledge (on the topic) of the writers of those episodes versus likely consistency with the original and what's really plausible as knowledge becomes more widespread, as it's now well-understood in real life why general theism is proven among the well-informed. Most episodes I can recall those throwaway atheistic statements didn't have much effect on the plot. Would be consistent with an underlying general theism and would fit well with Kirk's statement (almost deism).
Also Pike in SNW seems to be very open to specifically Christianity or at least knows how to represent it, and says his family was that. It seems like that's more of a rarity in his time, and generally seems absent from plots taking place later, so I think they are indeed saying that statements like Uhura's did represent Christianity specifically still being present enough to notice in their time. Basically, a general belief that the ultimate God exists doesn't mean that everybody would go to a church equivalent on Sundays, and we see no hint of the latter in the later series other than Pike's statements (which are set around the same era as TOS, so seems to be an intentional choice for the current in-world portrayal).
@@GiantFreakinRobot Huh. I never considered that possibility. I always assumed either the soul dies on the first transporter use or the transporters constantly creates and destroys new souls.
@@chrisdaily2077 If a machine can create souls isn't it a god?? Nah, I think if you're going to believe in souls then either the soul is transferred to the new body that the transporter makes, or everyone is a soul-less copy after the first time they transport.
@@jayb8934 I mean the transporter can already make doubles and reverse the aging process. Souls may seem an impossibility but I wouldn't discount the idea completely.
Picard Borgs has nothing to do with the usual Borgs. Best to just treat Picard as non canon as well as Discovery and Enterprise. I see why you did not use much Voyager since Janeway probably broke all rules, orders and whatever else they had. Loved Voyager since it had so much Borgs and they saw so many new species.
I think one of many reasons a show like _Rings of Power_ fails, while Peter Jackson’s _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy succeeds, is that they basically ignore the concept of geography and travel time. in _LOTR,_ it takes the characters three movies to get from the Shire to Mt. Doom… but in _ROP,_ the characters will seemingly just teleport from one city from another in between scenes, even though the journey would logically take them days or weeks on foot or horseback 🤷🏻♂️
Or like Game of Thrones. First season, it took weeks or months to travel from Kings Landing to Winterfell. By season Eight it was treated like it was just days away by land...an hour or so by dragon.
Like all artistic endeavors, bending and breaking the rules in Science Fiction can either be the path to trash or the path to treasure. Strange New Worlds episode, "Under the Cloak of War" had a former enemy looking for redemption, but the Starfleet Officer was the one that couldn't forgive. It was a powerful story.
Good video; interesting observations. One thing though, the video is contradictory regarding the God rule. It states God does not exist but gods do. Then at the end of the segment, the presenter states that "God definitely exists but no one is encouraged to worship Him." So as rules of that universe, both God AND gods exist. Acknowledgment of this is overtly stated by several characters in the original series including Kirk and Uhura. Kirk when he challenges Apollo's godhood by stating "We find the One quite sufficient" and Uhura when she explains in Bread and Circuses that the aliens aren't sun worshippers, they are Son (Christ) worshippers referring to the Son of God.
Late to the party but wanted to comment regardless. The deal with ships tending to work in 2D and facing one another was addressed in a comic strip that irked me. (Forget which one but it had a duck character and a kid I think named Sheldon.) Anyway, here's my reasoning why ships always face each other when approaching. Ships always face each other when approaching because (A) that is the narrowest profile of the ships and (B) where the most guns are facing. If you encounter an alien vessel, either what you don't know much about OR one you DO KNOW a lot about and is hostile, you will want to present as little as possible of your ship to your potential adversary while presenting as many weapons as possible, hence forward facing. Earth ships typically have a huge saucer on them what would be easy to punch through from the top or bottom. Exposing your top or bottom also limits your weapons to only phaser banks on that side and photon torpedo tubes are not facing up or down. Also, exposing your flank (side) to an adversary exposes engineering and again exposes more ship surface than facing the adversarial ship. So that's why ships always face each other.
God, I just love this universe. No matter hoe silly or sometimes even gory things get (sorry, Icheb), just these types of Starships swooping by always gets me. As sulu put it, I revel any chance to get aboard.
There actually were rules in TOS. DC Fontana talked about them in an interview. One of them was that the episode had to mean something. It needed to have thematic merit.
Nice observations. I’d add that technology is both the creator and cure of all major problems, underscored by in-universe science, and if it ever becomes about hugs, faith and love saving the day, it’s wandering too far into Who territory.
Yeah Doctor Who is all about kitten whispers. Those can stay there
@@Lumibear. tech is treated as ammoral, eg the Genesis device, if used in a propper way could turn an S planet into an M type, if used the other way, you could garden Kronos, and turn klingons to berries.
Phasers were chosen over rifles because they could be used as tools, same goes for other items.
I would mention that Star Wars only since Disney has “Hyperspace” been a magic button that made long distances into nothing.
It used to take time. That first jump we all saw in the Falcon was many many hours, they didn’t get to the remains of Alderan in 15 minutes.
In ESB the Falcon without hyperspace took weeks to travel to Bespin. Slave 1 was able to discern the possible end of their journey and tell the Empire so the could get there before them and trap them.
@@josebrown5961 that’s interesting. I do like the idea of hopping into another dimension for hyperspace, kind of like how subspace or fluidic space works in trek.
I would also note that the "technology is both the creator and cure of all major problems" notion is a major part of the prime directive.
I remember having a discussion about Star Trek captains with some friends (before Discovery and even the Abrams reboots were a thing) and how they each treated rules like the Prime Directive. Our conclusions were as follows.
Kirk: Broke the rules whenever he was SURE he was right, and being the luckiest man in the universe he always was.
Picard: Broke the rules when he was sure he could persuade even the harshest critic, in writing, that he was justified, and was enough of a scholar to pull it off.
Sisko: Broke the rules whenever he felt like it, and got away with it by suppressing knowledge of what happened and working out in the galactic boonies where there was a lot less follow-up.
Janeway: Broke the rules more rarely than the rest and only when she was particularly emotional, and got away with it by being on literally the wrong side of galaxy.
Archer: There literally weren't any rules yet, his screw ups are why there are rules later.
OK, I really did LOL at this. Partly because, hey, I can't say that you're wrong.
That sounds about right! :)
Sisko was like that because he was at war. Total war. And he already lost his wife
Excellent analysis! As a lifelong fan (started at age 4 with first run TOS), I agree.
I think that, unfortunately, Janeway’s relationship to rules is clearly influenced by misogyny. A captain who is a woman has to be more perfect than any man (so, like Picard but more so, making sure everything is justified), but allowances are made for her to be occasionally “hormonal” or “emotional”, which of course we know men never are. [insert eyeroll here] Please note I’m not saying this is how it SHOULD be, just that this affected how her character was written during VOY. I am only about halfway through the second season of Prodigy, so I’m less clear about her portrayal in the modern era. She seems to be following that still, though, with her feelings about Chakotay (and the main character youths, to a lesser degree) influencing what she does and allows.
@@DawnDavidson "I think that, unfortunately, Janeway’s relationship to rules is clearly influenced by misogyny." I'm not sure how Janeway's relationship to rules has anything to do with the hatred or mistrust of women. Are you sure misogyny is really the word you want to use?
"In exploration it's the journey that makes it fun."
Spot on.
Unless it's Discovery. Then you can ignore everything.
@@theblitz9 😂😅😢😭
I just choose to ignore Discovery.
@@thecaptain6730 no trek exist after 2006. Period.
They only ignored everything the first season and after all the blowback, they started walking things back. By the end of the 2nd Season the Klingons had hair again, the spore drive was a highly classified secret, Spock's adopted sister was "erased from existence" and the show was set far enough in the future that they were allowed to do whatever the f**k they wanted with the sets, costumes, technology, etc. I do appreciate them going back to obviously color-coding the uniforms for ease of telling departments apart, though. I find that convention very helpful.
@@DawnDavidson Hi Dawn :) still doing PPPs?
You could mention the "Star Trek Writers Guide" that laid out most of these rules (and some others) back at the very beginning.
Things have changed since that guide. For instance the no conflict among human things is pretty dead
@@GiantFreakinRobotBut still, it did exist and it did form the basis of early Trek, upon which everything else is founded. Absolutely agree that some of these rules have been discarded, especially the “no conflict” one, because otherwise there is literally no story. Everlasting peace is dull, which is why the concept of heaven is so hard to write about, and the concept of hell spawns infinite storylines in all of TV/film. Even the Klingons’ idea of heaven (Stovokor) has conflict in it!
@@GiantFreakinRobotDead, but not for the best. Before, the writers had to be creative to write conflicts, to give people a real reason. Most conflicts were between humans and aliens. Nowadays we have constant arguing and bickering and whining on a starship. How are they supposed to work together?
Pure mythology.
Rule #1.5
Space Is Big, and therefore Help Isn't Coming.
The crews in Star Trek generally have to figure stuff out on their own, even though there must surely be excellent experts in the Federation (or beyond) that might have insight to their problems.
Sure, in many cases the issue of the week could be solved by a quick subspace call to Starfleet Medical, or by engaging the services of an actual lawyer, or through consulting other people who've visited such-and-such a planet, but where'd the fun be in that? Star Trek has a way of throwing the characters into uncomfortable situations that go beyond their primary role, and I think that's a defining feature of the franchise (which I must say, I love).
Yep! It should always be that way
nah,,, space is big, really big.. you might think its a long way down to the shops..
PRECISELY. My rant was longer. "Very well done indeed. However, an addendum. Latin gerund, way the by...like agendum, memorandum. Agenda, plural, 'things which should or must be done." Manyway, revenons à nos moutons.
It is impossible for carbon DNA life to live on another local planet, or travel interstellarly. We will never know how common life is, but it took a fifth of the age of the universe to develop complex cells, eukaryotes, here. Multicellular life will be rarer still, aware life rarer, tech life...5 centuries only, HERE, until coal gone.....rarer still. In time as well as in space. Future tech is THE fantasy cult, similar to theisms...magical thinking. Antireality antihistory antilogic anti-science cults are contagious. Unfortunately, after high tech and pollution/population collapse civilization, the Asimovian Interregnum will last...unpredictably long....but very. And such antireality cults will live longer than our very brief tech era...during which multitudes deny the science that, like vaccines, protects and supports them. But there is no vaccine for stupid, or crazy.
I m not qualified to understand these higher math, physics, chemistry, biology. But my family has three generations of significant scientists in several areas of hard studies. I do know enough to say no one will be coming BACK from Mars, ever. High and even medium tech will disappear with coal...oil/gas gone in app. a century. Science fantasy of the future is a new cult, at base magical thinking, like theisms and superstitioning systems in general. Here is a list of factors...far from all-inclusive:
When oil and gas, the recoverable part, USING FOSSIL FUEL TO MINE, HIGH TECH...is depleted, in a century, at most, and only sulfurous bituminous coal for even mining uranium, or making solar and wind power devices, even greenhouses with GLASS...the CO2 acidifying oceans will kill first coral, then shellfish...a different form of Calcium Carbonate, aragonite and , I forget name...by then all sea mammals extinct, then all bony fish... CO2 may stay aloft a thousand years, but SO2 from coal rains down as acid in a year...AND IT SLOWS WARMING, a lot, while ALOFT...It Get !?!
Polar ice decreasing reduces reflective albedo, methane release from permafrost decline will be a major factor... And when every port in the world has to be moved 'upstream'... Well, a billion, or 2, peeps will have to move....maybe 50 million from low-lying Bengal alone... I suggest "Limits to Growth", 1972 version, and Jared Diamond's "Collapse"... The "Population Bomb" Paul Ehrlich's predictions inferior to his analysis. Peter Zeihan too, while Noam Chomsky talks of past and present, and no sane person thinks our species, genetically as competitive as cooperative, and evolutionarily geared for small groups, extended-family/tribes. ...but all generalists or interdisciplinarians are generally careful to point out uncertainties of such informed guesstimations.
Malthus I have only briefly examined.
Scientific method must vary with each study, each experiment...context forms factoring and analysis-
synthesis. But as time 'progresses', new data clarifies predictabilities. We, or some of us, know much more, now. Fossil fuels gone, no high tech ever again, even if we survive the Anthropocene...some of us, that is. Only cellulose can be anaerobically heated to charcoal and then coke, artificial coal...no more modern medicine let alone high tech like BICYCLES. When it costs more fuels to mine fuels than produced...HAND AND HOOF. NO mining...
until Antarctica is de-iced...long time, mile thick...and the much smaller hidden land mass there can be mined. Not much! In 2 centuries max...no more sea oil...tech too expensive for that.
Mistake me not...I have studied science fantasy, and languages, literature, much more, for 65 years. My family watched star Trek from the first show...making fun of the puerile fantasy of tech and physics and biology and... I love good fantasy. But must accept reality. HINT. Pale imitations of quality breed like metastasizing cancerous cells. Science fiction and magical fantasy were better, in many ways, in the formative period. reread Edith Nesbit and Narnia, Pohl'Kornbluth, Niven and Asimov, not the endless stream of clones that seemed AI before same.
Note that Musk is an insane in SOME areas, and borderline neo-Nazi~~~but not so kray as to get in a rocket himself. Klown klones like Branson and Bezos, the What Me Worry? kids...almost as pre-infantile as Tramp. Object and idea permanence sketchy at best... Multiplanetary!!! Impossible to get peeps back from Mars alive...NASA estimated first death in months of a trip about as long as human gestation...ON THE OUTWARD trip out. Oh, spend a trillion...maybe. By that time the planet will have refocused back to
LOCAL REALITY. 'OUR' biosphere. MT GanGreene's 'Peach Tree Dish'. Where everything is just peachy." And you may forget fusion power...people at the Forrestal Tokamak project, in Princeton, where I lived and went to college, told me in '70s, same as my parents in '60s, fusion power is a laughable fantasy. Even someone as pro-tech as Sabine Hossenfelder is close to agreeing...
Study the developmental stages of Auguste Comte, proto sociologist, and jean Piaget, developmental psychologist. Most humans atre literal/infantile. Some are, SOMETIMES, adolescent...speculativehypothetical, but lacking scientific method...probablity/impossibility elided, theory and data ignored or confused. Humans are genetically cooperative...in small groups, 'extended families.' But cooperation trumps it, under pressure. It is always easier to believe a simplistic oversimplified, or even fantasy version of reality than to spend much time in interdisciplinarian/generalist study and research. In the REAL reasonable rational meaning of...SEARCH AGAIN AND AGAIN, as one can only approximate reality with thought and language. Good luck with that. Another superimposed fantasy. Luck.
May the universe continue to ignore us. There is life on one planet. More we can never know. Byee, peeple.
Very well done indeed. However, an addendum. Latin gerund, way the by...like agendum, memorandum. Agenda, plural, 'things which should or must be done." Manyway, revenons à nos moutons.
It is impossible for carbon DNA life to live on another local planet, or travel interstellarly. We will never know how common life is, but it took a fifth of the age of the universe to develop complex cells, eukaryotes, here. Multicellular life will be rarer still, aware life rarer, tech life...5 centuries only, HERE, until coal gone.....rarer still. In time as well as in space. Future tech is THE fantasy cult, similar to theisms...magical thinking. Antireality antihistory antilogic anti-science cults are contagious. Unfortunately, after high tech and pollution/population collapse civilization, the Asimovian Interregnum will last...unpredictably long....but very. And such antireality cults will live longer than our very brief tech era...during which multitudes deny the science that, like vaccines, protects and supports them. But there is no vaccine for stupid, or crazy.
I m not qualified to understand these higher math, physics, chemistry, biology. But my family has three generations of significant scientists in several areas of hard studies. I do know enough to say no one will be coming BACK from Mars, ever. High and even medium tech will disappear with coal...oil/gas gone in app. a century. Science fantasy of the future is a new cult, at base magical thinking, like theisms and superstitioning systems in general. Here is a list of factors...far from all-inclusive:
When oil and gas, the recoverable part, USING FOSSIL FUEL TO MINE, HIGH TECH...is depleted, in a century, at most, and only sulfurous bituminous coal for even mining uranium, or making solar and wind power devices, even greenhouses with GLASS...the CO2 acidifying oceans will kill first coral, then shellfish...a different form of Calcium Carbonate, aragonite and , I forget name...by then all sea mammals extinct, then all bony fish... CO2 may stay aloft a thousand years, but SO2 from coal rains down as acid in a year...AND IT SLOWS WARMING, a lot, while ALOFT...It Get !?!
Polar ice decreasing reduces reflective albedo, methane release from permafrost decline will be a major factor... And when every port in the world has to be moved 'upstream'... Well, a billion, or 2, peeps will have to move....maybe 50 million from low-lying Bengal alone... I suggest "Limits to Growth", 1972 version, and Jared Diamond's "Collapse"... The "Population Bomb" Paul Ehrlich's predictions inferior to his analysis. Peter Zeihan too, while Noam Chomsky talks of past and present, and no sane person thinks our species, genetically as competitive as cooperative, and evolutionarily geared for small groups, extended-family/tribes. ...but all generalists or interdisciplinarians are generally careful to point out uncertainties of such informed guesstimations.
Malthus I have only briefly examined.
Scientific method must vary with each study, each experiment...context forms factoring and analysis-
synthesis. But as time 'progresses', new data clarifies predictabilities. We, or some of us, know much more, now. Fossil fuels gone, no high tech ever again, even if we survive the Anthropocene...some of us, that is. Only cellulose can be anaerobically heated to charcoal and then coke, artificial coal...no more modern medicine let alone high tech like BICYCLES. When it costs more fuels to mine fuels than produced...HAND AND HOOF. NO mining...
until Antarctica is de-iced...long time, mile thick...and the much smaller hidden land mass there can be mined. Not much! In 2 centuries max...no more sea oil...tech too expensive for that.
Mistake me not...I have studied science fantasy, and languages, literature, much more, for 65 years. My family watched star Trek from the first show...making fun of the puerile fantasy of tech and physics and biology and... I love good fantasy. But must accept reality. HINT. Pale imitations of quality breed like metastasizing cancerous cells. Science fiction and magical fantasy were better, in many ways, in the formative period. reread Edith Nesbit and Narnia, Pohl'Kornbluth, Niven and Asimov, not the endless stream of clones that seemed AI before same.
Note that Musk is an insane in SOME areas, and borderline neo-Nazi~~~but not so kray as to get in a rocket himself. Klown klones like Branson and Bezos, the What Me Worry? kids...almost as pre-infantile as Tramp. Object and idea permanence sketchy at best... Multiplanetary!!! Impossible to get peeps back from Mars alive...NASA estimated first death in months of a trip about as long as human gestation...ON THE OUTWARD trip out. Oh, spend a trillion...maybe. By that time the planet will have refocused back to
LOCAL REALITY. 'OUR' biosphere. MT GanGreene's 'Peach Tree Dish'. Where everything is just peachy." And you may forget fusion power...people at the Forrestal Tokamak project, in Princeton, where I lived and went to college, told me in '70s, same as my parents in '60s, fusion power is a laughable fantasy. Even someone as pro-tech as Sabine Hossenfelder is close to agreeing...
Study the developmental stages of Auguste Comte, proto sociologist, and jean Piaget, developmental psychologist. Most humans atre literal/infantile. Some are, SOMETIMES, adolescent...speculativehypothetical, but lacking scientific method...probablity/impossibility elided, theory and data ignored or confused. Humans are genetically cooperative...in small groups, 'extended families.' But cooperation trumps it, under pressure. It is always easier to believe a simplistic oversimplified, or even fantasy version of reality than to spend much time in interdisciplinarian/generalist study and research. In the REAL reasonable rational meaning of...SEARCH AGAIN AND AGAIN, as one can only approximate reality with thought and language. Good luck with that. Another superimposed fantasy. Luck.
May the universe continue to ignore us. There is life on one planet. More we can never know. Byee, peeple.
I would add another rule that they never really outright say but is largely understood: Almost everyone acts like mature mentally balanced adults, unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise.
I realized this on my last STNG rewatch when I hit "The Neutral Zone" episode. That's the one where they revealed the new Romulans, and had a side plot of thawing out some cryonically frozen people from roughly our time.
The entitled rich guy had the most trouble adjusting. The telling bit is he gets in trouble for using the coms panel when he shouldn't and literally just taking the turbolift straight to the bridge. They never lock the coms panel after he uses it, Picard comes and yells at him. They don't put security on the door -- to start with or even after he misbehaves. Why? Because it never even enters their heads that a grown-assed human would even do something so out of line and immature.
Even when he gets out of line they don't do anything more than tell him it's not appropriate behavior -- expecting that to be enough to sort him out.
We all know the split we're talking about here. There are adult humans walking around who are grown-ups and there are adult humans who got older without maturing.
That's a core component as to why the Federation works. Most of its citizens are grown-ups as opposed to children who got older. Nobody is breaking stuff just because they can, nobody is starting political movements because someone's sexual habits make them feel weird. Most Federations citizens shown have a mature live and let live, curious, attitude.
Nobody is hoarding resources because daddy didn't love them. Because the available resources are so near infinitely large there's nothing remarkable about doing so. In fact it would be weird enough to prompt people to ask if you're okay and can they help you.
Instead insufficient paternal affection prompts running off to Starfleet to prove yourself, or drives you to earn the real credit of the realm: achievement and accolades.
There's still conflict because there's still plenty of other causes behind the grown-ups getting weird, especially on a starship. There's still plenty of ego-driven conflict, but it's fundamentally different from the world we live in where we have ostensibly adult people causing real harm to others for childish reasons.
What you describe is the core of Roddenberry's vision. He expressed it for writers of the time in more specific rules like "no conflicts between main characters".
Incidentally, thats part of the source of the bad blood with Ellison [original City script had a bad egg in the crew].
@@jv-lk7bc ...and *recreational drug use* by Starfleet personnel!
I really like what you're pointing out here, as what you describe as "out of line and immature" is the result of traumatized individuals acting out their maladaptive coping mechanisms... *most* people currently alive have *some* degree of unresolved trauma, and their out of line and immature actions show it. In Star Trek, that trauma is either resolved, or never occurred in the first place... so they simply don't find those out of line and immature actions compelling, as they don't have the resultant maladaptive coping mechanisms.
Tell that to the crew of the Discovery.
You aren’t very mature either are you? Why are you throwing insults at people?
another rule - when you see episodes about Time Travel or Holodeck, that is the production trying to save money by finding an excuse to use old period costumes collecting dust in storage.
A few of the best episodes were period pieces and bottle episodes. A few of the worst were flashback episodes
It also allows them to include other genres to the shiny future. Compare the enormous spaces in 2001 spacecraft with real stations and rockets!!! Fantasy needs elbow room. And there is the added dimension, metacognitively, self-referentializing, of the crew 'play-acting' as a break from THEIR futuristic 'reality'... Picard had fun with that, after all the Shakespeare the actor did. Faves the fantasies of the shy nerd officer, who also was bioengineered to have a super--intellect, Dwight somebody? And the end of Whorf as cowboy, with Enterprise sailing into the sunset, after Whorf poses in front of...A LOOKING GLASS. Real rabbit hole dive.
Here was my rant/comment. " Very well done indeed. However, an addendum. Latin gerund, way the by...like agendum, memorandum. Agenda, plural, 'things which should or must be done." Manyway, revenons à nos moutons.
It is impossible for carbon DNA life to live on another local planet, or travel interstellarly. We will never know how common life is, but it took a fifth of the age of the universe to develop complex cells, eukaryotes, here. Multicellular life will be rarer still, aware life rarer, tech life...5 centuries only, HERE, until coal gone.....rarer still. In time as well as in space. Future tech is THE fantasy cult, similar to theisms...magical thinking. Antireality antihistory antilogic anti-science cults are contagious. Unfortunately, after high tech and pollution/population collapse civilization, the Asimovian Interregnum will last...unpredictably long....but very. And such antireality cults will live longer than our very brief tech era...during which multitudes deny the science that, like vaccines, protects and supports them. But there is no vaccine for stupid, or crazy.
I m not qualified to understand these higher math, physics, chemistry, biology. But my family has three generations of significant scientists in several areas of hard studies. I do know enough to say no one will be coming BACK from Mars, ever. High and even medium tech will disappear with coal...oil/gas gone in app. a century. Science fantasy of the future is a new cult, at base magical thinking, like theisms and superstitioning systems in general. Here is a list of factors...far from all-inclusive:
When oil and gas, the recoverable part, USING FOSSIL FUEL TO MINE, HIGH TECH...is depleted, in a century, at most, and only sulfurous bituminous coal for even mining uranium, or making solar and wind power devices, even greenhouses with GLASS...the CO2 acidifying oceans will kill first coral, then shellfish...a different form of Calcium Carbonate, aragonite and , I forget name...by then all sea mammals extinct, then all bony fish... CO2 may stay aloft a thousand years, but SO2 from coal rains down as acid in a year...AND IT SLOWS WARMING, a lot, while ALOFT...It Get !?!
Polar ice decreasing reduces reflective albedo, methane release from permafrost decline will be a major factor... And when every port in the world has to be moved 'upstream'... Well, a billion, or 2, peeps will have to move....maybe 50 million from low-lying Bengal alone... I suggest "Limits to Growth", 1972 version, and Jared Diamond's "Collapse"... The "Population Bomb" Paul Ehrlich's predictions inferior to his analysis. Peter Zeihan too, while Noam Chomsky talks of past and present, and no sane person thinks our species, genetically as competitive as cooperative, and evolutionarily geared for small groups, extended-family/tribes. ...but all generalists or interdisciplinarians are generally careful to point out uncertainties of such informed guesstimations.
Malthus I have only briefly examined.
Scientific method must vary with each study, each experiment...context forms factoring and analysis-
synthesis. But as time 'progresses', new data clarifies predictabilities. We, or some of us, know much more, now. Fossil fuels gone, no high tech ever again, even if we survive the Anthropocene...some of us, that is. Only cellulose can be anaerobically heated to charcoal and then coke, artificial coal...no more modern medicine let alone high tech like BICYCLES. When it costs more fuels to mine fuels than produced...HAND AND HOOF. NO mining...
until Antarctica is de-iced...long time, mile thick...and the much smaller hidden land mass there can be mined. Not much! In 2 centuries max...no more sea oil...tech too expensive for that.
Mistake me not...I have studied science fantasy, and languages, literature, much more, for 65 years. My family watched star Trek from the first show...making fun of the puerile fantasy of tech and physics and biology and... I love good fantasy. But must accept reality. HINT. Pale imitations of quality breed like metastasizing cancerous cells. Science fiction and magical fantasy were better, in many ways, in the formative period. reread Edith Nesbit and Narnia, Pohl'Kornbluth, Niven and Asimov, not the endless stream of clones that seemed AI before same.
Note that Musk is an insane in SOME areas, and borderline neo-Nazi~~~but not so kray as to get in a rocket himself. Klown klones like Branson and Bezos, the What Me Worry? kids...almost as pre-infantile as Tramp. Object and idea permanence sketchy at best... Multiplanetary!!! Impossible to get peeps back from Mars alive...NASA estimated first death in months of a trip about as long as human gestation...ON THE OUTWARD trip out. Oh, spend a trillion...maybe. By that time the planet will have refocused back to
LOCAL REALITY. 'OUR' biosphere. MT GanGreene's 'Peach Tree Dish'. Where everything is just peachy." And you may forget fusion power...people at the Forrestal Tokamak project, in Princeton, where I lived and went to college, told me in '70s, same as my parents in '60s, fusion power is a laughable fantasy. Even someone as pro-tech as Sabine Hossenfelder is close to agreeing...
Study the developmental stages of Auguste Comte, proto sociologist, and jean Piaget, developmental psychologist. Most humans atre literal/infantile. Some are, SOMETIMES, adolescent...speculativehypothetical, but lacking scientific method...probablity/impossibility elided, theory and data ignored or confused. Humans are genetically cooperative...in small groups, 'extended families.' But cooperation trumps it, under pressure. It is always easier to believe a simplistic oversimplified, or even fantasy version of reality than to spend much time in interdisciplinarian/generalist study and research. In the REAL reasonable rational meaning of...SEARCH AGAIN AND AGAIN, as one can only approximate reality with thought and language. Good luck with that. Another superimposed fantasy. Luck.
May the universe continue to ignore us. There is life on one planet. More we can never know. Byee, peeple. "
Like Doctor Who, when they run out of money and every episode is set in the streets of London. It's like a Time Lord getting a flat tire... but always in England.
Or ones that have a lot of flashbacks.
It needs some additional new rules:
1. No stories involving children
2. The holodeck needs an off button
3. Seatbelts should be compulsory on the bridge
4. Starfleet admirals all need to be replaced by competent people.
Holodeck does have that, but they typically have a plot reason why nobody can get to it for the stereotypical trapped in a holodeck episode, or where if they take it offline something worse happens. Not always though, for sure. For 4, we have that one in real life too. (In all organizations pretty much.) So good luck...
Also, no magic or totally antireality fantasy...impossible future tech, alien contacts, necessary for space opera. BUT. The 'mind and reality are the same' of the 3-fingered alien who helps Wil Wheaton!!!...Teilhard de Chardin's "Phenomenology of Man", AC. Clarke's Vanamonde, in "Against the Fall of Night", the 'evolution-accelerating teleological machine' of an early Outer Limits, with david McCallum getting huge head telepathy, telekinesis overnight. Jack vances Eight Fantasms and Magicks... Of course, with dr, Strange and superheroes... Mutation as a pure magic, the us versus them of 'muggles' and 'NONmutants...Please! Manyway, my rant longer.
" Very well done indeed. However, an addendum. Latin gerund, way the by...like agendum, memorandum. Agenda, plural, 'things which should or must be done." Manyway, revenons à nos moutons.
It is impossible for carbon DNA life to live on another local planet, or travel interstellarly. We will never know how common life is, but it took a fifth of the age of the universe to develop complex cells, eukaryotes, here. Multicellular life will be rarer still, aware life rarer, tech life...5 centuries only, HERE, until coal gone.....rarer still. In time as well as in space. Future tech is THE fantasy cult, similar to theisms...magical thinking. Antireality antihistory antilogic anti-science cults are contagious. Unfortunately, after high tech and pollution/population collapse civilization, the Asimovian Interregnum will last...unpredictably long....but very. And such antireality cults will live longer than our very brief tech era...during which multitudes deny the science that, like vaccines, protects and supports them. But there is no vaccine for stupid, or crazy.
I m not qualified to understand these higher math, physics, chemistry, biology. But my family has three generations of significant scientists in several areas of hard studies. I do know enough to say no one will be coming BACK from Mars, ever. High and even medium tech will disappear with coal...oil/gas gone in app. a century. Science fantasy of the future is a new cult, at base magical thinking, like theisms and superstitioning systems in general. Here is a list of factors...far from all-inclusive:
When oil and gas, the recoverable part, USING FOSSIL FUEL TO MINE, HIGH TECH...is depleted, in a century, at most, and only sulfurous bituminous coal for even mining uranium, or making solar and wind power devices, even greenhouses with GLASS...the CO2 acidifying oceans will kill first coral, then shellfish...a different form of Calcium Carbonate, aragonite and , I forget name...by then all sea mammals extinct, then all bony fish... CO2 may stay aloft a thousand years, but SO2 from coal rains down as acid in a year...AND IT SLOWS WARMING, a lot, while ALOFT...It Get !?!
Polar ice decreasing reduces reflective albedo, methane release from permafrost decline will be a major factor... And when every port in the world has to be moved 'upstream'... Well, a billion, or 2, peeps will have to move....maybe 50 million from low-lying Bengal alone... I suggest "Limits to Growth", 1972 version, and Jared Diamond's "Collapse"... The "Population Bomb" Paul Ehrlich's predictions inferior to his analysis. Peter Zeihan too, while Noam Chomsky talks of past and present, and no sane person thinks our species, genetically as competitive as cooperative, and evolutionarily geared for small groups, extended-family/tribes. ...but all generalists or interdisciplinarians are generally careful to point out uncertainties of such informed guesstimations.
Malthus I have only briefly examined.
Scientific method must vary with each study, each experiment...context forms factoring and analysis-
synthesis. But as time 'progresses', new data clarifies predictabilities. We, or some of us, know much more, now. Fossil fuels gone, no high tech ever again, even if we survive the Anthropocene...some of us, that is. Only cellulose can be anaerobically heated to charcoal and then coke, artificial coal...no more modern medicine let alone high tech like BICYCLES. When it costs more fuels to mine fuels than produced...HAND AND HOOF. NO mining...
until Antarctica is de-iced...long time, mile thick...and the much smaller hidden land mass there can be mined. Not much! In 2 centuries max...no more sea oil...tech too expensive for that.
Mistake me not...I have studied science fantasy, and languages, literature, much more, for 65 years. My family watched star Trek from the first show...making fun of the puerile fantasy of tech and physics and biology and... I love good fantasy. But must accept reality. HINT. Pale imitations of quality breed like metastasizing cancerous cells. Science fiction and magical fantasy were better, in many ways, in the formative period. reread Edith Nesbit and Narnia, Pohl'Kornbluth, Niven and Asimov, not the endless stream of clones that seemed AI before same.
Note that Musk is an insane in SOME areas, and borderline neo-Nazi~~~but not so kray as to get in a rocket himself. Klown klones like Branson and Bezos, the What Me Worry? kids...almost as pre-infantile as Tramp. Object and idea permanence sketchy at best... Multiplanetary!!! Impossible to get peeps back from Mars alive...NASA estimated first death in months of a trip about as long as human gestation...ON THE OUTWARD trip out. Oh, spend a trillion...maybe. By that time the planet will have refocused back to
LOCAL REALITY. 'OUR' biosphere. MT GanGreene's 'Peach Tree Dish'. Where everything is just peachy." And you may forget fusion power...people at the Forrestal Tokamak project, in Princeton, where I lived and went to college, told me in '70s, same as my parents in '60s, fusion power is a laughable fantasy. Even someone as pro-tech as Sabine Hossenfelder is close to agreeing...
Study the developmental stages of Auguste Comte, proto sociologist, and jean Piaget, developmental psychologist. Most humans atre literal/infantile. Some are, SOMETIMES, adolescent...speculativehypothetical, but lacking scientific method...probablity/impossibility elided, theory and data ignored or confused. Humans are genetically cooperative...in small groups, 'extended families.' But cooperation trumps it, under pressure. It is always easier to believe a simplistic oversimplified, or even fantasy version of reality than to spend much time in interdisciplinarian/generalist study and research. In the REAL reasonable rational meaning of...SEARCH AGAIN AND AGAIN, as one can only approximate reality with thought and language. Good luck with that. Another superimposed fantasy. Luck.
May the universe continue to ignore us. There is life on one planet. More we can never know. Byee, peeple. "
BIT longer.
Also, no magic or totally antireality fantasy...impossible future tech, alien contacts, necessary for space opera. BUT. The 'mind and reality are the same' of the 3-fingered alien who helps Wil Wheaton!!!...Teilhard de Chardin's "Phenomenology of Man", AC. Clarke's Vanamonde, in "Against the Fall of Night", the 'evolution-accelerating teleological machine' of an early Outer Limits, with david McCallum getting huge head telepathy, telekinesis overnight. Jack vances Eight Fantasms and Magicks... Of course, with dr, Strange and superheroes... Mutation as a pure magic, the us versus them of 'muggles' and 'NONmutants...Please! Manyway, my rant longer.
" " Very well done indeed. However, an addendum. Latin gerund, way the by...like agendum, memorandum. Agenda, plural, 'things which should or must be done." Manyway, revenons à nos moutons.
It is impossible for carbon DNA life to live on another local planet, or travel interstellarly. We will never know how common life is, but it took a fifth of the age of the universe to develop complex cells, eukaryotes, here. Multicellular life will be rarer still, aware life rarer, tech life...5 centuries only, HERE, until coal gone.....rarer still. In time as well as in space. Future tech is THE fantasy cult, similar to theisms...magical thinking. Antireality antihistory antilogic anti-science cults are contagious. Unfortunately, after high tech and pollution/population collapse civilization, the Asimovian Interregnum will last...unpredictably long....but very. And such antireality cults will live longer than our very brief tech era...during which multitudes deny the science that, like vaccines, protects and supports them. But there is no vaccine for stupid, or crazy.
I m not qualified to understand these higher math, physics, chemistry, biology. But my family has three generations of significant scientists in several areas of hard studies. I do know enough to say no one will be coming BACK from Mars, ever. High and even medium tech will disappear with coal...oil/gas gone in app. a century. Science fantasy of the future is a new cult, at base magical thinking, like theisms and superstitioning systems in general. Here is a list of factors...far from all-inclusive:
When oil and gas, the recoverable part, USING FOSSIL FUEL TO MINE, HIGH TECH...is depleted, in a century, at most, and only sulfurous bituminous coal for even mining uranium, or making solar and wind power devices, even greenhouses with GLASS...the CO2 acidifying oceans will kill first coral, then shellfish...a different form of Calcium Carbonate, aragonite and , I forget name...by then all sea mammals extinct, then all bony fish... CO2 may stay aloft a thousand years, but SO2 from coal rains down as acid in a year...AND IT SLOWS WARMING, a lot, while ALOFT...It Get !?!
Polar ice decreasing reduces reflective albedo, methane release from permafrost decline will be a major factor... And when every port in the world has to be moved 'upstream'... Well, a billion, or 2, peeps will have to move....maybe 50 million from low-lying Bengal alone... I suggest "Limits to Growth", 1972 version, and Jared Diamond's "Collapse"... The "Population Bomb" Paul Ehrlich's predictions inferior to his analysis. Peter Zeihan too, while Noam Chomsky talks of past and present, and no sane person thinks our species, genetically as competitive as cooperative, and evolutionarily geared for small groups, extended-family/tribes. ...but all generalists or interdisciplinarians are generally careful to point out uncertainties of such informed guesstimations.
Malthus I have only briefly examined.
Scientific method must vary with each study, each experiment...context forms factoring and analysis-
synthesis. But as time 'progresses', new data clarifies predictabilities. We, or some of us, know much more, now. Fossil fuels gone, no high tech ever again, even if we survive the Anthropocene...some of us, that is. Only cellulose can be anaerobically heated to charcoal and then coke, artificial coal...no more modern medicine let alone high tech like BICYCLES. When it costs more fuels to mine fuels than produced...HAND AND HOOF. NO mining...
until Antarctica is de-iced...long time, mile thick...and the much smaller hidden land mass there can be mined. Not much! In 2 centuries max...no more sea oil...tech too expensive for that.
Mistake me not...I have studied science fantasy, and languages, literature, much more, for 65 years. My family watched star Trek from the first show...making fun of the puerile fantasy of tech and physics and biology and... I love good fantasy. But must accept reality. HINT. Pale imitations of quality breed like metastasizing cancerous cells. Science fiction and magical fantasy were better, in many ways, in the formative period. reread Edith Nesbit and Narnia, Pohl'Kornbluth, Niven and Asimov, not the endless stream of clones that seemed AI before same.
Note that Musk is an insane in SOME areas, and borderline neo-Nazi~~~but not so kray as to get in a rocket himself. Klown klones like Branson and Bezos, the What Me Worry? kids...almost as pre-infantile as Tramp. Object and idea permanence sketchy at best... Multiplanetary!!! Impossible to get peeps back from Mars alive...NASA estimated first death in months of a trip about as long as human gestation...ON THE OUTWARD trip out. Oh, spend a trillion...maybe. By that time the planet will have refocused back to
LOCAL REALITY. 'OUR' biosphere. MT GanGreene's 'Peach Tree Dish'. Where everything is just peachy." And you may forget fusion power...people at the Forrestal Tokamak project, in Princeton, where I lived and went to college, told me in '70s, same as my parents in '60s, fusion power is a laughable fantasy. Even someone as pro-tech as Sabine Hossenfelder is close to agreeing...
Study the developmental stages of Auguste Comte, proto sociologist, and jean Piaget, developmental psychologist. Most humans atre literal/infantile. Some are, SOMETIMES, adolescent...speculativehypothetical, but lacking scientific method...probablity/impossibility elided, theory and data ignored or confused. Humans are genetically cooperative...in small groups, 'extended families.' But cooperation trumps it, under pressure. It is always easier to believe a simplistic oversimplified, or even fantasy version of reality than to spend much time in interdisciplinarian/generalist study and research. In the REAL reasonable rational meaning of...SEARCH AGAIN AND AGAIN, as one can only approximate reality with thought and language. Good luck with that. Another superimposed fantasy. Luck.
May the universe continue to ignore us. There is life on one planet. More we can never know. Byee, peeple. "
Haha I can't count the number of times where the admirals were just insufferable people or just plain villainous. With the exception of Kirk of course.
there are more admirals than captains, did you notice that?
AND STOP BLOWING UP THE DAM SHIP
Me? I would never! Unless it’s a Borg ship.
Well said! The first time it brought tears, now it brings a yawn.
That would violate the 10th rule. Clear the lot for newer models.
Yes but in the Kelvin Trek they tried to destroy the ship and make us care about it but it was just meh.
The big old ship got chopped up and we just didn’t care. Especially when they replaced it at the end of the film.
Rule 2: The Universe is populated by beings that can be impersonated by a Human in makeup.
With minimal pre-production because that costs too much money. The universe is frugal!
TNG had an episode explaining why most life forms in the universe are humanoid.
Not all beings in TOS were. Off hand, I can think of the rock beast, that thing that looked like a giant amoeba and an intelligent space probe. There are probably more.
This is likely true, evolution churns out similar designs to fill niches. Eyes have been evolved at least 9 different times, for example. Body design is the same. On our world, crustaceans keep evolving into crabs. The body design has occurred independently so many times and stayed there that there is reason to believe that life in that context will ALWAYS evolve to resemble a crab. The biological metaphysics of intelligence require an ability to facilitate interaction with the environment. A body plan like a human is a proven efficient form, and as such, it is quite likely that intelligent terrestrial life that evolved under similar circumstances on other planets would resemble earth.
Yeah octopi are intelligent too, but they didn't violate the rule. They have 8 arms to facilitate interaction with the environment, they don't need legs because living underwater counteracted the oppressive force of gravity that stipulated the upwards evolution of terrestrial life. (Which is also why our body language revolves around the notion of escaping gravity. I.e. feeling low/down... Frowns point to the ground as of the mouth was overcome by gravity, whereas smiles move upwards directly to counteract it. It is an extraneous expenditure of energy that signals a life form has concluded it has the ability to spend energy extraneously, likely because it is in a circumstance where conditions are beneficial to it. Just like when things make us smile)
Not true, multiple aliens don’t fit that, tholians from TOS
Producer Rick Berman once said (and I'm paraphrasing) to an audience of fans asking about how to get an idea or a script submitted, "Write for a period piece. That period has limitations. As long as you stick to the limitations, we'll take a look."
Berman is under appreciated
Rule #10 : The warp core ejection system NEVER works.
Others have referred to “Bread and Circuses.” In “Balance Of Terror” the episode begins with a wedding in a nondenominational chapel. In “The Ultimate Computer” Kirks mentions how Daystrom felt murder was “against the laws of God and Man.”
Yes, but that was /Daystrom's/ thoughts/beliefs/morality, not those of Kirk or Starfleet.
The point of that episode was lost on me at the time, but it was to do with Daystrom building an AI based on /his own/ engrams, not those analysed and sorted and assessed by peer review
- his.own.engrams
Kirk used this against the computer by learning of D's favouring the d penalty by knowing exactly what buttons to push to drive the computer into a self-defeated situation.
Much like Picard did with that woman in Drumhead.
@@quantisedspace7047 "Why, mine, of course"
In the Voyager episodes Scorpion Pts 1&2 Janeway has a discussion with Leonardo di Vinci in the holodeck about the power of the imagination. He tells her when one reaches the limits of theirs its time to appeal to a higher imagination. He suggests they stop by a chapel and appeal to God.
She demures but gets an idea to appeal to the Devil instead. They mean the Borg of course but you can't have the one without the other.
Then there's the episode The Good Shepherd.
@@quantisedspace7047Picard says the people of Starfleet believe in "the one" God in one of the episodes.
Aaaaand the show that most closely follows all of these rules?
Happy Arbor Day! It’s The Orville!
A better Trek show than a couple of the other more modern shows, IMO. I LOVED The Orville! Honestly, I think it broke ground for Lower Decks, showing that a Trek-like show could be both played for laughs AND still convey a lot of depth. Took me a bit to get used to it - I was not much of a Seth McFarlane fan already - but I grew to really love it. Wish they’d do more. :)
Two of the best Star Trek productions: The Orville and Galaxy Quest
@@pjl22222 also Star Trek Continues.
"We need no longer fear the banana."
I love the humor in that show. But there are certain episodes that delve into deep science fiction and philosophy that absolutely floored me with how good they were. The episode where they go to the planet where people decide each others fate based on their popularity. Absolutely brilliant and relevant to these modern times.
I am not a Trekie, but I admire its devotion to the rules. Star Wars absolutely ruined itself by thinking that it could routinely bend and break the rules for plot convenience or because people would think it was cool. Now nobody knows what you can and can't do in that universe, and as a result, nobody cares.
"Now nobody knows what you can and can't do in that universe, and as a result, nobody cares." should be tattooed on the foreheads of every executive and writer involved in science fiction. It'll also make them easier to spot when the Eugenics Riots start.
Also, ones that write or approve fix-it-with-time-travel stories are simply chunked down the oubliette. Thats how it'll be when I become Galactic Overlord.
I never realized Encino Man was Star Trek. You just saved billions of lives.
The whole "no money" thing didn't exist until ST4 in 1986. Go watch TOS and you'll see there are frequent mentions of a monetary system in the Federation. The Trouble with Tribbles referred to them as credits, but getting paid was really a thing.
Only sort of. Tribbles is the only real reference and it was mostly people dealing outside the Federation, just like on DS9.
They were lots of references to money in TOS. Harry Mudd was being paid for his work as an asteroid finder. Captain Tracy wanted to sell the secret to longevity that he found on the omega planet. I don’t think he was only planning on selling that to the Ferengi. Also, several times Kirk told someone that they had earned their pay for the week. Money was definitely part of TOS. The writers wisely did not feel the need to explain the entire future economic system in an episode, just like the riders of a cop show would feel the need to explain the entire American economic system and world banking system in an episode.
@@thecaptain6730 Kirk told Spock, “The Federation has invested a great deal of money in our training.” (TOS: “Errand of Mercy”) When Kirk later asked Spock, “Do you know how much Starfleet has invested in you?”, Spock began to respond “One hundred twenty two thousand, two hundred-” before Kirk cut him off. (TOS: “The Apple”) This clearly indicates that there was a monetary figure involved in Spock’s Starfleet training.
@@GiantFreakinRobot While they were discussing the M-5, Richard Daystrom’s latest computer breakthrough, McCoy told Kirk, “The government bought it, then Daystrom had to make it work.” (TOS: “The Ultimate Computer”) How did the Federation buy Daystrom’s computer if there’s no money and everyone just does things to better themselves or society?
After it was discovered that the Horta was intelligent and only defending its eggs, Kirk told Chief Vanderberg that, if the miners could come to an agreement with the Mother Horta, the Hortas would tunnel, the miners would collect and process, and “your process operation would be a thousand times more profitable.” (TOS: "The Devil In the Dark") That explicitly demonstrates that the point of the miners’ efforts was to make money, as does their concluding conversation:
CHIEF VANDERBERG: We’ve already hit huge new pergium deposits. I’m afraid to tell you how much gold and platinum and rare earths we’ve uncovered.
CAPTAIN KIRK: I’m delighted to hear that, Chief. Once Mother Horta tells her kids what to look for, you people are going to be embarrassingly rich.
“Computer: replicate a bag of mixed, precious gem stones.”
They can, certain ones. Some specific precious metals cannot be replicated
@@GiantFreakinRobot Wow! Thank you for the timely & thoughtful reply. The extra info is appreciated.
Great video with concise writing & editing. The humor is a fresh touch too. I am an aspiring Trek Tales writer so your video is sage guidance for would-be writers.
I’ve already begun 3D building a TOS-inspired science ship I imagine pioneered the use of the vertical warp core prior to its wider-scale adoption by TMP era:
ua-cam.com/video/W5zKmlCsZaI/v-deo.htmlsi=dfj8XhD8olzHbPRJ
I have developed a small crew in my mind and some good story concepts for development.
Thanks again. See you “Out There”.
@@GiantFreakinRobot I can only think of a few things that cannot be replicated from stores of basic material supplies, and that is dilithium and Latinum. This is why these are the two most precious mineral resources in the Star Trek Universe. I believe both of them are also necessary for the most efficient Warp drives. Another is Phased Biomatter which apparently must be created using an extremely difficult process.
@@AJFisherDesigngood luck with your adventures! Sounds fun!
@@DawnDavidson Thank you for the kind words of encouragement.
I love TOS era especially and would love a series with computer 3D animations of starship sequences intercut with crew interactions in a Filmation-inspired style. If no one produces one maybe I should lol?!
Thanks again. See you “Out There!”.
the “humanization” of the Borg in _Picard_ S2 was absolutely awful 😑
I mean wasn't that season awful anyway..
The "Rings of Power" humanises the Orcs. Same mentality. Orc lives matter!
@@ThursoBerwickwas it someone on rings of power that said orcs are racists caricatures of black people, or was that another franchise? What a self report regardless
@@oldylad I think ROP was aiming for social justice points but it all came off wrong.
Best ignored
I absolutely love it when they make an explanation fit in universe and makes for a story. Example: the change in the Klingon appearance was caused by experiments in DNA engineering that took a wrong turn.
We don’t discuss that with outsiders.
@@patriciaaturner289outWORLDERS
Yeah. Another unneeded explanation, similar to the midi-chlorian for Star Wars.
The decision to change the looks of the Klingons was just stupid, and no in-universe explanation can plausibly fix it. Furthermore it wasn't just their looks that changed, but their whole mentality. TOS Klingons were highly advanced, civilized, but militarist and treacherous. The later Klingons were primitive barbarians that behaved like Space Vikings and were no match for the Federation anymore. Even the Klingon beliefs in the afterlife strongly resembles Valhalla. Why didn't they just introduce them as a new race?
@magister.mortran You are 100% correct! It was a step backwards for a thoughtful show like Star Trek!
Error: shields aren’t generated by the navigational deflector dish. The deflector dish projects a deflector beam ahead of the ship, clearing its path of particles so that the ship can safely travel at relativistic/FTL speeds.
Shields are generated by the grid lines we see covering the hull.
Rule #10, Scotty always was, is, and will be, a miracle worker
Only because he routinely inflates his time-to-repair estimates by a factor of five (or more).
@@xheralt an important part of his genius 😀
Very interesting, well made video-- but I have to quibble with Rule #5. One of the things that made Star Trek relatable was something that our culture and our science are sadly lacking in today-- humility. Star Trek never made a definitive statement that "God does not exist." It was understood that mankind does not have the experience or the perspective to make such a statement. On the contrary, the episodes are peppered with comments that leave room for that belief. For one thing, as we find out early in the series, the Enterprise has a chapel. "Balance of Terror" opens with a wedding. The bride, Angela Martine, is kneeling at the altar in prayer before the ceremony, with Kirk looking on paternallly. After the battle with the Romulans, the episode ends in the same chapel, with Angela seeking solace in prayer as she tries to come to terms with her fiance's death.
In "Who Mourns for Adonais?", the crew encounters an alien who once appeared on Earth as the Greek god Apollo and now demands that humans worship him again. Kirk's reply to him is: "Mankind has no need for gods. We find the One quite adequate." Twist that any way you like, it is still an unequivocal asertion by Kirk himself that human society retains a prevailing belief in a single deity.
That belief is not unique to humans. In "Metamorphosis", Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are escorting Assistant Federation Commissioner Nacy Hedford back to the Enterprise for medical care for a disease that will kill her in days if not treated. They crash land on a planetoid where they meet Zephram Cochrane, inventor of the warp drive, who has been kept perpetually young and healthy on the planet for decades by an amorphous entity called the Companion. As Nancy Hedford is dying, the Companion somehow merges with her and restores her to health as a composite entity. When Kirk questions the Companion about how she has managed this, he says, "You cannot create life." The Companion agrees, saying, "That is for the Maker of all things."
The modern strain of arrogant, militant atheists are eager to stamp out any suggestion that intelligent, creative people could possibly retain any belief in an entity beyond our comprehension who is the source of Mankind's creation-- but the Star Trek canon is what it is. You might claim that, "Well, if they were making the Original Series today they would have been aggressively, dogmatically atheistic in all their observations about the universe." But the fact is, the belief in God made it into the scripts and onto the screen repeatedly. It's canon. You can cry about it, but you can't wish it away.
And there was the episode where Kirk found the “son” worshipers.
Gene Roddenberry was an atheist but several times, God is affirmed "we find the One (God) sufficient". (I didn't see this until I already started replying)
"The modern strain of arrogant, militant atheists are eager to stamp out any suggestion that intelligent, creative people could possibly retain any belief in an entity beyond our comprehension who is the source of Mankind's creation-- but the Star Trek canon is what it is."
I would say that your examples being all from the Original Series, made in the 60s, is a counterpoint to your argument. I can only recall one person from Starfleet being overtly religious and praying or referencing a creator deity with solid belief in its existence after TOS was produced. Dr. McCoy would mention "the Almighty" on occasion as if he still believed in the movies.
What Star Trek has done in most of TOS and pretty much every episode or movie afterwards that refers to gods or god-like beings, is to show that people in the Federation (or at least in Starfleet) will always look for rational, scientific explanations to what they observe rather than place any faith in a creator or attribute something they don't understand to an unseen god. The godlike beings they do encounter are sometimes viewed with respect, sometimes viewed as dangerous, but they are not something to worshiped. And blind faith and adherence to religious dogma is consistently portrayed as something much less enlightened than rationality and skepticism. [edited for clarity]
This was very informative and explains the importance of following the guidelines set up by the Creator.
May the Great Bird of the Galaxy roost on your planet!
Well to be clear these are not Gene’s guidelines, it’s what the franchise has evolved into
Ah, but wouldn’t that also imply that, in order to know what the Creator’s rules are, we must all be omniscient and/or deific ourselves? Otherwise, the created never would actually know what the rules ARE. The in-universe characters are not consciously aware of these rules. Only by existing at the same level of reality can we see and understand those rules. (The universe of Xanth comes to mind here, for another example.) For me, your statement underscores my belief, which is that Thou Art God/dess (the concept that we are all a slice of divinity, choosing to understand the world through a mortal lens.) Which I am guessing was not your intent.
@@GiantFreakinRobot yes. But a lot of them go back to exactly Gene's rules. I mourn each time those are stepped on (or major continuity broken) just to satisfy some "Auteur"''s need to put his own stamp on a franchise he never liked anyway. Sorry did I say too much.
It wasn't only one.
Rule 4, a.k.a. 2d space is kind of like the 180 degree rule in film. It exist to make it easier for those of us who live nearly our entire lives on the surface of a sphere so large that some people still believe it is flat despite several millennia's worth of evidence.
if you put a klingon battleship at 9c rushing towards a nebula a couple light years away, chased by the Enterprise 1 light second away, scale would make it as if both ships stayed still, you need to make them hundreds of meters apart, fliying like a WW2 fighter to convey the action, same aplies to humanoid aliens, an angry klingon breaking a table while screaming conveys better "this dude is angry" over say the horta fuming. in this context, function follows form.
The firmament!
The other thing about rule 4 is it is also kind of true in reality. Both our solar system and the Milky Way are shaped like flat disks. It is possible to travel in a different direction, off the elliptic plane. But as rule 1 states, space is really, really big. If you travel off that plane, you will find - nothing. Just empty space.
The 2D rule is more like locally 2D (ships typically tilt to align with each other), wide-scale spherical when in orbit (or ring shaped -- the orbit itself), and 3D on a much larger scale... then more or less 2D again on the galaxy map. Though the rule does show up in that they treat even regional maps as 2D way too often to be realistic.
'This wasn't the case yet in the original series. There was hardly ever any second starship shown on the scree. It was apparently for budget reasons, but was in fact more realistic than modern Star Trek productions, probably because in the 60s and 70s humans actually went to space and everyone knew how it looked in reality, while today there are no real manned spacecrafts anymore. Low Earth orbit doesn't count, because it is indeed 2-dimensional. There is always the Earth below.
Also the visuals of space have become more unrealistic since the 70s. Back then everyone knew that space is dark and black, because they had seen real images of space. Modern Sci Fi puts lots of stuff into space, nebulae, asteroids, etc., and space itself often has a color. Nobody in the 70s would have taken these images as realistic. It started with TNG and by the time of Voyager, space had become totally surreal. Spaceships in the modern productions rather look like submarines floating through colorful tropical coral reefs, not the emptiness of space. (Modern computer games like No Man's Sky are even worse in this regard. You can't play the game without a mod making space black again.)
There is a pre-clear distinction between TOS trek and TNG and subsequent treks. In TOS they do not use physical currency, but they clearly have some sort of credit system, which we actually see them using on several occasions, and they actually talk about the ability to purchase things and expense in a modern audience would obviously understand in the context of money. So they clearly do not use actual currency in TOS, and in the voyage home, they seem more confused with the specifics of money than the concept. Which is similar to 21st century me being completely unable to fathom how 19th century British currency works, rather than not getting the concept as a whole.
In TNG and afterwards, they clearly no longer use any kind of currency and they don’t really need to because they have replicators, so nothing has any real value anymore. In a world where anyone can have anything at any time, everything is value. As I understand it Latinum had value because it is the one thing that cannot be replicated.
That’s fine. That makes sense to me. That is logical. The original show and subsequent shows are clearly playing under different sets of rules in that regard. What bothers me is when they forget or disregard continuity and stick replicators in the TOS era, where they clearly didn’t exist.
TOS did have some less capable version of replicators… they dispensed food in the mess hall. They just didn’t call them replicators and obviously were not as good. Given that it’s possible that replicators didn’t get good enough to have a post scarcity society until TNG. But Kirk seems really adamant that they have no money in Voyager Home
@@GiantFreakinRobot synthethizers, and you needed a 3.5 floppy disk to have a meal cooked or a vest made, it looked like an advanced chemical reaction in DISC, where Burnham makes herself a new uniform scene.
The "no-money in the future" was established in Star Trek 4 The Voyage Home, from that point forward in the franchise.
Besides, that wouldn't have workd in the 60's, Gene Roddenberry would have been seen as a communist traitor, back then.
@@charlescole645 Nah. They clearly know *what* money is, they’re just confused with concepts like “exact change” and “is that a lot of money?” And we saw them using what were effectively credit cards in TOS. If you grew up in an all-electronic currency situation where you never saw cash - as is actually the case with a fair number of zoomers - you’d have trouble with that too.
I know Kirk says “they’re still using money,” but just last week I overheard someone kids at the gas station: “you got any money?” “No, I just have my card.”
I don’t think they are explicitly post-currency-of-any-sort until TNG
Yes, TOS referenced money, currency, and the ability to purchase things often. In several scripts written by Roddenberry himself, money is referenced and people being paid for working is referenced. It was Nicolas Meyer who created the whole “huh…what’s money… I have never heard of that before.” Concept for Star Trek IV as a joke. It added to the “fish out of water” concept of the movie. It had nothing to do with replicators. TNG writers and beyond were more familiar with Star Trek IV since it was so popular, and released right before TNG went into production, so they went with that concept of a money-free future, but that just started as Nicolas Myer’s idea of a joke.
I like the z-axis discussion. 3D is so revolutionary! Haha!
You left out Rule #10: nobody takes a piss, dump or lets a fart rip, except Zefram Cochrane, who slipped away to take a leak in First Contact
That's pretty much the same in everything. Novels, movies, tv shows. Not many bathroom breaks.😂😂
to be fair its pretty rare in everything and seems its mostly only woman that needs to go.
And even Zefram Cochrane merely used it as an excuse to get away.
Rule 10: All alien technology discovered by the Federation will be discovered to be incompatible with the current tech, or simply ignored and never heard of again. Technology that leads to franchise changing abilities will be explained away with treknobabble.
Corby's androids? Mudd's androids, The First Federation, That brain swapping gizmo from the last TOS. The list goes on..
Maybe. Or like Stargate, the changes they make to Federation/Starfleet tech slowly integrate some of it but produce a result that still looks more human-made (like the later Stargate human ships).
But all ancient alien tech from long extinct races is far superior and takes over any federation ship in seconds.
excellent. agreed. My rant longer. " Very well done indeed. However, an addendum. Latin gerund, way the by...like agendum, memorandum. Agenda, plural, 'things which should or must be done." Manyway, revenons à nos moutons.
It is impossible for carbon DNA life to live on another local planet, or travel interstellarly. We will never know how common life is, but it took a fifth of the age of the universe to develop complex cells, eukaryotes, here. Multicellular life will be rarer still, aware life rarer, tech life...5 centuries only, HERE, until coal gone.....rarer still. In time as well as in space. Future tech is THE fantasy cult, similar to theisms...magical thinking. Antireality antihistory antilogic anti-science cults are contagious. Unfortunately, after high tech and pollution/population collapse civilization, the Asimovian Interregnum will last...unpredictably long....but very. And such antireality cults will live longer than our very brief tech era...during which multitudes deny the science that, like vaccines, protects and supports them. But there is no vaccine for stupid, or crazy.
I m not qualified to understand these higher math, physics, chemistry, biology. But my family has three generations of significant scientists in several areas of hard studies. I do know enough to say no one will be coming BACK from Mars, ever. High and even medium tech will disappear with coal...oil/gas gone in app. a century. Science fantasy of the future is a new cult, at base magical thinking, like theisms and superstitioning systems in general. Here is a list of factors...far from all-inclusive:
When oil and gas, the recoverable part, USING FOSSIL FUEL TO MINE, HIGH TECH...is depleted, in a century, at most, and only sulfurous bituminous coal for even mining uranium, or making solar and wind power devices, even greenhouses with GLASS...the CO2 acidifying oceans will kill first coral, then shellfish...a different form of Calcium Carbonate, aragonite and , I forget name...by then all sea mammals extinct, then all bony fish... CO2 may stay aloft a thousand years, but SO2 from coal rains down as acid in a year...AND IT SLOWS WARMING, a lot, while ALOFT...It Get !?!
Polar ice decreasing reduces reflective albedo, methane release from permafrost decline will be a major factor... And when every port in the world has to be moved 'upstream'... Well, a billion, or 2, peeps will have to move....maybe 50 million from low-lying Bengal alone... I suggest "Limits to Growth", 1972 version, and Jared Diamond's "Collapse"... The "Population Bomb" Paul Ehrlich's predictions inferior to his analysis. Peter Zeihan too, while Noam Chomsky talks of past and present, and no sane person thinks our species, genetically as competitive as cooperative, and evolutionarily geared for small groups, extended-family/tribes. ...but all generalists or interdisciplinarians are generally careful to point out uncertainties of such informed guesstimations.
Malthus I have only briefly examined.
Scientific method must vary with each study, each experiment...context forms factoring and analysis-
synthesis. But as time 'progresses', new data clarifies predictabilities. We, or some of us, know much more, now. Fossil fuels gone, no high tech ever again, even if we survive the Anthropocene...some of us, that is. Only cellulose can be anaerobically heated to charcoal and then coke, artificial coal...no more modern medicine let alone high tech like BICYCLES. When it costs more fuels to mine fuels than produced...HAND AND HOOF. NO mining...
until Antarctica is de-iced...long time, mile thick...and the much smaller hidden land mass there can be mined. Not much! In 2 centuries max...no more sea oil...tech too expensive for that.
Mistake me not...I have studied science fantasy, and languages, literature, much more, for 65 years. My family watched star Trek from the first show...making fun of the puerile fantasy of tech and physics and biology and... I love good fantasy. But must accept reality. HINT. Pale imitations of quality breed like metastasizing cancerous cells. Science fiction and magical fantasy were better, in many ways, in the formative period. reread Edith Nesbit and Narnia, Pohl'Kornbluth, Niven and Asimov, not the endless stream of clones that seemed AI before same.
Note that Musk is an insane in SOME areas, and borderline neo-Nazi~~~but not so kray as to get in a rocket himself. Klown klones like Branson and Bezos, the What Me Worry? kids...almost as pre-infantile as Tramp. Object and idea permanence sketchy at best... Multiplanetary!!! Impossible to get peeps back from Mars alive...NASA estimated first death in months of a trip about as long as human gestation...ON THE OUTWARD trip out. Oh, spend a trillion...maybe. By that time the planet will have refocused back to
LOCAL REALITY. 'OUR' biosphere. MT GanGreene's 'Peach Tree Dish'. Where everything is just peachy." And you may forget fusion power...people at the Forrestal Tokamak project, in Princeton, where I lived and went to college, told me in '70s, same as my parents in '60s, fusion power is a laughable fantasy. Even someone as pro-tech as Sabine Hossenfelder is close to agreeing...
Study the developmental stages of Auguste Comte, proto sociologist, and jean Piaget, developmental psychologist. Most humans atre literal/infantile. Some are, SOMETIMES, adolescent...speculativehypothetical, but lacking scientific method...probablity/impossibility elided, theory and data ignored or confused. Humans are genetically cooperative...in small groups, 'extended families.' But cooperation trumps it, under pressure. It is always easier to believe a simplistic oversimplified, or even fantasy version of reality than to spend much time in interdisciplinarian/generalist study and research. In the REAL reasonable rational meaning of...SEARCH AGAIN AND AGAIN, as one can only approximate reality with thought and language. Good luck with that. Another superimposed fantasy. Luck.
May the universe continue to ignore us. There is life on one planet. More we can never know. Byee, peeple. "
AND " Also, no magic or totally antireality fantasy...impossible future tech, alien contacts, necessary for space opera. BUT. The 'mind and reality are the same' of the 3-fingered alien who helps Wil Wheaton!!!...Teilhard de Chardin's "Phenomenology of Man", AC. Clarke's Vanamonde, in "Against the Fall of Night", the 'evolution-accelerating teleological machine' of an early Outer Limits, with david McCallum getting huge head telepathy, telekinesis overnight. Jack vances Eight Fantasms and Magicks... Of course, with dr, Strange and superheroes... Mutation as a pure magic, the us versus them of 'muggles' and 'NONmutants...Please! "
You forgot about the Original Star Trek episode that showed the Roman Empire still around in the 1960s & a new religious movement that the crew mistakes for the sun but actually they are Son worshipers. Basically Christians by another name!
There were Christians in that episode on that planet, but Christ was said to have lived 1,000s of years before, and no God appeared or was named in the episode, so I think that makes a case for it being a cultural manifestation, and not something that the crew would take as objectively real as an example of an omnipotent God.
@@thecaptain6730 I‘m not so sure about that. If I remember correctly, the way Uhura clears up the misunderstanding about „son“ instead of „sun“ in a way that‘s kind of hard to understand to people who aren’t immersed in christianity or at least confronted with it on a regular basis. Which wouldn‘t be rhetorical case if no one really believes in the christian god.
There's nothing futuristic about the idea that under the right circumstances, rules may be broken without consequence to the rule breaker. Thousands of years ago, in his classic book "The Art of War," Sun Tzu wrote that the emperor can't always know the exact situation 1,000 miles away; thus, in certain circumstances, a general may be duty bound to disobey the orders of his emperor. The general's job is to obey the intent of his emperor.
We even have the occasional spirit or letter of law debate in our ordinary justice system, regardless of distances. the Supreme Court seems to be making a mess of it lately...
This is why the US military has gone to "Commander's Intent."
@@col.strayga1389 Many years ago, a National Guard sergeant told me of "intent of the mission," which he said goes at least as far down as the sergeant level. If the commander and other officers are killed, or if a squad is separated from their unit, they can still carry out their mission.
After every repeat of "Really Big," I was expecting, "You may think it's a long way down to the chemist's shop..."
Don't Panic
In Bread & Circuses, Uhura pointed out that the “Romans” they had just dealt with were sun worshippers, but the leaders couldn’t poke holes in the philosophy. Then, she realized that it wasn’t the sun in the sky they worshipped, but the Son of God. Kirk commented “Christ and Caesar? Wouldn’t that be great to witness?” No one on the bridge was dismissive or hostile to the idea of Jesus existing.
I like your comment, but I think in “Bread and Circuses,” the religious backdrop was part of the epic-1950s/1960s movie era feeling that Gene Coon was trying to recreate in the episode. The episode essentially was a parody of 1950s and 60s entertainment. So, the crew might respect the idea of Christ as a movie convention. But if the crew actually believed in Christ, then they would not except the idea of a second Christ on another planet. Christian theology has been pretty consistent over the last 2000 years that Christ was incarnated and died once for all of creation. I don’t think a Christian framework would have a situation where they were multiple Christs on multiple planets. I think what Coon was going for was Ben-Hur or Quo Vadis in space. I don’t think he was attempting to make a theological statement in the episode.
@ronaldreynolds9919 I was about to post the same thing about Bread and Circuses. I think Uhura said something like "...they tried to ridicule their religion but they couldn't." That's when we get the revelation that it wasn't the Sun they were worshiping but the Son.
Bit of a damn coincidence that the words Sun and Son are homophones in whatever language they were using on that planet
@quantisedspace7047 Spock specifically said that these "Romans" spoke English. It was necessary in order to make that pun work.
I always felt that this "parallel Earth" had Caesar and Jesus, and that a variation of Christianity arose from the latter (albeit more slowly). In neither case does it mean that Jesus was "God"!
One of my favorite moments of consistent tech is in an episode of Voyager where the main deflector fails, the ship gets shredded by microscopic space particles.
1st Rule......
The crewmember on the teleporter, in the different coloured tunic is not coming back !!!
Rule 2 is obviously based on the TV Budget Principle: "makeup and prosthetics are much cheaper than CGI"
Or CGI wasn't as convincing or cost-effective at the time.
@@susanscott8653 it's still not cost effective now, especially for TV shows. Also the fact that it has been established for 60 years that all intelligent species in Star Trek are humanoids, it would be weird to introduce something new now, so better to just stick to the usual
They had the Xindi and only some of them were humanoid
@@pjl22222 those are "villains of the week" at best, not any prominent part of the ST universe. Budget is the reason there seems to be only humanoid species as far as the stories are concerned. That's why Spock is a regular guy with pointy ears and not a squid.
@@HoangNguyen-rd6qyThe Xindi were far from villain of the week. They were pretty important villains for Enterprise
Sheldon properly stated the Anthropic Principle, and then you proceeded swiftly to attempt to rephrase it only to be utterly wrong.
Mmmm, I see your point, but I feel he perhaps stated a corollary of it. Similar conditions do lead to similar solutions. Like convergent evolution on a galactic scale.
@@DawnDavidson Galaxy-wide convergent evolution is indeed the first explanation Star Trek gives, but that's not what the Anthropic Principle is.
It just might be that earth was fine tuned in a universe that was fine tuned for beings who are endowed with self awareness, choice, language, thought, and fine motor skills to contemplate their existence and to grapple with morality. It's a decent theory about the 40 trillion cells we see in the mirror each day. Also worth mentioning the universe we see in the microscope, as well as the telescope. We now see that each of our cells is more complex than New York City, with some carrying more than 100 million molecular machines. We have more machines in the tip of our fingers than all the machines that human beings have made in all of history. Our brains have nearly 100 billion neurons, as many as there are stars in an average size galaxy, which is in a way like each of us being our galaxy. Our DNA pulled and stretched from our cells would stretch from the earth to the sun, then to Pluto, and then wrap around Pluto's orbit. All of the DNA from all the cells in all humans throughout all of history would reach to the center of the milky way galaxy, then stretch to the edge of the known universe, and then wrap around the universe. So in contrast to a Sagan idea of a pale blue dot and humans being insignificant, we're kind of a big deal.
6:51
Q appears on the Enterprise bridge in a flash of light. Along with his trumpet and mariachi band.
The funniest part of this entire ridiculous scene is not Q. It is Worf shaking his head in defeat.
I refuse to consider anything post-2009 Star Trek as canon since they're constantly twisting, bending, or breaking lore that's been in the books for decades. Modern Star Trek feels like it's been dumbed down in order to get viewers, and yet dumbing down one of the most intelligent shows to ever air on television just drives viewers away.
The only things I even enjoyed post-Enterprise include the 2009 movie (dumb as it was I think of it as a guilty pleasure), Picard Season 3 and maybe Strange New Worlds Season 1, which was so mid that I only half watched it. None of them are head cannon.
Agreed. Since then it's been all about the feels.
Lower Decks is worth embracing. It handles this stuff well
I refuse to accept anything after the original series or phase 2 project archive materials canon. They keep breaking and bending and being loose and they changed my Klingons (my klingons were pale with kung fu facial hair, what’s with all this black face and forehead ridges) and my D-7 battle cruiser and what the fuck is a V’gr anyway 82 astronomical units, even at two astronomical units that’s dumb just like the DMA in discovery being five light years long, if my Star Trek doesn’t have fake diversity with cast members getting death, threats, and women scripts that make Margaret Thatcher happy with a fuzzy analog signal It’s not Star Trek. what is a monster maroon anyway, technicolor, blue golden red or nothing at all the wrath of Khan was a joke. Worst movie ever broke too much canon got so many facts. Wrong terrible. Terrible should never exist. Nothing after the city at the edge of forever really should be considered canon season three Rotenberry wasn’t even involved as much what is a Spock’s brain anyway, honestly the corrupt executive just wanted to push the color. My original uniform should be nothing but beige and blue turtlenecks. That’s the real Star Trek Christopher Pike. He’s too physical. I need a little bit more intellect and not this new pike want the original pike and performance or nothing at all if it’s not the original actor that I don’t want it they said it the first time there’s no Mulligan in the new universe author to that narrative so there’s actually hundred Gene Rotenberrys for each time a non-Rattenbury Ryder made a change. He didn’t approve of right up until his passing and 91. I don’t even know if unification and TNG is canon how dare they not have Leonard Nimoy only ever under Rodenberry tutelage. Disgusting.
Truly. Ppl don't understand the difference between a proper retcon(Like klingon makeup)
And just wanting to lazy retell the whole thing so you can REPLACE Cultural History with the neo- Soviet ideologies like DEI policies
Yeah no. Starlet was NEVER diversity - they are EXCLUSIVITY. You had to be the BEST of the BEST to even ATTEND THE ACADEMY.
And the tech was meant to be REALISTIC- NOT EFFING MAGIC LORD OF THE RINGS DRUID PLANT NETWORK.
No keyway this is neo-peganism
That's why society is crazy
These same folks WANT US TO SACRIFICE OUR IRSH CATTLE TO MOTHER GAIA.
Letang is all tied togeather. Woke was just three latest iteration. They've been trying to steal our hope for the future these 25yrs ON PURPOSE
think what it does to your subconscious to grow up ONLY SEEING DYSTOPIAN FUTURES. You belive that's the way its supposed to be and don't know to fight against it
That's why we let them lock us down and the mulins have been filling the gap, bringing us back to medieval cultural values while promoting the destructible of all other religions.
Anyone who can't see this by now just hasn't been paying attention to history.
They've done these crusades for millenia. Island only raids and destroys others. Rearward history like star trek taught me : to look humanity in the eye and not lie to itself
What about "The Guy in the Red Shirt" ?
I find this interesting. Your initial statement that they have consistent rules was amusing to me considering how often Star Trek has ignored or retconned past events, technology, and details for what ever story they decided to tell this time. In the end, however, I feel like you have listed some good rules for Trek writers in the future to adhere to if we ever want to see good trek writing again. Thanks for the interesting video.
Sure there are gods in Star Trek but none of them are worth worshipping.
I don’t know, Q seems pretty fun.
@@GiantFreakinRobotnot sure I’d want to WORSHIP Q though. The scene where he pops into bed next to Picard comes to mind. There are definitely other reasons I would want to be saying “Oh god!” in bed! 😂
Yes, there are gods. But there isn’t God. I see the concept as similar to the maxim of “any sufficiently advanced tech will appear to be as magic.” Any beings that are sufficiently more advanced than we are will appear to be gods. But otherwise, it’s a “scientific”* or Darwinian view: The universe just happened/happens, and no single being/entity/force actively created it.
*”Scientific” because the ST universe often breaks currently known scientific laws or principles.
@@GiantFreakinRobot *shudder* a cult of Q worshippers? Sounds almost as bad as a cult of Q-Anon worshippers.
If we hadn't changed by the 24th, I'm sure there would be one. I mean, a tangible being you could actual call on a flip-phone who could make anything you want happen by waving his hand? If it happened right now, there's be tramplings and riots among people trying to get into his megachurch. Maybe this is another thing that replicators will/have changed.
Accurate and comprehensive. Well done!! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Thank you! 👍
Probably one of the reasons Star Trek Venereal Disease was so poorly received. It tried to break and rewrite both historical lore and technology in ways that didn't make sense.
Love this video! Lots to unpack but I just want to draw a point of discussion. With these 9 rules, this works well for the Star Trek with a Starship named Enterprise for television. When applied to the movies, it's not a movie but a long television episode and it feels cheated. With Deep Space 9 and Voyager (I had high hopes for Voyager), we can take these rules and bend them or ignore them and allow Star Trek to evolve. I hold DS9 to high regard because it allowed their characters to grow, change and see new perspectives. TNG, TOS never allowed their characters to grow, but to remain stagnant and beholden to the Enterprise. I won't go into specifics but no one ever leaves the Enterprise; Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Chekov and Sulu have all left the Enterprise at some point but came back. Worf, Beverly and Wesley left the Enterprise and came back. But DS9 and Voyager, you could leave and not come back. It adds to a level or realism that binds the viewer to the show and wants to see how the character move on in the absence of a friend/colleague and even remember that friend or colleague. I prefer reading the Star Trek novels than watching some of the shows if they are written well. Star Trek has made it possible for people to imagine more within the confines of a galaxy we inhabit. I am hoping that with some of these rules, they can be bent to tell a deep and profound story. Anyways, thanks again for the video!!!
Two people left TNG - Tasha Yar and Miles O'Brien. That's how Worf became the Tactical Officer and Geordi became the Engineering Officer.
not a lot of growth in the (barely) 3 seasons of TOS (though Captain's log entries sometimes claimed it), but we actually saw a fair bit of it in the 7 seasons of TNG, especially among younger characters. and the android. Worf, especially.
Even Picard had some growing to do after his experiences with the Borg.
Yar and Dr Pulaski left and didn't come back.
It's also important to remember that the Star Trek crew are just that - a crew - who are engaged in a job of work. They aren't just a bunch of mates who happen to be having an adventure together,
All this applies to "real" Trek, not the gloomy fanfic that is Abrams/Kurtzman Trek.
should have another rule, don't change cannon. great video.
Thanks!!
I'm not sure how the stuff after Enterprise works, but they very much do have currency in the Federation, its the Federation Credit. Crews of the various series used these for time in Holodecks, Travel, and other things. Post-Scarcity still requires power generation, and that is a resource that while mostly unlimited, cannot be tapped all at once. There's several instances of the credits being exchanged or traded, or even wagered among federation citizens and officials in ToS, TNG, DS9, and Enterprise.
Excellent observations! Nice video and great editing.
Star Trek into Darkness. My biggest beef. Being able to transport from Earth to Klingus (let alone something portable that could fit in the back of a SUV). Why exactly would a civilization have starships if you can beam from one planet to another many light years away? Broke that rule, "Space is big".
Yeah that’s a good example of them blowing it
In the TOS Star Trek episode "The Paradise Syndrome," where Kirk lives with the tribe like Native Americans, there is some dialog at the beginning with Spock, McCoy, and Kirk talk about an ancient master race that spread 2-armed, 2-legged species throughout the galaxy so as to prevent them from accidentally making themselves extinct. This action, done in the distant past, explains what seems to the casual Star Trek view as "unlikely coincidence," that they meet so many human-like species.
The latest group leading the creation of Trek are struggling to understand any of this.
Rule #12…
In the unfortunate event that a planetary crash landing becomes necessary, a PLANET will always be readily available. Additionally, the planet will always have a breathable atmosphere, along with Earth-magnitude gravity.
The thing about all starships being oriented the same way is somewhat believable in that it stands to reason that all ships' navigation systems would be programmed to line up parallel with the galactic plane as their default setting... Though there would of course be exceptions... Yes, space is 3D, but a galaxy is a hell of a lot bigger on its x and y axes than it is on its z axis.
no. That does not stand to reason at all.
especially not in militay scenarios.
@@jv-lk7bc Oh? Why do you say that?
I think it’s more for the common viewers, easier for them to understand.
The tech consistency and real-life plausibility is one of my favorite things about Star Trek. It's also one of my few gripes with Discovery and the magic space mushroom drive. It makes zero sense to think that a mycelial network in space would be capable of transporting things faster than light. Still, it does allow them to go on some fantastic adventures.
But the 2D space thing is kind of a pet peeve to me. It really does make little sense for ships to always be oriented the same way. Though, there is the fact that the galaxy is more or less a plane so they should all be zooming around more or less on the same plane but it's totally imaginable that they would come across ships that are inverted to their perspective all the time.
I'm with you on the 2D space being a pet peeve. It makes no sense at all, and unlike the creator of this vid, I think it makes space battles less interesting to look at.
It appears you're forgetting the Episode "Bread and Circus's" Where worshipping the Son was talked about. Uhura at the End of the Episode pointed out the They weren't talking about the Sun up in the Sky but about the son of God (Jesus). Which is exactly how it would be if life existed on other Planets. Jesus would go to each Planet. So the ! God is in fact Talked about in that Episode.
Which is why Christians who enjoy the sci-fi accept that in the fictional worlds of print and film, there are no gods. Proper application of Christian theology makes it impossible for there to be any intelligent life in the universe apart from mankind here on Earth.
1. Space is big (it takes time to get anywhere)
2. Infinite diversity in infinitely human combinations (most aliens are humanoid)
3. The Milky Way is the only way (Star Trek almost never leaves it)
4. Space is 2D (almost every ship meets on the same plane in the same direction)
5. God does not exist (only godlike beeings)
6. Humans don't tip (it's a post scarcity society because of magic tech)
7. Orders are not rules (it depends on the situation you're in)
8. No true evil (an enemy is someone who hasn't become your friend yet. Everybody can change)
9. Tech consistency (machines are usually doing what and how they are supposed to)
Good work!
Concerning Nrs 2 and 5, Star Trek had some of the strangest aliens, like floating lights and hungry clouds. Also the godlike beeings are more than we ever saw in Star Wars.
May i add that in opposition to most sci fi movies or series robots are not very common. Maybe some people in the federation have a deep mistrust against them, because of earlier incidents?
My understanding, according to rule 3, is that the Delta Quadrant in Voyager is part of the Milky Way galaxy.
yes, alpha is where earth sits, beta is being explored, delta is opposite side to beta and gamma is oposite to alpha, from what I got, the ships that have gone out of galaxy (that we know of) were a Valiant, which got destroyed, the Enterprise TOS era (to the brim) twice, the Enterprise D, (triangulum galaxy, pushed by an alien), the Discovery (species 10).
Correct.
Yes, it is. The milky way galaxy is divided into 4 quandrants: alpha, beta, gamma, delta.
Earth and most other prominent planets and locations are in the alpha quadrant, with some in the beta. Gamma and delta are both on the farther side of the galaxy. Gamma is accessible through the galaxy's only known stable wormhole, and would otherwise take several decades to reach, like delta.
It is. There has never been any ambiguity about this. Just as the Gamma, Beta, and Alpha quadrants are.
As an adjunct to Rule 4 (Space is 2D), this is why the very cinematic style of starship combat works. Star Trek is what tabletop game Squadron Strike calls "Mode 1 movement", because it only obeys one of Newton's three laws (2nd Law - acceleration depends on amount of force applied to amount of mass)...because a starship's forward motion magically redirects to wherever the nose is pointed under impulse drive, and the ship stops dead in its tracks when the drive shuts off, the other two laws are violated. This is why starships _usually_ act more like fighter planes than submarines. Shows like Babylon 5 and the Battlestar Galactica reboot are Mode 2 (also obeys Newton's 1st: motion is conserved unless acted upon by another force). To see Mode 3 in sci-fi (all of Newton's Law's respected), you'd have to go all the way back to 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010: Odyssey Two. Reality--based Apollo 13 is also a good example of Mode 3 ("gotta get the weight right, we were expecting you to be carrying moon rocks").
-Warp has ALWAYS been “whatever the plot demands that week.” It has always been wildly inconsistent
-the anthropic principle is obvious nonsense. It’s just a budget limitation.
-i always felt the “containing it to the milky way” thing was more a failure of will/imagination than anything else. However I *do* like the idea that some alien entity put a fence around it for whatever reason, and I would like to see that explored
- again, the 2-D thing is a lack of imagination. I get that in the 1960s it wasn’t possible to depict it, but that restriction was less required, yet they decided to just continue treating starships as boats.
- “we have no need of gods. we find the one is quite sufficient.” Captain Kirk
"We killed our gods. They were more trouble than they were worth." Worf.
Inconsistent with Warp is fine as long as it is always long distances.
@@GiantFreakinRobot Really, for me, it depends on how it’s used. Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s an asspull. Just by way of contrast, you’ve got Stargate, where you can instantly walk through a magic doorway and be 100,000 LY away. But there’s inherent limitations in that (Doorway could break, you could need to put something that won’t fit through it, you can get stuck, etc) so ships are the backup method of getting around, though ships are way way way slower. Basically they use ships when they need to emphasize distance, and the gate for stories where the distance aspect isn’t really relevant.
Though I think all in all my favorite is Niven’s Hyperdrive in his Known Space stories, where it’s three days to the light year, which is just fast enough to make plots happen, but just slow enough to make the complications entertaining. (Plus his starships are all glass most of the time, no opaque areas, so: Style!)
@@mahatmarandy5977 And faster forms of hyperdrive exist in Known Space, but aren't generally available, expanding the potential scope of story.
@@robertmiller9735 Yeah! Quantum 2 Hyperdrive can do a light year in 75 seconds!
In ST:TNG they actually explain how that "2d travel" was actually in three dimensions. The captain gave directions in two degree relations: the first was in relation to the XY direction of the ship, and the second was the Z axis. An example is when a captain would call out "270 mark 15." The 270 would be to turn left 90 degrees, like surface ships or airplanes do now. The "mark 15" is based on the z axis, from straight ahead and 360 degrees straight up and down. Submarines would give the direction and call out a number of degrees up/down plane.
To add to that, I also thought that the ship entering a system would orient itself to the system plane, thereby giving a reference point for which to issue those helm commands. It would also give you a baseline for all three axis. Navigating to a star system requires a three dimensional point to plot a course to.
Rule Seven Orders are suggestions
Every once in a while, The Federation brings out this Big Giant Hammer.
You visit a particular planet? Death penalty
You accidentally kill a crewman during an emergency? Out of the service.
Have they ever actually followed through on that Death Penalty threat?
@@GiantFreakinRobot It was never mentioned but the fact that it's there should be enough.
@@GiantFreakinRobot In "Discovery", the Talos star system is referred to as "restricted space". I think they realized they made a mistake in the Original Series and wanted to retcon the death penalty.
Do we really know that GO7 is real ?
I always thought that Mendez meant it in a figurative sense. Like 'treas_n'. People refer to that as a Capital Offence even now that we no longer have the DP.
It's metaphorical, like Politicians 'st@bbing each others' backs'.
The "only DP left on our books: only Fleet Command knows why" was asserted only by Mendez, and was hyperbole.
Then, of course, we don't know if the Mendez at the Starbase was even real, rather than a Tal0sian projection.
At the end, when Uhura says 'no action to be taken against Spock', that. Speech seems almost dismissive, as if it was no big deal. This suggests that even if action /were/ taken against Spock', it wouldn't be in the form of a DP.
@@GiantFreakinRobotNo. It wasn't a real threat. Even nowadays, there are Capital Offences on the books, which (a) are a bit ridiculous, and never intended to be used, (b) overriden by the abolition of the DP anyway.
In the episode "Who Mourns For Adonis" kirk doesn't say we've evolved beyond or don't need God anymore he tells Apolo that the ONE God (our creator) is enough that we worship him alone not the Greek God's. also in bread and circuses kirk,spock,and mcCoy were confused about why the "slaves" worshipped the sun up in the sky at the end of the episode uhura explains that it wasn't the sun up in the sky but that it was the Son of God
Star Trek the Next gen brought in Bloopie GoldBrick. Ended my fandom right there.
RULE #10: It's strongly suggested that Actors & Actresses stay true to profession (for the sake of their fans), and NOT abuse their fame by becoming Activists...😐
I appreciate that all space battles occur practically within spitting distance. Modern seafaring battleships don't even see each other when they are fighting.
Orders may not be rules, but mutiny should still be punished and not allow the person who commits it to become captain. This goes back to your first non-rule that Star Trek is always better when they follow the 9 rules not blatantly break them.
It is sorta punished and then forgiven.
@@GiantFreakinRobotagreed. On the plus side, Burnham gets a developmental character arc. On the downside, it undermines that there are consequences at all to breaking these rules.
I was late to watch Discovery, and I watched only the fifth season in more or less actual release time. I liked seasons 3 & 4 pretty well. I liked season 5 less. Though that might have been in part because they thought they’d have another season or two, and how that affected the whole story. I came away thinking the series was kinda meh, especially in contrast to SNW, LD, and even Prodigy.
Thanks for this great video and thanks for reminding me of Rule 8 but as for Rule 1 that rule was always played fast and lose even back in TOS, TNG and DS9 where warp was more the speed of plot as it most FTL system in most sci-fi series, at least that's my opinion, but I agree when warp speed is done with consistence it makes for a better story.
I've always wondered with no money anymore (on Earth), how does one acquire property? What happens if you say 'I want that beach side mansion' and someone else does too? You can't replicate realestate. How do they decide who lives where? I know there are family estates like Château Picard, but what about everyone else?
Property solves real problems which Trek does not deal with. There's an Idealism which disdains material expressions such as property rights. They wave away this core human issue with the fantasy of replicators whose cost to use is just wish fulfillment. At least they think that reason is preferred to physical fights, but they are always ready to go to the matt if they are hit first.
Trek has very seldom looked at the civilian experience, but it would make sense that property has very little value anymore. Land is plenty. There's a near-infinite amount of land and resources out there in the galaxy and it's fairly easy to get out there. We're constantly seeing colonists who venture out to new worlds just because they want a challenge. It even seems to be implied that they can easily choose their 'difficulty level' by deciding what tech to embrace and what tech to avoid.
Even thinking strictly of Earth, that still lifts many of the limitations that make land valuable. Sure, you want that beach side mansion and so do I, but why do you want that *specific* mansion? Teleporters make location irrelevant: Everywhere on the planet is an instant commute to everywhere else. Industrial replicators make the building itself irrelevant: Why not get another bit of very similar beach side property, and have a completely identical mansion built on that spot?
On the rare occasion where you and I still want that same piece of property, there must be some underlying reason behind that conflict which could be arbitrated. Is it a sentimental or historical claim? An arbiter could decide who has the better claim.
@@fnsmike Now I’m thinking of Steve Shive’s Star Trek Lawyer. 🤣
The two people talk to each other and figure it out? If they can both agree cooperatively which one needs it more, problem solved. Works within families and the like on a small scale all the time. Also they seem to use work products as a sort of implied social currency (not the physical products but the knowledge of who has contributed how much to society). Picard family's reputation and cultural value of tradition might make them want to avoid messing with "this is the land for the vineyard we all cherish".
The Federation owns you basically.
Giant Freakin Robot, the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars is that the former is only set a few hundred years in the future, whereas Star Wars is somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 years of technology ahead of us. Remember that in the first movie, it was mentioned that Tattooine was settled 12,000 years beforehand, and it's in the Outer Rim, and humans may have started on Coruscant near the galaxy's center.
I wanna push back on the Star Trek economy not being communism, or beyond terms of capitalism/communism. When a society has developed post-scarcity technology, but the people owning that technology decide to still create artificial scarcity, it's still capitalism. To achieve the post-scarcity society that is portrayed as the Federation, the technology enabling post-scarcity must be accessible. Therefore, it must either be personal or public property, but never private property. Since Replicators are a means of production, that is in personal or public, but never in private ownership, that is pretty much the textbook definition of communism.
Wait where did you get the idea that there is no private ownership of replicators? Of course there is. Everyone has one in their house. We’ve even seen them.
Yes, people in Star Trek own personal replicators. These are what I referred to as personal property in my original comment. There is an important difference between private and personal property, though they are mostly treated as the same in capitalist societies.
Interesting discussion, thanks. One aspect of this is that AFAIK there was never a hint that a replicator may be used to replicate a replicator. There's plenty of "hands-on engineering" in the Star Trek universe, which in fact is the core of hundreds of episode plotlines.
@@keskonriks710
@@keskonriks710 What is the difference between personal and private?
Traveling for decades at warp speed to a new galaxy sounds like the most OG exploration ever.
If it takes 60 years for Janeway to cross the 100,000 light-years Milky Way, how long to travel the three MILLION light years to Andromeda? 1800 or so?
Heres the zeroeth law: every new show will be hated by a vocal few. Then they die off, forget their hate. Or they get drowned out. TNG was hated by TOS fans. DS9 was hated because it wasnt on a ship and was serialized. Voyager was hated because it didn't have the federation as a backdrop and some "sigh" didnt like a female captain. Enterprise was hated because of its theme song ( no really..the hate was that petty) and becase it was a prequel.
Really no one remembers any of this anymore, but i keep receipts. All of these shows now have a fond place in fandom now.
So its adorable when some idiots think their hate is something unique, new, or is shared. It isnt and wont be.
Discovery was hated… because it’s terrible
I disagree ehat you hate is not tge show ir the story it is that it dares to us Star Trek in its name. Wad there myself Star Tek 2009. Discovery was a show that tried to be different. It successfully made its own niche of fans. What it also did bring fans back to a dead franchise... Besides some novels and Star Trek online their wasn't much going on. And now see all this fans coming to old trek and paying it tribute.
@@GiantFreakinRobot Its season 1 requires patience. 2-5 are okay.
Perhaps, but Discovery will always suck and be non-Star Trek. It breaks too many rules and shifts premises too many times.
this is a kernel of truth to this; however the word "hate" has lost it's meaning in today's social media driven world. For instance, I don't "hate" STD, but I stopped watching after S4E1 & I highly doubt I'll ever go back & finish the series bc I strongly disliked it. Yes, it's true that in almost everything in life, ppl don't react well to the "new" - but it's not true that "new" eventually becomes beloved.
VERY well informed Trek video. It sounds like they've read Roddenberry, in print, from their original dates of publications.Very well done. Just like the Enterprise was THE central Trek character. Star Trek has become something of a religion. Literally. Right down to having its own scriptures and CANON.
It's to bad Kurtzman didn't get a copy of these rules. 'Modern' Trek is just Science Fantasy now.
It would help!
I agree with all of these. And I like how STD breaks most of them, and you rightfully call it out for it
The 2-D-orientation of ships can be explained by a convention that the 'upper' and the 'lower' side of the galactic plane is somehow defined between the space travelling races, like we nowadays use the north pole as the upper side of maps.
Yeah, for sure not all stars are in an one-layer-disk arround the galactic centre, so there have to be many travels between two systems that are going 'up' or 'down' to a certain degree, but overall the orientation could stay the same, as if we drive up or down a hill. And when another ship comes directly from the destinated planet, two ships will face each other in the same orientated way, like two cars driving towards each other always have the wheels on the road, regardless if the street is in the mountains or in a plain.
But even just in a small volume of space they really should have more up and down. The Expanse nailed this.
unless said cars are in an accident lol.
I guess that is more to convey the attitudes and intentions of the ships, remember hearing that the Bird of Prey was designed to look like a vile bully by being so bullbous and squat, the D'deriex warbird is designed to look altive and disdainful to other ships, and the Enterprise to be a sail ship, tall and elegant.
if you made the 'prise meet a warbird belly up it would make you think the thug was drunk, and thus less of a threat.
That last one about consistency is 'more honoured in the breach than the observance.' So many writers created things that were magical and wonderful and.... forgotten about the next episode. Any claim to 'consistency' is a pipe dream and doesn't line up with what they've given us over the decades.
You are wrong about “God does not exist.” I suggest the final scene of “Bread and Circuses.” Listen to Uhura and Kirk. Star Trek TOS did not hate God. That came later.
This is what the franchise is now, not where it started
@@GiantFreakinRobot That’s a point. I enjoyed TOS when it was new. I’m very sad that J.J. Abrams has ruined Star Trek AND Star Wars. All mainstream shows today are forced into the same political mould.
@@GiantFreakinRobot Arguably could be a social desert of knowledge among the writers, not necessarily defining it in-world. Depends on if we let the current in-world reality be defined by the limited knowledge (on the topic) of the writers of those episodes versus likely consistency with the original and what's really plausible as knowledge becomes more widespread, as it's now well-understood in real life why general theism is proven among the well-informed. Most episodes I can recall those throwaway atheistic statements didn't have much effect on the plot. Would be consistent with an underlying general theism and would fit well with Kirk's statement (almost deism).
Also Pike in SNW seems to be very open to specifically Christianity or at least knows how to represent it, and says his family was that. It seems like that's more of a rarity in his time, and generally seems absent from plots taking place later, so I think they are indeed saying that statements like Uhura's did represent Christianity specifically still being present enough to notice in their time. Basically, a general belief that the ultimate God exists doesn't mean that everybody would go to a church equivalent on Sundays, and we see no hint of the latter in the later series other than Pike's statements (which are set around the same era as TOS, so seems to be an intentional choice for the current in-world portrayal).
Thank you. Really good explanation ❤
I've said it before that Star Trek's universe should be atheistic because otherwise hell is full of the souls of anyone who uses the transporters.
If you’re religious you’d believe that there is only one soul and it transfers to the new body the transporter creates
Oh, and he forgot the rule that hot chicks had to wear catsuits, namely Troi, Seven and T'Pol. I guess that's more a trope, but still...
@@GiantFreakinRobot Huh. I never considered that possibility. I always assumed either the soul dies on the first transporter use or the transporters constantly creates and destroys new souls.
@@chrisdaily2077 If a machine can create souls isn't it a god?? Nah, I think if you're going to believe in souls then either the soul is transferred to the new body that the transporter makes, or everyone is a soul-less copy after the first time they transport.
@@jayb8934 I mean the transporter can already make doubles and reverse the aging process. Souls may seem an impossibility but I wouldn't discount the idea completely.
Excellent summary.
First video here, but with that title, how could I resist?!?!
You should make a video comparing Warp Drives, Worm Hole Generators and Hyperdrives, plus any other types faster than light travel you can think of.
This is a great video and list!
Thanks!
You NEED a narrator.
Picard Borgs has nothing to do with the usual Borgs. Best to just treat Picard as non canon as well as Discovery and Enterprise. I see why you did not use much Voyager since Janeway probably broke all rules, orders and whatever else they had. Loved Voyager since it had so much Borgs and they saw so many new species.
YEEEEEEEEEEES!! Like this video, people. Please! Everyone writing Star Trek neeeeeeeds to watch this.
Are the Strange New Worlds writers on Twitter?
@@GiantFreakinRobot Twitter? Are you speaking from a parallel universe?
There is one more, much more fundamental. No matter how defunct a ship is - gravity is always on.
I think one of many reasons a show like _Rings of Power_ fails, while Peter Jackson’s _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy succeeds, is that they basically ignore the concept of geography and travel time. in _LOTR,_ it takes the characters three movies to get from the Shire to Mt. Doom… but in _ROP,_ the characters will seemingly just teleport from one city from another in between scenes, even though the journey would logically take them days or weeks on foot or horseback 🤷🏻♂️
Or like Game of Thrones. First season, it took weeks or months to travel from Kings Landing to Winterfell. By season Eight it was treated like it was just days away by land...an hour or so by dragon.
@@johnniewoodard648 - yep… I actually think _GOT_ was a bit slow for most of it’s run, but by the end it was way too fast.
Like all artistic endeavors, bending and breaking the rules in Science Fiction can either be the path to trash or the path to treasure. Strange New Worlds episode, "Under the Cloak of War" had a former enemy looking for redemption, but the Starfleet Officer was the one that couldn't forgive. It was a powerful story.
Good video; interesting observations. One thing though, the video is contradictory regarding the God rule. It states God does not exist but gods do. Then at the end of the segment, the presenter states that "God definitely exists but no one is encouraged to worship Him." So as rules of that universe, both God AND gods exist. Acknowledgment of this is overtly stated by several characters in the original series including Kirk and Uhura. Kirk when he challenges Apollo's godhood by stating "We find the One quite sufficient" and Uhura when she explains in Bread and Circuses that the aliens aren't sun worshippers, they are Son (Christ) worshippers referring to the Son of God.
Late to the party but wanted to comment regardless. The deal with ships tending to work in 2D and facing one another was addressed in a comic strip that irked me. (Forget which one but it had a duck character and a kid I think named Sheldon.) Anyway, here's my reasoning why ships always face each other when approaching.
Ships always face each other when approaching because (A) that is the narrowest profile of the ships and (B) where the most guns are facing. If you encounter an alien vessel, either what you don't know much about OR one you DO KNOW a lot about and is hostile, you will want to present as little as possible of your ship to your potential adversary while presenting as many weapons as possible, hence forward facing. Earth ships typically have a huge saucer on them what would be easy to punch through from the top or bottom. Exposing your top or bottom also limits your weapons to only phaser banks on that side and photon torpedo tubes are not facing up or down. Also, exposing your flank (side) to an adversary exposes engineering and again exposes more ship surface than facing the adversarial ship. So that's why ships always face each other.
Excellent video.
Very good points, thank you.
Other than forcing me to watch the big bang theory, great vid. Thanks
Next time I’ll use a Community clip instead
Rule 10: Have an adventure/fun with it.
God, I just love this universe. No matter hoe silly or sometimes even gory things get (sorry, Icheb), just these types of Starships swooping by always gets me. As sulu put it, I revel any chance to get aboard.
There actually were rules in TOS. DC Fontana talked about them in an interview. One of them was that the episode had to mean something. It needed to have thematic merit.
Yes those were in the original show bible but the franchise has changed over time