Oh, if only the forums ToS was a bit more lenient...
You forgot to add a link to the peer reviewed paper you're citing, by the way. No self-respecting truth seeker would simply quote WUWT or Lord Monckton at me.
A bit more lenient for what purpose? I assumed, since you replied to my post so readily, that you surely wished to have a meaningful discussion, and you were not just trolling. As far as calling me names, you only prove my initial point over and over and over again. The best name caller does not make the brightest mind.
Actually these papers are on personal file, so I did the work for you, so you could see it nice and pretty online. As far as me being a truth seeker, well, I would not accuse you of such.
I want to note, for those that do not wish to read this, that it is done by a proponent of man made global warming, who fears that the decrease in scientists that actually believe in man made global warming is becoming a problem. Supporters have actually decreased from 75% to 45% within the study, while complete deniers of the event occurring (something I am not), has risen. The debate is still on, and the science is not through. The talking heads on television will tell you different, depending on which side of the stick they are on.
For the record, this is not a debate over man made global climate change, I am simply showing you that you were wrong when you implied that there was a consensus of scientists on the issue. Before you troll a post, you should know who you are trolling. Sometimes people actually do know what they are talking about.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________ You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else. -Einstein
The constant negativity I always see on these kinds of threads is kind of dangerous. United Earth and world peace are absolutely possible. But it's never going to happen if we all convince ourselves that it's not. Really, the only obstacles to us doing it are the limitations we place on our collective imagination.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
The constant negativity I always see on these kinds of threads is kind of dangerous. United Earth and world peace are absolutely possible. But it's never going to happen if we all convince ourselves that it's not. Really, the only obstacles to us doing it are the limitations we place on our collective imagination.
Anything is possible, but there is a difference to imagination and reality. World Peace? Certainly possible, but realistically? Not for a long time, and probably not in our lifetimes. Unless aliens land on the planet. Friendly aliens. I'd imagine that humans would want to stop squabbling and fighting each other when we can start squabbling and fighting aliens...or at least unite so we don't look like a bunch of idiots to them.
(If aliens exist and are aware of earth they probably stay away because we squabble too much.)
A society where everyone can do whatever they want because everything is basically free by magic technology? Even it its possible to create that kind of technology our grandchildren will be dust before it happens, most likely, and it almost certainly won't be like Star Trek's earth. For one reason, if you give people everything they can not only need but everything they want for free no one is going to work. Well, maybe the people making and maintaining the replicator/holodecks will be working, but they ain't gonna do it for free.
...and thats if its even possible to make a replicator like on Star Trek....and that it runs on some kind of super battery because the energy has to come from somewhere....and unless you kill every cow, fish and chicken on the planet humans aren't going to be all vegetarians.
Its not negativity ,its realism. A futuristic mankind in space is again, more likely to be like Babylon Five or Firefly than Star Trek.
well with 3d prototyping we are not far from replicators
Nanotech is already well on the way
We already have a lot of the medical tech Bones uses.
and the Phaser is not out of the bounds of science
so far no possibility of transporters , warp drive or any of the other "CORE" systems (warp drive is probably impossible as it requires the laws of physics to be wrong)
Ah we have to have a couple of WARS first
the Eugenics war and the Third World war
But even in trek 90% of humanity hates each other
superior tech , resources and of course our great wisdom
actual aliens are more statistically likely to be EXTREMELY primative compared with us than highly advanced
And I can promise you that Aliens out there will NOT look anything like humans our format is mathmatically improbable even for here
incidentally there are at least 12 species on EARTH that classify as intelligent and that we could work with to get into space (most of them aquatic)
Give it three Generations
About your third point.
SADDLY history has proven time and time again when a culture meets another culture less advanced the advanced culture destroys the less advanced one.
If we ever get to the space travel part of Star Trek, We would need a Prime Directive ASAP or we will end up being something like rome was.
For one reason, if you give people everything they can not only need but everything they want for free no one is going to work.
If they have jobs they like, they will.
Name something you enjoy doing. Chances are there's a workplace equivalent (or close) somewhere. So you can enjoy your job, not have to worry about supporting yourself, and be satisfied that you're doing your part in keeping humanity alive and peaceful.
And "everything they want for free" isn't at all what I said. Resources should be distributed as needed. This would teach people to be grateful for what they have, and to understand why they shouldn't be greedy.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
The constant negativity I always see on these kinds of threads is kind of dangerous. United Earth and world peace are absolutely possible. But it's never going to happen if we all convince ourselves that it's not. Really, the only obstacles to us doing it are the limitations we place on our collective imagination.
I have a cartoon framed over my desk that graphically illustrates that all things are possible except skiing through a revolving door. During downtime throughout my workday (like now) I often stare at that cartoon and try to imagine ways in which it would be possible to ski through a revolving door. If the door is large enough to accomadate the skis, and if it is rotating at such a speed that doors are moving at the same rate as the skiier, (perhaps directed by radar) then a skiier should pass through without difficulty.
This is a helpful reminder to me to look for creative solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems. It nicely balances the test engineer's ethos "Some Damn Thing Always Goes Wrong."
As I consider Star Trek and how it relates to the future of humanity, I ultimately see only possibilities. Yes, things will go wrong; as I stated before, another world war is all but inevitable. However these setbacks are merely challenging problems requiring creative solutions to overcome. As humans have proved over and over again, we thrive on challenge. The Chinese character for "Disaster" is also used for "Opportunity." During the Cold War - a forty-year period where humanity was on the verge of self-anihilation - we saw unprecedented advances in technology, an increase in average education level, and improvement in the average human lifespan.
I think humans have an innate understanding that the only way to improve themselves personally and collectively as a species is by facing and overcoming challenges. That gives me hope that as we move toward 2409, the world of Star Trek will become our reality.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Actually it would have to be unfriendly Aliens landing on the planet and making humans behave responsibly.
Remember, humans are primates and are inherently selfish. Even those that are selfless get off on the praise they receive.
I personally believe that primates are like a planetary venereal disease that happens after a cataclysm removes the rightful owners and that's why most aliens avoid Earth.
To make Star Trek we need new and improved people :P
And "everything they want for free" isn't at all what I said. Resources should be distributed as needed. This would teach people to be grateful for what they have, and to understand why they shouldn't be greedy.
So people wouldn't get some of the things they want, at all?
I think I enjoy Capitalism over your idea of Utopia. At the least, right now I know I can get things I want by earning lots of money.
A lot of people like to sit around and watch TV and/or get drunk while doing it. They probably like that more than anything useful to society. A lot of people just plain hate their jobs even when its something they like doing. As I said before I like(d) being in the Army. (retiring....as a matter of fact my final pre-clear to retirement is this week)...but I would never do it for free....and guess what...I'm not a jump out of planes and shoot everything soldier, I'm a military graphic designer. I won't do it for free, especially with 23 years of active service experience.
Name something you enjoy doing. Chances are there's a workplace equivalent (or close) somewhere. So you can enjoy your job, not have to worry about supporting yourself, and be satisfied that you're doing your part in keeping humanity alive and peaceful.
I like to draw. Thats fine. But the art supplies don't come from nowhere. Someone has to gather the resources, manufacture and distribute the goods. They ain't gonna do it for free. Especially if they can get what they need for free to live and be happy. Even if you say "they can replicate art supplies" someone has to design,build and distribute the replicators. Someone has to maintain them. ...and thats without going into the entire where does the energy and matter come from. No one is going to do all that for free and frankly I'd be horiffied to see a planet full of replicators and holodecks. Human nature isn't going to change because of Gene Roddenberry's imagination or the hopes of fans of the show. If it were that simple we'd have world peace right now. We'd still have money though because of human nature.
There is nothing wrong about wanting to be paid for your work. No one wrote, directed or starred in Star Trek for no pay either.
And "everything they want for free" isn't at all what I said. Resources should be distributed as needed. This would teach people to be grateful for what they have, and to understand why they shouldn't be greedy.
You may not have said it, but the premise that no one needs money is ridiculous. Its one of my biggest pet peeves personally with Trek. Because if no one needs money who the heck is going to work? The guy who has to fix those waste extraction systems must be a saint if he's doing it for no pay. It'd be more like "Why should I do this dumb job when I get a decent place to live, free food and drink and I can can have my fantasies made real in a holodeck?". My mother and my older sister and my cousin were teachers. They love children. But I know for a fact they wouldn't do it for nothing. Especially if mom could just get food from a replicator and take vacations in the holodeck.
Human society would grind to a halt.
And who gets to choose how the resources are allocated? You don't get something for nothing, especially when most of the population would rather do nothing useful....and they won't. Why should they unless they're getting paid somehow to do it? The miners in the TOS episode "Mudd's Women" weren't living in a craphole mining dilithium because they loved living in a craphole and digging dilithium. Did the waiters at Sisko's like waiting tables so much they decided to do it for free? Do the poor shmucks who make a living doing yardwork do it because they love working in the dirt everyday, etc?
People shouldn't be greedy, you're right. But they are....and realistically thats not going to change just because "Gene said so" and everyone wants to live in paradise. In reality the "no money, we can replicate stuff from magic and we have holodecks" society would be worse than what we have now.
The primary tenet of a moneyless economy will be no more hording, no more 1000 acre estates with a mansion with 500 hundred rooms and a hundred servants for a family of 3, if you have a large family then you get a large house, if you're single you get a nice apartment. There would be no stock market, no more manipulating the value of resources to artificially inflate their value. You get what you need but you're expected to use what you take, if you are researching something you get all of the resources you require so long as you can prove the need for them, if you want to be an artist all of the supplies are made available to you, a writer, a philosopher, a chef, a vintner, a fashion designer all the same, all constantly pier reviewed so that resources or talents aren't being wasted. All of the loathsome tasks and accumulation of resources will be handled using automation, nanotechnology or replication and a massive amount of recycling so waste is kept to a minimum.
One big part of the system is that you barter the products of your efforts in exchange for things you desire, everyone will want to do something if they want a bit of extra luxury but their basic needs will always be taken care of, there will be no more poor, no more starving, no more uneducated, no more homeless but there also will be no more disgustingly rich. It will be a world where everyone can indulge their hobbies or expand their knowledge and experience. There will always be people who like to cook, like to bake, like to tinker, like to fix things, like to build things, like to grow things, but they will be able to do they want without having to worry about basic survival needs.
Everyone has something that they want to do, but they will no longer have to do things just to survive.
But if all you want to do a sit around and get drunk then there is something wrong with you and you will be directed to appropriate help.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
I think what you're failing to grasp is that Star Trek is a post-scarcity economy. Replicators, fusion power, and solar power mean that resources are never going to be an issue again - you can replicate anything you might want. A collector might find value in having the original from which the pattern was made (cf TNG episode "The Most Toys"), but that value would no longer be intrinsic. Cheap, easy space and star travel mean that population pressure is no longer an issue - Earth too crowded? Move to Deneva! You want to live in a mansion on a thousand-acre estate? Well, if you like deserts, Mars is being terraformed; if you prefer forests, there's bound to be someplace you can build the spread you want.
Now, once you get out toward the frontier, the power to run the replicators might not be quite so limitless - you might even get an economy going in the trade of replicator usage units, similar to what happened on Voyager. There was mention of sales of items for credits in "The Trouble With Tribbles", indicating that the Federation wasn't so strictly no-cash as Roddenberry would have wanted you to believe - those may have been "replicator credits", authorization to require the replicators at K-7 to make a given mass of whatever you might like. (Thus Cyrano Jones' hunger for them - he'd need replicator credits to get replacement parts for his trading ship's systems. To some people, trading is a game; Jones likes to up the stakes, makes him feel more alive...)
Doubtless on the worlds deep inside the Federation, there's a substantial society of "lotus eaters", people who just take their replicated goods and sit around. However, not everyone is content to do so - my father didn't work until he got too sick to continue because he had to, but because if he stopped he wouldn't have known what to do with himself. He couldn't even fill out a lazy Saturday unless he had at least three projects going on... And for those who can be that lazy, so? They're not a drag on the economy - they may in fact be doing their part to keep it going, by absorbing some of the excess being produced.
The primary tenet of a moneyless economy will be no more hording, no more 1000 acre estates with a mansion with 500 hundred rooms and a hundred servants for a family of 3, if you have a large family then you get a large house, if you're single you get a nice apartment. There would be no stock market, no more manipulating the value of resources to artificially inflate their value. You get what you need but you're expected to use what you take, if you are researching something you get all of the resources you require so long as you can prove the need for them, if you want to be an artist all of the supplies are made available to you, a writer, a philosopher, a chef, a vintner, a fashion designer all the same, all constantly pier reviewed so that resources or talents aren't being wasted. All of the loathsome tasks and accumulation of resources will be handled using automation, nanotechnology or replication and a massive amount of recycling so waste is kept to a minimum.
One big part of the system is that you barter the products of your efforts in exchange for things you desire, everyone will want to do something if they want a bit of extra luxury but their basic needs will always be taken care of, there will be no more poor, no more starving, no more uneducated, no more homeless but there also will be no moredisgustingly rich. It will be a world where everyone can indulge their hobbies or expand their knowledge and experience. There will always be people who like to cook, like to bake, like to tinker, like to fix things, like to build things, like to grow things, but they will be able to do they want without having to worry about basic survival needs.
Everyone has something that they want to do, but they will no longer have to do things just to survive.
All well and good, but that doesn't make it possible, or likely. The question wasn't how do things work in Star Trek Earth, but is it possible. To do even a few of those things would require a lot of time, effort and energy. The first person to create a replicator that can make a turkey sandwich from thin air will be rich as all get out and I don't think he or she will sell them for free. There are people that work tirelessly to cure diseases because they genuinely care about making people well, but they don't do it for free and research money doesn't grow on trees.
...and who figures out how those resources are doled out? The Overlords? Because someone isn't going to like being told they can't have a mansion or a fancy this or that because not everyone can. I got a special deal to buy my car and my wife's car at the manufacturer's cost because of military service. I hate to tell you I'd be pissed if Random Guy on the street got the same deal because it would be "fair". I worked for my discount, I got shot at for my discount and honestly I don't think I get paid enough. I don't begrudge a cop a free meal at a restaurant because I had to pay. He earned his free meal due to his job.
That doesn't make me or anyone else greedy or misers or whatever. Theres nothing wrong with wanting to be paid for your work.
If Joe Blow works hard at his job as a brain surgeon (and heck, he'd better be good as a brain surgeon) he's not going to be happy seeing Slim Shadey gey get everything he has for painting pictures of ducks....that might not even be good pictures. Its a sad part of life, but not everyone can or will be a winner. No one goes through school to learn brain surgery so they can get the same things Mister Duck Painter has. Perhaps they do in Star Trek, but Trek makes people out to be completely perfect and people aren't and probably never will be, that perfect. Not to mention, the premise rquires technology that doesn't exist.
But if all you want to do a sit around and get drunk then there is something wrong with you and you will be directed to appropriate help.
First, if thats what someone wants to do in a society where there are no homeless, no hunger and all that as you said, who makes the decision to to forcibly tell someone they need help? If Joe blow doesn't have to work and doesn't like to do any of the things that you think he or she should be doing they get sent to "Big Brother" for reeducation? Some utopia. What if someone likes to paint ducks while sitting on their behind getting drunk because it makes them happy? They have to get reeducated? Because they would have no need to NOT sit on their behind and get drunk and paint ducks. They get the same stuff that the Brain Surgeon gets.
ever heard of PARECON?
this concept was inpired by star trek and many of the loose ends you mentioned are dealt with, but others remain.
Its a concept that I don't believe would work world wide, people being people. Again, it can work in Trek world, but thats not reality. In the real world? I don't see it happening. I don't even think the majority of people would even desire it. You would have to fundamentally change human nature to do it. If anything, humans have probably changed for the worse.
Its a concept that I don't believe would work world wide, people being people. Again, it can work in Trek world, but thats not reality. In the real world? I don't see it happening. I don't even think the majority of people would even desire it. You would have to fundamentally change human nature to do it. If anything, humans have probably changed for the worse.
worldwide is questionable, i agree. as a matter of fact a similar system exists in israel and other parts of the world. they are called kibbutz
i say similar, because it has compareable idiologys and ideas, but the practical application is ofcourse not 100% like parecon or communism/socialism. Those achieve actually respectable economic value within the economy of israel.
Anyway it is a good example that illustrates that it is doable, atleast on a small scale. But as it is explained in the article, this system works and only will work on the voluntary nature of it's participants.
also the nature of man itself is not a selfish one as we see it or think it is. People lived in tribal communities for many hundred thausand years, and those tribal systems are more oriented towards the community as a whole than the individual. you could say, individualism is an idea that took shape maybe less than 7 thausand years ago...a fraction of the time man exists. The idea of property itself is even younger.
i actually doubt that our society can be called more advanced than a society that exists since the beginning of human life. Both have advantages and disadvantages, it is on us and future generations to analyse our and different societys and take the best out of all of them.
United Earth: This is the big point to me. Not so much the united governments, but more humanity as a species, at this point in time, I do honestly wonder if humanity could truly put aside all differences and such, and unite for all time like that.
Just addressing this one alone, it's interesting to remember that TNG always showed this utopian society, but remember that the Enterprise was often on the far reaches and away from 'real' earth. They perhaps idealised Earth a bit. I always felt DS9 did a better job of portraying Earth.
Kirk said once "Scotty you've just earned your week's pay"....in the episode with the planet killer, IIRC.
The no money thing was a bad idea thrown inreportedly by Gene (I have read that somewhere before but if I'm wrong feel free to correct me) with obviously little thought on it except to make it look like humanity was oh so pure in the 24th century. It is canon, however, except when its not, as your link shows.
maybe if there is another Trek show in the future they'll drop it so I can stop throwing things at my TV.
Because I don't see it happening in real life, at least not in this millenium. I can see some kind of super space travel in a few hundred years, I can even buy a world united in a few hundred years. A world with no money and free stuff for all? Nope. Not unless its the world of really fat dudes that don't do anything but eat, sleep and fornicate. Thats assuming we don't nuke ourselves out of existence.
Just addressing this one alone, it's interesting to remember that TNG always showed this utopian society, but remember that the Enterprise was often on the far reaches and away from 'real' earth. They perhaps idealised Earth a bit. I always felt DS9 did a better job of portraying Earth.
Utopian? With the corrupt admirals Starfleet seems to produce it reminds me of a line by a character in the late, great Jack Kirby's original Eternals comics. "Paradise is just another place."
Quantum Teleportation is slowly opening the door for replication and well as transportation. Maybe not quite people, but stuff.
warp drive or any of the other "CORE" systems (warp drive is probably impossible as it requires the laws of physics to be wrong)
Humanity keeps trying to break down the ability to travel long distances. I think that's one area where the laws of physics may get rewritten eventually.
I would really like to see us get to the point of Warp Drive, or at least a mode of transportation that propels a ship at great speeds without the use of fossil fuels.
This may be impossible, but then again, some of the smartest people just 100 years ago thought it was impossible for man to fly... and then a pair of bicycle mechanics launched the age of flight and a race to the moon.
Utopian? With the corrupt admirals Starfleet seems to produce it reminds me of a line by a character in the late, great Jack Kirby's original Eternals comics. "Paradise is just another place."
Then there's the fact that starfleet seems to be everywhere policing everyone. A society with no money is ore some money or whatever... Its almost like Gene Roddeny got an american company to make a communist tv show in space.
Ancient Rome was a society with massive unemployment due to all the slavery and the state provided free bread and circuses.
A TIME TO SEARCH: ENTER MY FOUNDRY MISSION at the RISA SYSTEM Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
I've kind of reconsidered the "no money" concept. I still think it could work, but humanity won't be ready to do it right for a long time. Too obsessed with "rewards" and "instant gratification" all that stuff.
For the time being, I think the best thing to do is make ethics and morals a stronger point in the education system. Instead of teaching students how to suck as much money as possible from everyone else, we should be teaching them right and wrong, and why it makes more sense to do the right thing. If enough people start thinking like that, a peaceful United Earth has a much greater chance of happening.
I'm still confident that we'll find our way eventually. There's only so many times you can make a mistake before learning from it, and as long as some insane dictator doesn't nuke everybody I think we'll get thing right in the end.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
Then there's the fact that starfleet seems to be everywhere policing everyone. A society with no money is ore some money or whateve... Its like Gene Roddeny got an american company to make a communist tv show in space.
Well, in TNG and after the command officers wore red....
I think the problem is that a lot of things just weren't thought out too well, or thrown in just to make it look like humanity had become Utopian. The no money thing is a pet peeve of mine, but I have smaller ones....nost of them because they seem like they were just thrown out in a pandering kinda fashion, and don't in anyway matter to the plots.(YMMV, but trust me, I sincerely feel this way about the following. You may not want to read it if you're a die hard purist.)
Like "Humans no longer eat meat"....except when they do. O' Brien even talked about how his mother used to make lamb shanks or mutton or whatever. So I suppose there are entire continents on Earth filled with cows, sheep, chickens, etc since no one is eating them. Now I don't actually care if thats the way they want it, it just felt awkward when Riker said that in an early TNG episode and I knew it'd be contradicted sooner or later. I don't have anything against vegetarians I just find it difficult to believe the entirity of mankind decided "meat bad!".
Or the "Starfleet isn't military" thing. Except that they are. But not when they say they aren't. Phil Farrand had a page in one of his nitpicker's guides specifically nailing the contradictions in this. Of course this was said just to show how humans are no longer warlike conquerors. All fine and dandy, except military doesn't automatically equal bad evil guys that want to take your stuff and kill you. 23 years of active duty I can tell you we're the last guys to like going to war. I've never been on a deployment I wanted to go on and its pants crappingly scary to be shot at. I wish I still had those books...they were blown away with my entire house in a tornado.
It also makes the Federation look a bit niave. Several clearly hostile empires around you and you don't have a military? (except when you do, which is when they stop saying they aren't, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you know the rest....)
I'm not even going to get started on the families on Starships thing. Sure it was merely a device for a few plots (Yay...Captain Picard Day! Admittedly I liked that episode) but it convinced me that Starfleet had officially lost its mind. I hope all those relatives of the people lost at Wolf 359 got some kind of compensation. Well, more holodeck time since no one has any money. :rolleyes:
As for the threads original topic: I don't think any of what I said just now is possible either.
For the time being, I think the best thing to do is make ethics and morals a stronger point in the education system. Instead of teaching students how to suck as much money as possible from everyone else, we should be teaching them right and wrong, and why it makes more sense to do the right thing. If enough people start thinking like that, a peaceful United Earth has a much greater chance of happening.
I'm still confident that we'll find our way eventually. There's only so many times you can make a mistake before learning from it, and as long as some insane dictator doesn't nuke everybody I think we'll get thing right in the end.
I'd agree with that especially the teaching kids right and wrong stuff. I don't think people even bother to monitor their kids anymore. Every time I watch the local news I end up screaming "Where the heck were your parents?". Heck, kids today are why I paid for alarm systems, motion sensors all through my yard and weapons in the house. I'm gettin' too old to fight someone 30 years younger, but if ya break in here you'd better bring an ambulance.
Kids scare me. (I'm almost fifty...anyone under 25 is a kid to me)
I'd agree with that especially the teaching kids right and wrong stuff. I don't think people even bother to monitor their kids anymore. Every time I watch the local news I end up screaming "Where the heck were your parents?". Heck, kids today are why I paid for alarm systems, motion sensors all through my yard and weapons in the house. I'm gettin' too old to fight someone 30 years younger, but if ya break in here you'd better bring an ambulance.
Kids scare me. (I'm almost fifty...anyone under 25 is a kid to me)
Do you honestly think things were any differnent fifty years ago? With motorcycle gangs, hippies and war protestors?
How about a hundered and fifty years ago? Ever see Gangs of New York?
Every generation assumes their children's generation is the downfall of society. Except it never is. Every generation produces its share of obnoxious and/or violent idiots. These people wind up on TV a lot and everyone else supposes that society must be doomed, because of "kids today." But at least 90% of kids today are in school, studying hard, mostly obeying their parents and will turn out alright.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Do you honestly think things were any differnent fifty years ago? With motorcycle gangs, hippies and war protestors?
How about a hundered and fifty years ago?
Huh? Dude I'm not 175 years old. Do you think I'm a Time Lord or something?
Ever see Gangs of New York?
Nope. Can't stand Leonardo Dicaprio.
Every generation assumes their children's generation is the downfall of society. Except it never is. Every generation produces its share of obnoxious and/or violent idiots. These people wind up on TV a lot and everyone else supposes that society must be doomed, because of "kids today." But at least 90% of kids today are in school, studying hard, mostly obeying their parents and will turn out alright.
Show me where I said anything about the fall of society and how "when I was a kid we were angels". Because I didn't. I did say "kids today" so maybe I should have just said "some kids". But its not like I said "In my day we left our doors unlocked and kids helped old ladies cross the street". We didn't.
I'm not naive, whats different is that I am not 30 years old, and I said I'm too old to have to wrestle with someone 30 years or younger than I am. Nowhere in that post did I say the downfall of society. And I've had my house broken into before....thankfully no one was home. It won't happen again. Paranoid? Well, yes, yes I am. After some jack *** firing bullets at one house next door because his girlfriend had an issue with the guy living there with his THREE YEAR OLD DAUGHTER. (Thankfully no one was hurt) You'll have to excuse me if I turn on local news and hear about kids shooting a family to death in a convenience store near here, or TRIBBLE a female less than 5 miles from my home and feel a little concerned about my home family and safety. I didn't know that trying to safeguard my home and family would be so offensive.
Frankly I don't care if there were gangs roaming the countryside 150 years ago. But I do know that there are people around now that don't have a problem breaking into house, or even shooting someone over the stupidest things. They had to change the 24 hour walmart near the post to closing at 10 open at 9 because too many teenagers...not soldiers, not crazed drug addicts....were going in there at night and wrecking the place and yes, shooting each other in the parking lot. The parlking lot became a sort of hang out spot after the clubs closed or something. It was a zoo. The mall began kicking anyone under 18 out unless they had a parent with them this past fall for similar problems. So yeah, sorry if my wife and I looked at each other and said "Whats wrong with these kids, and where are their parents?".
Maybe I'm just officially old now and I'm exercising my right to be cranky and paranoid. (Though as stated, I'm not 175, so whatever happened 150 years ago doesn't fit into my home defense plans. Though I would build a moat if I could.)
Fifty years ago was a different world, kids that acted up would get the wailing of their lives, A high proportion of parents were WW2 and Korean war vets who weren't gonna put up with any BS in the streets, it was nothing like today where a parent can't even discipline their kids for fear of being brought up on charges. Sure you heard about problems now and then but nothing like today, I'm 53 and a punk going into a primary school and gunning down a bunch of kids would have been unheard of when I was a kid.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
Fifty years ago was a different world, kids that acted up would get the wailing of their lives, A high proportion of parents were WW2 and Korean war vets who weren't gonna put up with any BS in the streets, it was nothing like today where a parent can't even discipline their kids for fear of being brought up on charges. Sure you heard about problems now and then but nothing like today, I'm 53 and a punk going into a primary school and gunning down a bunch of kids would have been unheard of when I was a kid.
Now see, I was thinking that when I replied to the post, but thought better of it. I didn't want to derail the thread into a "Thse daggone modern kids! Grrr! Grrr!" thing. Even though I can tell you when I was a kid they were allowed to spank you in school. (Forget that time out TRIBBLE).
Heck, kids may be worse now than back then. So if Star Trek does become possible in the future Kirk will have 50 illegitimate kids and Worf will be a Gangsta Rapper. Picard might be a Pimp. Who knows?
Comments
A bit more lenient for what purpose? I assumed, since you replied to my post so readily, that you surely wished to have a meaningful discussion, and you were not just trolling. As far as calling me names, you only prove my initial point over and over and over again. The best name caller does not make the brightest mind.
Actually these papers are on personal file, so I did the work for you, so you could see it nice and pretty online. As far as me being a truth seeker, well, I would not accuse you of such.
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
I want to note, for those that do not wish to read this, that it is done by a proponent of man made global warming, who fears that the decrease in scientists that actually believe in man made global warming is becoming a problem. Supporters have actually decreased from 75% to 45% within the study, while complete deniers of the event occurring (something I am not), has risen. The debate is still on, and the science is not through. The talking heads on television will tell you different, depending on which side of the stick they are on.
For the record, this is not a debate over man made global climate change, I am simply showing you that you were wrong when you implied that there was a consensus of scientists on the issue. Before you troll a post, you should know who you are trolling. Sometimes people actually do know what they are talking about.
You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else. -Einstein
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Anything is possible, but there is a difference to imagination and reality. World Peace? Certainly possible, but realistically? Not for a long time, and probably not in our lifetimes. Unless aliens land on the planet. Friendly aliens. I'd imagine that humans would want to stop squabbling and fighting each other when we can start squabbling and fighting aliens...or at least unite so we don't look like a bunch of idiots to them.
(If aliens exist and are aware of earth they probably stay away because we squabble too much.)
A society where everyone can do whatever they want because everything is basically free by magic technology? Even it its possible to create that kind of technology our grandchildren will be dust before it happens, most likely, and it almost certainly won't be like Star Trek's earth. For one reason, if you give people everything they can not only need but everything they want for free no one is going to work. Well, maybe the people making and maintaining the replicator/holodecks will be working, but they ain't gonna do it for free.
...and thats if its even possible to make a replicator like on Star Trek....and that it runs on some kind of super battery because the energy has to come from somewhere....and unless you kill every cow, fish and chicken on the planet humans aren't going to be all vegetarians.
Its not negativity ,its realism. A futuristic mankind in space is again, more likely to be like Babylon Five or Firefly than Star Trek.
SADDLY history has proven time and time again when a culture meets another culture less advanced the advanced culture destroys the less advanced one.
If we ever get to the space travel part of Star Trek, We would need a Prime Directive ASAP or we will end up being something like rome was.
but we are growing up
maybe given a few generations we won't be so angry
If they have jobs they like, they will.
Name something you enjoy doing. Chances are there's a workplace equivalent (or close) somewhere. So you can enjoy your job, not have to worry about supporting yourself, and be satisfied that you're doing your part in keeping humanity alive and peaceful.
And "everything they want for free" isn't at all what I said. Resources should be distributed as needed. This would teach people to be grateful for what they have, and to understand why they shouldn't be greedy.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
I have a cartoon framed over my desk that graphically illustrates that all things are possible except skiing through a revolving door. During downtime throughout my workday (like now) I often stare at that cartoon and try to imagine ways in which it would be possible to ski through a revolving door. If the door is large enough to accomadate the skis, and if it is rotating at such a speed that doors are moving at the same rate as the skiier, (perhaps directed by radar) then a skiier should pass through without difficulty.
This is a helpful reminder to me to look for creative solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems. It nicely balances the test engineer's ethos "Some Damn Thing Always Goes Wrong."
As I consider Star Trek and how it relates to the future of humanity, I ultimately see only possibilities. Yes, things will go wrong; as I stated before, another world war is all but inevitable. However these setbacks are merely challenging problems requiring creative solutions to overcome. As humans have proved over and over again, we thrive on challenge. The Chinese character for "Disaster" is also used for "Opportunity." During the Cold War - a forty-year period where humanity was on the verge of self-anihilation - we saw unprecedented advances in technology, an increase in average education level, and improvement in the average human lifespan.
I think humans have an innate understanding that the only way to improve themselves personally and collectively as a species is by facing and overcoming challenges. That gives me hope that as we move toward 2409, the world of Star Trek will become our reality.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Remember, humans are primates and are inherently selfish. Even those that are selfless get off on the praise they receive.
I personally believe that primates are like a planetary venereal disease that happens after a cataclysm removes the rightful owners and that's why most aliens avoid Earth.
To make Star Trek we need new and improved people :P
So people wouldn't get some of the things they want, at all?
I think I enjoy Capitalism over your idea of Utopia. At the least, right now I know I can get things I want by earning lots of money.
A lot of people like to sit around and watch TV and/or get drunk while doing it. They probably like that more than anything useful to society. A lot of people just plain hate their jobs even when its something they like doing. As I said before I like(d) being in the Army. (retiring....as a matter of fact my final pre-clear to retirement is this week)...but I would never do it for free....and guess what...I'm not a jump out of planes and shoot everything soldier, I'm a military graphic designer. I won't do it for free, especially with 23 years of active service experience.
I like to draw. Thats fine. But the art supplies don't come from nowhere. Someone has to gather the resources, manufacture and distribute the goods. They ain't gonna do it for free. Especially if they can get what they need for free to live and be happy. Even if you say "they can replicate art supplies" someone has to design,build and distribute the replicators. Someone has to maintain them. ...and thats without going into the entire where does the energy and matter come from. No one is going to do all that for free and frankly I'd be horiffied to see a planet full of replicators and holodecks. Human nature isn't going to change because of Gene Roddenberry's imagination or the hopes of fans of the show. If it were that simple we'd have world peace right now. We'd still have money though because of human nature.
There is nothing wrong about wanting to be paid for your work. No one wrote, directed or starred in Star Trek for no pay either.
You may not have said it, but the premise that no one needs money is ridiculous. Its one of my biggest pet peeves personally with Trek. Because if no one needs money who the heck is going to work? The guy who has to fix those waste extraction systems must be a saint if he's doing it for no pay. It'd be more like "Why should I do this dumb job when I get a decent place to live, free food and drink and I can can have my fantasies made real in a holodeck?". My mother and my older sister and my cousin were teachers. They love children. But I know for a fact they wouldn't do it for nothing. Especially if mom could just get food from a replicator and take vacations in the holodeck.
Human society would grind to a halt.
And who gets to choose how the resources are allocated? You don't get something for nothing, especially when most of the population would rather do nothing useful....and they won't. Why should they unless they're getting paid somehow to do it? The miners in the TOS episode "Mudd's Women" weren't living in a craphole mining dilithium because they loved living in a craphole and digging dilithium. Did the waiters at Sisko's like waiting tables so much they decided to do it for free? Do the poor shmucks who make a living doing yardwork do it because they love working in the dirt everyday, etc?
People shouldn't be greedy, you're right. But they are....and realistically thats not going to change just because "Gene said so" and everyone wants to live in paradise. In reality the "no money, we can replicate stuff from magic and we have holodecks" society would be worse than what we have now.
One big part of the system is that you barter the products of your efforts in exchange for things you desire, everyone will want to do something if they want a bit of extra luxury but their basic needs will always be taken care of, there will be no more poor, no more starving, no more uneducated, no more homeless but there also will be no more disgustingly rich. It will be a world where everyone can indulge their hobbies or expand their knowledge and experience. There will always be people who like to cook, like to bake, like to tinker, like to fix things, like to build things, like to grow things, but they will be able to do they want without having to worry about basic survival needs.
Everyone has something that they want to do, but they will no longer have to do things just to survive.
But if all you want to do a sit around and get drunk then there is something wrong with you and you will be directed to appropriate help.
Now, once you get out toward the frontier, the power to run the replicators might not be quite so limitless - you might even get an economy going in the trade of replicator usage units, similar to what happened on Voyager. There was mention of sales of items for credits in "The Trouble With Tribbles", indicating that the Federation wasn't so strictly no-cash as Roddenberry would have wanted you to believe - those may have been "replicator credits", authorization to require the replicators at K-7 to make a given mass of whatever you might like. (Thus Cyrano Jones' hunger for them - he'd need replicator credits to get replacement parts for his trading ship's systems. To some people, trading is a game; Jones likes to up the stakes, makes him feel more alive...)
Doubtless on the worlds deep inside the Federation, there's a substantial society of "lotus eaters", people who just take their replicated goods and sit around. However, not everyone is content to do so - my father didn't work until he got too sick to continue because he had to, but because if he stopped he wouldn't have known what to do with himself. He couldn't even fill out a lazy Saturday unless he had at least three projects going on... And for those who can be that lazy, so? They're not a drag on the economy - they may in fact be doing their part to keep it going, by absorbing some of the excess being produced.
All well and good, but that doesn't make it possible, or likely. The question wasn't how do things work in Star Trek Earth, but is it possible. To do even a few of those things would require a lot of time, effort and energy. The first person to create a replicator that can make a turkey sandwich from thin air will be rich as all get out and I don't think he or she will sell them for free. There are people that work tirelessly to cure diseases because they genuinely care about making people well, but they don't do it for free and research money doesn't grow on trees.
...and who figures out how those resources are doled out? The Overlords? Because someone isn't going to like being told they can't have a mansion or a fancy this or that because not everyone can. I got a special deal to buy my car and my wife's car at the manufacturer's cost because of military service. I hate to tell you I'd be pissed if Random Guy on the street got the same deal because it would be "fair". I worked for my discount, I got shot at for my discount and honestly I don't think I get paid enough. I don't begrudge a cop a free meal at a restaurant because I had to pay. He earned his free meal due to his job.
That doesn't make me or anyone else greedy or misers or whatever. Theres nothing wrong with wanting to be paid for your work.
If Joe Blow works hard at his job as a brain surgeon (and heck, he'd better be good as a brain surgeon) he's not going to be happy seeing Slim Shadey gey get everything he has for painting pictures of ducks....that might not even be good pictures. Its a sad part of life, but not everyone can or will be a winner. No one goes through school to learn brain surgery so they can get the same things Mister Duck Painter has. Perhaps they do in Star Trek, but Trek makes people out to be completely perfect and people aren't and probably never will be, that perfect. Not to mention, the premise rquires technology that doesn't exist.
First, if thats what someone wants to do in a society where there are no homeless, no hunger and all that as you said, who makes the decision to to forcibly tell someone they need help? If Joe blow doesn't have to work and doesn't like to do any of the things that you think he or she should be doing they get sent to "Big Brother" for reeducation? Some utopia. What if someone likes to paint ducks while sitting on their behind getting drunk because it makes them happy? They have to get reeducated? Because they would have no need to NOT sit on their behind and get drunk and paint ducks. They get the same stuff that the Brain Surgeon gets.
this concept was inpired by star trek and many of the loose ends you mentioned are dealt with, but others remain.
Its a concept that I don't believe would work world wide, people being people. Again, it can work in Trek world, but thats not reality. In the real world? I don't see it happening. I don't even think the majority of people would even desire it. You would have to fundamentally change human nature to do it. If anything, humans have probably changed for the worse.
worldwide is questionable, i agree. as a matter of fact a similar system exists in israel and other parts of the world. they are called kibbutz
i say similar, because it has compareable idiologys and ideas, but the practical application is ofcourse not 100% like parecon or communism/socialism. Those achieve actually respectable economic value within the economy of israel.
Anyway it is a good example that illustrates that it is doable, atleast on a small scale. But as it is explained in the article, this system works and only will work on the voluntary nature of it's participants.
also the nature of man itself is not a selfish one as we see it or think it is. People lived in tribal communities for many hundred thausand years, and those tribal systems are more oriented towards the community as a whole than the individual. you could say, individualism is an idea that took shape maybe less than 7 thausand years ago...a fraction of the time man exists. The idea of property itself is even younger.
i actually doubt that our society can be called more advanced than a society that exists since the beginning of human life. Both have advantages and disadvantages, it is on us and future generations to analyse our and different societys and take the best out of all of them.
Just addressing this one alone, it's interesting to remember that TNG always showed this utopian society, but remember that the Enterprise was often on the far reaches and away from 'real' earth. They perhaps idealised Earth a bit. I always felt DS9 did a better job of portraying Earth.
Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
Kirk said once "Scotty you've just earned your week's pay"....in the episode with the planet killer, IIRC.
The no money thing was a bad idea thrown inreportedly by Gene (I have read that somewhere before but if I'm wrong feel free to correct me) with obviously little thought on it except to make it look like humanity was oh so pure in the 24th century. It is canon, however, except when its not, as your link shows.
maybe if there is another Trek show in the future they'll drop it so I can stop throwing things at my TV.
Because I don't see it happening in real life, at least not in this millenium. I can see some kind of super space travel in a few hundred years, I can even buy a world united in a few hundred years. A world with no money and free stuff for all? Nope. Not unless its the world of really fat dudes that don't do anything but eat, sleep and fornicate. Thats assuming we don't nuke ourselves out of existence.
Utopian? With the corrupt admirals Starfleet seems to produce it reminds me of a line by a character in the late, great Jack Kirby's original Eternals comics. "Paradise is just another place."
Quantum Teleportation is slowly opening the door for replication and well as transportation. Maybe not quite people, but stuff.
Humanity keeps trying to break down the ability to travel long distances. I think that's one area where the laws of physics may get rewritten eventually.
Oh and HEY ... check this out ...
CLOAKING DEVICE!
So that's another bit of Trek seeping into real life. Heh.
This may be impossible, but then again, some of the smartest people just 100 years ago thought it was impossible for man to fly... and then a pair of bicycle mechanics launched the age of flight and a race to the moon.
Then there's the fact that starfleet seems to be everywhere policing everyone. A society with no money is ore some money or whatever... Its almost like Gene Roddeny got an american company to make a communist tv show in space.
Ancient Rome was a society with massive unemployment due to all the slavery and the state provided free bread and circuses.
Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
For the time being, I think the best thing to do is make ethics and morals a stronger point in the education system. Instead of teaching students how to suck as much money as possible from everyone else, we should be teaching them right and wrong, and why it makes more sense to do the right thing. If enough people start thinking like that, a peaceful United Earth has a much greater chance of happening.
I'm still confident that we'll find our way eventually. There's only so many times you can make a mistake before learning from it, and as long as some insane dictator doesn't nuke everybody I think we'll get thing right in the end.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Well, in TNG and after the command officers wore red....
I think the problem is that a lot of things just weren't thought out too well, or thrown in just to make it look like humanity had become Utopian. The no money thing is a pet peeve of mine, but I have smaller ones....nost of them because they seem like they were just thrown out in a pandering kinda fashion, and don't in anyway matter to the plots. (YMMV, but trust me, I sincerely feel this way about the following. You may not want to read it if you're a die hard purist.)
Like "Humans no longer eat meat"....except when they do. O' Brien even talked about how his mother used to make lamb shanks or mutton or whatever. So I suppose there are entire continents on Earth filled with cows, sheep, chickens, etc since no one is eating them. Now I don't actually care if thats the way they want it, it just felt awkward when Riker said that in an early TNG episode and I knew it'd be contradicted sooner or later. I don't have anything against vegetarians I just find it difficult to believe the entirity of mankind decided "meat bad!".
Or the "Starfleet isn't military" thing. Except that they are. But not when they say they aren't. Phil Farrand had a page in one of his nitpicker's guides specifically nailing the contradictions in this. Of course this was said just to show how humans are no longer warlike conquerors. All fine and dandy, except military doesn't automatically equal bad evil guys that want to take your stuff and kill you. 23 years of active duty I can tell you we're the last guys to like going to war. I've never been on a deployment I wanted to go on and its pants crappingly scary to be shot at. I wish I still had those books...they were blown away with my entire house in a tornado.
It also makes the Federation look a bit niave. Several clearly hostile empires around you and you don't have a military? (except when you do, which is when they stop saying they aren't, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you know the rest....)
I'm not even going to get started on the families on Starships thing. Sure it was merely a device for a few plots (Yay...Captain Picard Day! Admittedly I liked that episode) but it convinced me that Starfleet had officially lost its mind. I hope all those relatives of the people lost at Wolf 359 got some kind of compensation. Well, more holodeck time since no one has any money. :rolleyes:
As for the threads original topic: I don't think any of what I said just now is possible either.
I'd agree with that especially the teaching kids right and wrong stuff. I don't think people even bother to monitor their kids anymore. Every time I watch the local news I end up screaming "Where the heck were your parents?". Heck, kids today are why I paid for alarm systems, motion sensors all through my yard and weapons in the house. I'm gettin' too old to fight someone 30 years younger, but if ya break in here you'd better bring an ambulance.
Kids scare me. (I'm almost fifty...anyone under 25 is a kid to me)
Do you honestly think things were any differnent fifty years ago? With motorcycle gangs, hippies and war protestors?
How about a hundered and fifty years ago? Ever see Gangs of New York?
Every generation assumes their children's generation is the downfall of society. Except it never is. Every generation produces its share of obnoxious and/or violent idiots. These people wind up on TV a lot and everyone else supposes that society must be doomed, because of "kids today." But at least 90% of kids today are in school, studying hard, mostly obeying their parents and will turn out alright.
...Oh, baby, you know, I've really got to leave you / Oh, I can hear it callin 'me / I said don't you hear it callin' me the way it used to do?...
- Anne Bredon
Huh? Dude I'm not 175 years old. Do you think I'm a Time Lord or something?
Nope. Can't stand Leonardo Dicaprio.
Show me where I said anything about the fall of society and how "when I was a kid we were angels". Because I didn't. I did say "kids today" so maybe I should have just said "some kids". But its not like I said "In my day we left our doors unlocked and kids helped old ladies cross the street". We didn't.
I'm not naive, whats different is that I am not 30 years old, and I said I'm too old to have to wrestle with someone 30 years or younger than I am. Nowhere in that post did I say the downfall of society. And I've had my house broken into before....thankfully no one was home. It won't happen again. Paranoid? Well, yes, yes I am. After some jack *** firing bullets at one house next door because his girlfriend had an issue with the guy living there with his THREE YEAR OLD DAUGHTER. (Thankfully no one was hurt) You'll have to excuse me if I turn on local news and hear about kids shooting a family to death in a convenience store near here, or TRIBBLE a female less than 5 miles from my home and feel a little concerned about my home family and safety. I didn't know that trying to safeguard my home and family would be so offensive.
Frankly I don't care if there were gangs roaming the countryside 150 years ago. But I do know that there are people around now that don't have a problem breaking into house, or even shooting someone over the stupidest things. They had to change the 24 hour walmart near the post to closing at 10 open at 9 because too many teenagers...not soldiers, not crazed drug addicts....were going in there at night and wrecking the place and yes, shooting each other in the parking lot. The parlking lot became a sort of hang out spot after the clubs closed or something. It was a zoo. The mall began kicking anyone under 18 out unless they had a parent with them this past fall for similar problems. So yeah, sorry if my wife and I looked at each other and said "Whats wrong with these kids, and where are their parents?".
Maybe I'm just officially old now and I'm exercising my right to be cranky and paranoid. (Though as stated, I'm not 175, so whatever happened 150 years ago doesn't fit into my home defense plans. Though I would build a moat if I could.)
And yes, I do tell people to stay off of my lawn.
Now see, I was thinking that when I replied to the post, but thought better of it. I didn't want to derail the thread into a "Thse daggone modern kids! Grrr! Grrr!" thing. Even though I can tell you when I was a kid they were allowed to spank you in school. (Forget that time out TRIBBLE).
Heck, kids may be worse now than back then. So if Star Trek does become possible in the future Kirk will have 50 illegitimate kids and Worf will be a Gangsta Rapper. Picard might be a Pimp. Who knows?