Hacker News Reader

Hmm.

I think the main reason Trek could be set on an Earth is the exact reason it shouldn’t be: at it’s best, it is an allegory for our world, with just enough latex to pretend that the Klingons aren’t the Russians (Rura Penthe being Siberia, Praxis being Chernobyl); that the Romulans aren’t the Chinese; that the Cardassians aren’t the Old World imperial powers retreating from their colonies, and so on.

Put it back on Earth, and it will all be too on-the-nose.

That said, I do share Stross’ annoyance with the use of tech as a magic wand, though in my case my problem is with the inconsistency. For example, in Voyager in particular, in the pilot episode they say the ship has a maximum cruising speed of warp 9.975, not only do they never ever go that fast in the show, if you look up how fast that’s supposed to be, it would get them home in 7 years without any shortcuts or shenanigans, not the 70 years they say at the end of the episode.

Plus, they have time travel and stasis and Voyager could therefore get home in zero subjective time.

And every episode involving time travel in all seasons of all series, they always use the same mechanism for going backwards and forwards in time, sometimes even using the difficulties of this as a challenge to be overcome in the plot even though the show has had the go-fast-around-a-star method on record since TOS.

Exactly, allegory: TNG and DS9 in particular have episodes about some pretty hot-button topics. Political terrorism; assisted suicide; gender identity and relations; religious rights; capital punishment, and the justice system in general; mental health; environmentalism...

The veneer of the transporter and the rubber foreheads provide just enough distance for these things to be portray-able without everyone having an immediate hot take reaction and turning their brains off. They wouldn't work if they were put in an Earthbound setting: they'd be too real, too inflammatory.

I agree that the technobabble can be annoying, and there's certainly fluff in there. But Roddenberry wanted to tell stories about us as we are, and as we could be, just as much as Stross: he just approached it from a different angle.

I definitely don't object to the "Star Trek is inconsistent with the rules it sets out for its universe argument" but also... it is a massive series so after a certain point I don't care. You don't watch Star Trek for that.

You can still derive some fun from the nonsense and self-contradictions by trying to work out reasons for it. For example, maybe warp 9.975 can only be sustained for a limited time or distance. There’s a whole usenettish genre of Trek apologetics dedicated to this kind of thing.

>There’s a whole usenettish genre of Trek apologetics dedicated to this kind of thing.

/r/DaystromInstitute

Nice. Maybe I’ll add Trek apologist to my cv, somewhere at the bottom.

I guess you have not seen season 2 of Picard; they just used the go-fast-around-a-star method from TOS again. Why this method is not usually used makes up a part of the plot.

While I have indeed not seen season 2, that they used it was clear from the very trailer that told me I didn’t want to watch it.

Good to know they give a reason why it’s hardly ever used.

Not sure it was used in TOS. It was however used in Star Trek IV.

At least twice in TOS, the first accidental, the second deliberate (and the latter episode doubled as a failed pilot for a spin off):

https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/treknology/timetravel-tos...

Who are the Ferengi?

Rather than the "obvious" answer from unfortunate casting decisions, by the middle of the series they're firmly 20th century Americans.

Americans. The primary social measuring stick used is acquisition of wealth, and they have no real social safety nets to speak of. They have an overriding belief that free markets will ultimately solve any real problems peacefully. Grift is sometimes (ok often) admired and winked at, though generally officially denounced. There are substantial oppressive problems with regards to females fully participating equally in society, and they’re slow to change but there are occasional signs of progress and leaders bucking those trends.

Sounds a lot like my American culture to me!

I would say specifically late 1800s to early 1900s American, when unions were busted with guns and women had zero political power. I can’t remember Brent Spiner’s original lines in the episode the Ferengi were introduced, but I think it was something along the lines of “all the bad bits of the old west and none of the good bits”.

“Ferengi are us. That’s the gag, the Ferengis are humans. They’re more human than the humans on Star Trek because they’re so screwed up and they’re so dysfunctional. They’re regular people.” - Steven Behr

American capitalists, specifically Yankee Traders. Data literally says so in TNG.

Corporate greed

They're certainly capitalists, but despite lots of references to stock markets, the Nagus's holdings, etc., we don't see them forming, discussing, or dealing with a lot of corporations. Quark and his more distant relatives are firmly petit bourgeoisie, Brunt is middle management at something like a brown-collar job, etc.

The fascism of Cardassia and cooperative structure of the Federation both ring more corporate than the Ferengi, most of the time.

> Sure it helps that the setting is futuristic, I wonder if I'd still like it if it were set on a seaship in the 1700's or something...

Can I interest you in a tale about a federation, a ship on a mission of peace equipped with heavy weapons, a man of science, and his struggles to become more human, of a captain who solves ethical dilemmas?*

* Disclaimer: may be set in the 1800s

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey%E2%80%93Maturin_serie...

i remember when they started talking about how society treats black people and people with handicaps and i dont know about you personally. since im mixed race, but if i was only white. i would still want that blind black man to run my engineering room. that was so normal in the show. its "cool". i love startrek with all its blemishes. (i heckin hate kirk) but people dont get it. startrek universe is a sandbox to run scientific simulations of weird scientific concepts that can be hard to visualise or internalise. people who complain that its inaccurate or two episodes are not logically possible in the same universe etc. those people dont get it. people give white people so much shit. but that world, driven by the curiosity to explore this world we all are suddenly born into. with all our tribes and oddities. we work together to lessen suffering when we see it. even stuff like the tribbles can teach a kid about invasive specieces. just so much. yes all episodes arent great. but thats ok it. good art that changes people is not something you can create on demand. i love how it has everything. ferengis are such a funny thing they added. i disliked Q as a kid because he felt annoying and i did not understand his part. but its about the experiences he has. not if its possible or not that a q could exist. its a beautiful sandbox. :) i love your take on it.

>I wonder if I'd still like it if it were set on a seaship in the 1700's or something... But that would rule out time travel for example, which I also always enjoy.

Time travel is no more plausible in the 1700s than the 2700s. Just have the negative space wedgies be in the water, like the Bermuda Triangle or something.

Star Trek is a USA product so from one side bring USA people dreams, like exploration, journey etc BUT also USA ruling class willing. For instance formally in Star Trek people have surpassed capitalism and tech reach a point that anyone can have almost anything to live a satisfactory life following just their will, formally, in practice Star Trek is designed around "the fleet", like the USA are designed about "the army" (in the broad sense), the sea from witch the USA project their power is the space in ST, people are not at all free, they only think to be. Like most USA Citizens think the USA is between the most free country in the world refusing the substantial fact that there is no real democracy there but just a classic oligarchic corporatocracy that use a formal democracy as a Barnum circle to rule.

Star Trek recognize some other countries like Vulcanians that probably are Europeans, more advanced in tech and civil terms but subject of the newly born "federation" and the Klingon who are probably the Russians, sometimes enemies sometimes friends. The Borg represent the USA ruling class hate and fear of socialism because just before the absurd choice of representing a Borg Queen the Borg are a perfect society where all decisions are made by the people (the collective) and all citizens are really equal. They are represented as powerful, because conservative élites know that a social society is far more innovative than any others, but as terrible enemies, so terrible that federation officers can board their cubes without being assaulted, free to move and look around just until they do something against the Borg, while a stranger boarding the Enterprise is an intruder, need to be contained and questioned etc.

Not only: see how clean, aseptic, against sexuality, rigid federation officers appear, that's a classic USA and even more British characteristic like when at international sport events you see athletes from all around the world in casual dress and those from USA (a bit) and UK (much more) move in suit and tie regardless of the climate, or how USA and UK lay out their dream homes, or how sexuality is (obviously) present but is a kind of tabu in social talks respect of west Europe for instance.

That's dos not make ST a bad series, I like it, I have seen most of it many times, but when you see it take into account not just special effect and formal "good points" shown, see the others elements, look under the trees :-)

BTW personally I'd like much more to be a Borg on a cube, of course without any Borg Queen, than being framed by a fleet who put appearance before the substance... And I like the idea of exploring around with a moving house, armed enough to defend myself but not (really) to offend.