h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I dont think Bain will read that as it is a bit long for his tastes/attention span. Which interestingly enough is the exact same way Appy used to be, but they are NOT the same person. Oh no.

Afterall he has told us this is true and what possible reason could I have to doubt him?

one love

Might have an argument or two about the Authors interpretation of Marxism, however the crux of how that interpretation relates to TNG is pretty sound IMHO.

Is this your work Hoo or something you found?

that "essay" isn't even worth arguing with but I'll humour you.

Q. If you can synthesise any substance from energy then what use does money have?

Q. "They're all company cars: What was the last time you saw a privately owned personal starship?"

A. That's already been delt with ,but anyway. How many people in the navy own their own ship? The series is based around starfleet personell not the federation and starfleet is the federation's navy.

"Spartan lifestyles: Even on the mixed civilian/military spaceport DS9, no one seems to have anything but a handful of room decorations and sentimental momentoes. Quarters are quite clean and barren even when children live there (and anyone with small children knows how silly that is). This could arguably be described as a lifestyle "choice" rather than the result of government edict, but it is also quite consistent with the growing list of evidence that the Federation is communist."

That's like when lisa simpson told homer that this rock keeps away rhinos - "well do you see any rhinos?". DS9 is a military station with private quarters but as I've already said the show is based around military personell not civilians.

Best of both worlds part two (I think). Take a look at all the personal crap at the Pickard family vinyard. Ohh! that's right a privately owned vineyard. Ben sisco's father (DS9) owns a resturant. That's right, *owns*

Tell me HOO, do you know the difference between communism and socalism?

"Empty skies: Where are all of the ships in the skies over Earth? Even over major metropolitan centres such as San Francisco, we see almost no air traffic whatsoever (certainly nothing like the thick swarms of traffic over Coruscant in Star Wars). In fact, in "Paradise Lost", the USS Lakota was the only starship in orbit around the entire planet!"

This shows ignorance too. Hary Kim relates how he used to transport home for dinner every night (at least I think it was him) when he first moved away to the academy. Then there are maglev trains you can see in the movies that show san fran sisco(SP?). Hmmm a long flight with takeoff and landing vs a maglev or transporter - duh

"situation exists in stark contrast to every other civilization, such as the Bajorans, Klingons, Ferengi etc. which all have their own curious religions (always precisely one religion per species; I guess aliens aren't very imaginative in Star Trek)."

Lack of research again Klingon religion is obviously based on the viking. Sto vo kor is valhalla.

Vulcan is a member of the federation and they have religion and monks and temples. Not exactly opressively trampled is it?

Last one because that link really is amateurish.

"# Citizens are forced to work. Probably 100% implemented in the TNG era Federation.

* Even though everyone is guaranteed a comfortable standard of living by the state, everyone works hard. There are no beach bums. Therefore, since laziness is an innate human characteristic, we can infer that such penalties probably exist, even if we never explicitly see them in action."

"probably" - "we can infer" - "probably exist": c'mon that language would get you a failing grade in the forst year of highschool. Interviewing your imagination doesn't really count.

"There are no beach bums" - based on what exactly?

"laziness is an innate human characteristic" - and the psycological credentials of the author are?

"that "essay" isn't even worth arguing with"

Then why have you? Humouring me? I'm touched, I really am.

"If you can synthesise any substance from energy then what use does money have?"

Is that supposed to be some sort of deft trap? Am I supposed to be devastated by your unanswerable genius? Or is it a facetious question? The latter, I hope, because the answer is in the question, and so obvious a child could spot it.

The key word is "energy". Yes, in the Trek universe, ALMOST anything - NOT anything, but most things, can by synthesised from energy. (I'll leave aside that you, who considers themself a stickler for accuracy, seems to have forgotten conveniently all the things that cannot be replicated - Altairian spices, self-sealing stem bolts, starships, people, bars of gold-pressed latinum, etc. etc. etc.)

So... where does the energy come from? You have to PAY for it, one way or the other. This is not economics, it's physics. Replication uses HUGE amounts of energy - this is an inescapable fact of the physics of our universe, regardless of the precise mechanisms employed. So there's the most basic use for money - access to energy.

Also, there clearly IS a use for money in a society which has access to replicators, otherwise the entire point of Ferengi society falls apart. Do please try not to forget whole swathes of Trek in your desperation to defend it.

"What was the last time you saw a privately owned personal starship?"

A. That's already been delt with"

If you mean "dealt with", I don't think it has. But hey, that's standard Della-clan tactic - pretend you've answered a question in the hope it will go away.

The POINT here is this: in today's developed world, the vast, vast majority of people own cars. Some own several. In the "utopian" future of Trek, the equivalent personal vehicle should at the very least be capable of orbital or interplanetary flight. And yet hardly anyone on Earth or any colony world has access to such a vehicle. Every sight of Earth or the colonies - even in movies - has an empty sky with hardly any vehicles in it. This is in sharp contrast to Star Wars, where the traffic on Coruscant could only be described as "heavy", and even on a backwater world like Tatooine there's significant air traffic visible /all the time/. Even Babylon 5 showed pretty much everyone either owning a ship or knowing someone who does.

"How many people in the navy own their own ship?"

Category error. How many people in the navy own their own CAR? We're not talking about the lack of public ownership of interstellar battleships. We're talking basic transportation.

"The series is based around starfleet personell not the federation and starfleet is the federation's navy."

Well, good, we're agreed on one thing at least - Starfleet is a military organisation.

Now, consider: in today's world, who negotiates peace treaties? Civilian negotiators, not military commanders as in Trek. In today's world, who carries out scientific surveys and has control over reporting of results? Civilian scientists, not the military as in Trek. Who delivers medical supplies to disaster areas? Civilian organisations such as the Red Cross, Oxfam, or Medecines Sans Frontieres, not the military as in Trek. Who tries civilians for crimes? Civil, not military courts as in Trek (let's not get into Guantanamo Bay, huh? THAT is a place where Star Trek is coming to life...) Starfleet has a disturbing level of involvement in all levels of Federation society, a level of involvement which, if it were replicated in todays world, would invite parallels with Nazi Germany.

"the show is based around military personell not civilians"

Duh. And yet repeatedly we see examples of non-military personnel. Sisko's father, Picard's brother, colonists in dozens of episodes. And yet do we ever see someone living in what might be described as anything approaching "normal" cluttered conditions? The nearest I can think of was the alternate future Jake and his cottage in the bayou. But even that seemed somehow sterile.

"that's right a privately owned vineyard. Ben sisco's father (DS9) owns a resturant. That's right, *owns*"

You have precisely NO evidence that the Picards or Siskos own anything. You have evidence of their possession of those properties. Soviet citizens "possessed" the farms they lived on, and passed them from one generation to the next. They did not own them, however. It's not a pleasant thought, that the "Picard vineyard" is in fact collectivised - but there's no reason to think it's not, and good reason to think it is.

"do you know the difference between communism and socalism?"

Yes.

Empty skies vs. maglev vs. transporter.

"This shows ignorance too. Hary Kim relates how he used to transport home...when he first moved away to the academy"

There are two points here.

1. Harry had the luxury of transporting because he was at the academy. Starfleet OWNS access to transporting technology. This is the only possible interpretation of the available evidence - if transporting was properly available to the public, why would there NEED to be maglev trains? OK, there are turbolifts on large starships because that's a more energy efficient way to move people, and energy efficiency MATTERS when you're carrying your energy with you. But on a planet, you should be able to transport anywhere, anytime. That there are maglev trains is a perfect indictment of Starfleet's iron grip on the public's mobility and freedom.

2. Presumably you've never been in a fast plane, car, or boat. I can only assume you have no experience at all of the pleasure of just GOING fast in a vehicle of your own. In a world with the apparent technological level of "Trek", there should be a sky full of people just having fun, driving their T-16 skyhoppers around bullseyeing womp rats for the hell of it. There isn't. The only possible explanation is that, although the technology IS available, civilians are not allowed to possess or employ it. They have to make do with public mass transit systems. Gee, hurrah. I guess Starfleet at least makes sure they run on time, huh?

"the Bajorans, Klingons, Ferengi etc. which all have their own curious religions:::
Lack of research again Klingon religion is obviously based on the viking. Sto vo kor is valhalla."

And this fool accuses others of lack of research. Compare and contrast, Klingon and Norse religion:

Norse: honours many gods.
Klingon: honours NO gods. The first Klingon killed the god who made him, and they've all been atheists ever since.
Norse: the honoured dead go to Valhalla, a great hall of feasting where they are served by maidens as respite from the battle in which they died.
Klingon: the honoured dead go to Sto Vo Kor, where they engage in an eternal battle as part of the Black Fleet. No respite at all.
Norse: the dishonoured dead go to an icy waste
Klingon: the dishonoured dead go to a ship on a firey, stormy sea.

The differences go on. People may consider this argument a bit sad. Well hey - qID SIQlaHbe'chugh, tIngagh jay'.

"that link really is amateurish"

The LINK is amateurish? Doesn't it work? Or did you mean the *essay* is amateurish? So hard to tell what illiterate people mean sometimes...

"the psycological credentials of the author are?"

I don't know, but I'm guessing he could spell "psychological", just for starters.

Rather than failing (as you have) to counter the individual points made, here's a suggestion: why not, instead, actually defend your point with your own ideas? (Radical possibility, I know, but bear with me.)

By this I mean - you don't believe Trek depicts a Marxist military dictatorship. You believe this in the teeth of the evidence laid out in the essay I linked to. Fine. Describe WHAT you believe Trek depicts - socialism? Monetarism? What? - and WHY you believe it. Don't be negative. Point out the evidence, with episode names, please. I, and the author of the piece I linked to can do this for the "dictatorship" theory, and can do so with reference to contrasting depictions of future societies in other franchises including B5 and Star Wars.

Do please understand that I'm not "dissing" Trek - I love it. But I'm not blind to what it's about, any more than I'm blind to the fact that the ships in Trek are WEAK. A single X wing fighter could have won the battle of Wolf 359, for instance, against the Federation fleet. Indeed, if you mounted the gun from late 20th century Abrams tank onto a space shuttle, it could destroy the Enterprise-D. These are not things you can debate, they're simple physics based on observation and canonical, stated data - stuff characters said in episodes. They shouldn't detract from your enjoyment, though. Just accept what Starfleet and the Federation really is, then forget about it and enjoy the show.

H.

<>

Hoo, that had already been dealt with - like it or not, or what was all that about the Raven? Did you not bother to read it?
I think Bain's point about Harry Kim, was that people don't *need* or want private vehicles. Looking at the skies of Coruscant, I can only think what a hellish rat race it looks. Clear skies sound lovely by contrast.
(NB - don't think you can ignore/sideswipe Bain's points by calling him "one of the Della clan" (sic). It smacks of desperation and lack of a counter argument. It's just a stupid assertion.)
<>
Or, it could be a matter of preference, surely?
<< "dictatorship" theory>>
I think you're reading dictatorship into it, Hoo. Are *you also* a libertarian?
<>
First, an X wing fighter and the Battle of Wolf-359 are from different future histories. They cannot be compared.
I note a bit of military lust, there Hoo. Slavering over firepower? Tut tut.

>>And yet hardly anyone on Earth...

>that had already been dealt with - like it or not, or what was all that about the Raven?
*The* Raven. 'Hardly anyone' does not equate with 'no-one', therefore one example of a privately operated ship does not counter the theory.


>I think Bain's point about Harry Kim, was that people don't *need* or want private vehicles.
And as Hoo pointed out, Harry is part of the millitary, and is therefore not an example of an average private citizen.

>First, an X wing fighter and the Battle of Wolf-359 are from different future histories.
No, they're not. An X-Wing is from a fictional past.

>They cannot be compared.
Of course they can. They just were. That's like saying "A Russian sword and an Indian scimitar cannot be compared, because they're from different continents".

I notice you ignore the comparison between modern-day tank guns and the Enterprise D, couldn't think of a quick response?

<<>First, an X wing fighter and the Battle of Wolf-359 are from different future histories.
No, they're not. An X-Wing is from a fictional past.>>

Okay. I should have said different series.

<>

I ignored it, yes, but I know nothing about militaria! Frankly, I don't want to know - comparing weapons of mass destruction turns my stomach. That's my quick response!
In Gene's original vision, the Enterprise was meant to be a vessel of science, exploration and with defensive capabilities only!

"Hoo, that had already been dealt with"

Saying it's so don't make it so.

"what was all that about the Raven? Did you not bother to read it?"

Yes, I read it. I think it's an isolated, non-conclusive example. Exceptions cannot be held up as proving rules.

An analogy: would you consider that there is regular, easy public access to low-earth orbit tourism, today?

Most people would not even have to think about the answer - it's obviously "no".

You and Bain, on the other hand, would presumably have to answer "yes", on the basis that it's happened, not once, but twice. Ever.

"I think Bain's point about Harry Kim, was that people don't *need* or want private vehicles."

It may well have been. In which case he's positing a complete turnaround in human psychology sometime in the future. Every bit of data we have, every single scrap of experience shows that if personal travel is available, people prefer it to the public alternative. Why else would we have to enact things like carpool lanes, congestion charging and road tolls, if not to counter the demonstrable human urge to travel in their own personal box?

"Looking at the skies of Coruscant, I can only think what a hellish rat race it looks. Clear skies sound lovely by contrast."

Coruscant is the capital of the galaxy. It's the equivalent of downtown Manhattan or the centre of Tokyo. If you want clear skies and wilderness, there are places you can go - just not on that particular planet.

Also, once again, you seem to forget that there are other human beings in the world whose preferences are different than yours - the standard weakness of the religious mind. Here's the news - there are some people who look at the bustling skies of Coruscant and think "cool!". That you don't is your preference, and fine, but if you look around ANY developed city and you'll see a million people who disagree with you. I guess you're getting used to *that* feeling, huh?

"(NB - don't think you can ignore/sideswipe Bain's points by calling him "one of the Della clan" (sic). It smacks of desperation and lack of a counter argument. It's just a stupid assertion.)"

And yet here you are leaping to his defence. And interestingly I haven't ignored his points - I've addressed them a lot more comprehensively than he has mine. I'm not desperate, and I have laid out my arguements. It is he - and, since you're here, you - who seem to lack convincing counterarguments.

<>
Or, it could be a matter of preference, surely?

Oh please. Where you have trains you have stations. Where you have stations, you have waiting, and queuing, and other journeys at each end, to and from the stations. Show me someone who would *prefer* a train to their own personal Trek-era shuttlecraft, and I'll show you someone with an unhealthy obsession with trains and too much time on their hands. ANY even slightly intelligent person would choose personal freedom to travel where and when they like over the imposition of timetables and rails. This is axiomatic, and your attempt to suggest it isn't is probably the weakest argument I've ever seen you offer - and that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

"<< "dictatorship" theory>>
I think you're reading dictatorship into it, Hoo."

Um... duh? That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm looking at the evidence, and reading into it what can be reasonable inferred from it. What are YOU doing? (My guess: deciding in advance what you believe, and then selecting and warping evidence to make it fit.)

"Are *you also* a libertarian?"

Eh? What possible relevance are *my* politics?

"First, an X wing fighter and the Battle of Wolf-359 are from different future histories. They cannot be compared."

Three points:
1. Re: "future history": which bit of "A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." didn't you understand?

2. You accepted and engaged with the comparison with traffic on Coruscant above. Make your mind up.

3. Why can they not be compared? It's not even apples and oranges. I'm comparing the offensive, defensive and propulsive technologies of human-carrying spacecraft. Making the comparison is a fun thought experiment, partly because it exposes the ignorance of Star Trek writers and fans. It does so because Trek routinely uses real units to describe things, and when it does it routinely wildly underestimates things, leading (if one is to believe the dialogue) to incredibly weak defensive shields, short ranged, inaccurate weapons and poor propulsion systems.

"I note a bit of military lust, there Hoo. Slavering over firepower?"

No. Obsessing over engineering. I'm an engineer. What do you expect? I have no "military lust". I'm not even sure what you mean by that. The example I offered is simply a handy shorthand way to show that 20th (not even 21st) century military technology is superior, in some ways, to the 24th century tech portrayed in Trek.

As for military lust, I'm not the one with a wall full of fact files about a military organisation and a drama based almost entirely upon it.

H.

"Show me someone who would *prefer* a train to their own personal Trek-era shuttlecraft, and I'll show you someone with an unhealthy obsession with trains and too much time on their hands"

Depends. Is being drunk in charge of a shuttle an offence?

"comparing weapons of mass destruction turns my stomach"

A single tank gun is not a weapon of mass destruction. For an adult, you seem to have an unusually delicate stomach.

"In Gene's original vision, the Enterprise was meant to be a vessel of science, exploration and with defensive capabilities only!"

Arrant nonsense. The Enterprise is and always was a military vehicle, with all the appurtences thereof. They had uniforms, military titles (Captain, Lieutenant etc.), handguns, assault weapons, espionage capabilities, duties to police warzones and respond to invasion threats, and broad discretion to use deadly force. Any hippy-dippy ideas that Kirk was Jacques Cousteau in space are directly contradicted by almost every episode, explicitly so in many including the one in which Kirk actually says "I'm a soldier now."

Trek apologists always amuse me.

H.

" Is being drunk in charge of a shuttle an offence?"

Probably. But if you've got computer technology that can produce things like the EMH, something as simple as a voice-activated autopilot would be pocket calculator stuff. Walk in, sit down, slur out "home, James", and the shuttle pilots itself. Simple enough for it to have an atmospheric gas analyser to lock out manual override if it detects alcohol fumes - or for that matter a tricorder on the door to scan your bloodstream as you enter for other intoxicants.

See how everyone would want one if they were available?

H.

Okay, I'll have one then

STOP!




























Hammer Time

Im in a silly mood.

Do you remember the word when Mark Lamarr kept doing that to MC Hammer? It was funny as fuc.... wait a sec I cannot say that here

I'd like to see the exchange wit Shabba! everyday. That bit made the whole show worth all the crappy bits.



Do you think Bain will come back?

"Also, there clearly IS a use for money in a society which has access to replicators, otherwise the entire point of Ferengi society falls apart. Do please try not to forget whole swathes of Trek in your desperation to defend it."

The ferengi brought their technology and not from the federation. Besides had you ever heard trade?
"desperation to defend" the desparation is not mine as you attack if that's what you want to call it is weak at best.

"If you mean "dealt with", I don't think it has. But hey, that's standard Della-clan tactic - pretend you've answered a question in the hope it will go away."

So your tactic is to not read earlier posts, launch an insult at someone else and counter nothing - oh what skill, are you in highschool?

"The POINT here is this: in today's developed world, the vast, vast majority of people own cars." - back that up?

"Well, good, we're agreed on one thing at least - Starfleet is a military organisation." - and your point is?

"Now, consider: in today's world, who negotiates peace treaties? Civilian negotiators, not military commanders as in Trek." - your dream world is calling. Treaties are negoated by people working for military organisations who don't wear uniforms. Same in star trek.

"Starfleet has a disturbing level of involvement in all levels of Federation society, a level of involvement which, if it were replicated in todays world, would invite parallels with Nazi Germany."

If any series had taken place from outside the POV of starfleet then you could have a basis for that statement but it hasn't so you don't.

"Duh. And yet repeatedly we see examples of non-military personnel. Sisko's father, Picard's brother, colonists in dozens of episodes. And yet do we ever see someone living in what might be described as anything approaching "normal" cluttered conditions? The nearest I can think of was the alternate future Jake and his cottage in the bayou. But even that seemed somehow sterile."

You don't remember Picard's brother house do you? Decorating bothers you doesn't it?

"You have precisely NO evidence that the Picards or Siskos own anything. You have evidence of their possession of those properties."

Hmm evidence... Then you say this

" Starfleet OWNS access to transporting technology." - is there a chance you may act by your own standards?

Until you're able to grasp basic concepts I don't see a need to counter any more of your ramblings.

Looks like it Blicky, and using all the usual NZ school of debate tricks again.