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

>> If you want to try a real conversation branched from your post then I belive a new thread would be the way to go about it.

Cool. Here I am. On the other hand, I am also about to go back to bed, trying to catch that elusive thing, sleep. But I'll check back tomorrow.

B

I'll be right there.

Sorry for the delay. This is big and I'm ill

*******************

"However...

If the Trek universe is a primarily military one, how did it get to be that way?"

There is no evidence o suggest that it is - What if out only knowledge of Earth was from the TV shows JAG or NCIS?

"Gene Rodenberry's first concept was to make a 'Hornblower in Space' - to create a series about a ship out on the edges of what was known, and so isolated that the personnel had very limited recourse to their home base and therefore were thrown back onto their own resourses."

Good point and it was about finding new things. Voyager was an attempt to remake that. Your comment also supports my first point.

"If we look at the real world at the time of Hornblower, we see a complex world involving sophisticated and effective civilian government and diplomacy. However, because of the isolated nature of a naval ship at that time, Hornblower and his real world equivalents had to be their own diplomats and their own judiciary." -

My first point again. A DS9 episode showed a plot to install martial law on Earth. That also showed that it needed to be declared by the president, not by starfleet.

"Considering that Star Trek was made up as it went along and made up by hundreds of people, it is remarkable how coherent the entire oevre actually is. Consider that while Klingon was being devised there was at least one occasion when the words used had to (a) lipsych with the actors' speech which had been filmed in English *and* (b) be consistent with existing words and phrases with known meanings as used in previous episodes. How hard is *that*?"

Again in DS9 there is an episode that pokes fun at the klingon transformation. The one where they travel back in time to foil a plot kill Kirk by placing a bomb in with tribbles. - that's a klingon? what happened?... We do not like to talk about it.

Okie dokie, we have an evolving franchise with the original premise of 'Hornblower in space', which must be backward compatible as it evolves, and be coherent, cheap to film, and interesting and exciting.

Actually the series TNG had a budget of $1,000,000 per episode and that was in the 80s but the origional was very cheap.

"Is it any surprise that the world depicted continues to focus on the military? And if Kirk (for example) could try civilians in a military court is it any surprise that subsequent franchisees don't bother to complicate the back-story by creating a civilian judiciary?"

If my memory serves the civilians tried by military court were working for military organisations and remember that here in the real world that on a ship in international waters you are bound by the law of where the ship is registered and the captain is the beginning and end of that authority.

"What I am saying here is that there may have been no conscious intention of creating a Military or Marxist oligarchy, but that the nature of the way in which that particular universe evolved means that it was highly likely to do so given the original series and the constraints on creating tv and movies."

My main problem with this statement is this "or Marxist oligarchy". Apart from throwing around terms I have yet to see anything to back this up.

"Now this is neither here nor there to the debate on whether or not the world of Star Treck depicts a Military or Marxist technotopia, though I find the reasons that Hoo gives for supporting this interpretation compelling, especially in the face of the lack of reasons for any other view."

What are his compelling reasons? He ignored everything that went before he arrived.

Hi

I've lost the momentum on this thread, and am going to have to find the original and re-read it.

As I said, my direct knowledge of Star Trek is limited to the first series and a couple of the movies, so I am not going to be able to discuss on an episode by episode basis.

In the meantime it seems to me that the nub of the question is to what extent what is shown on TV is just one facet of the world at that time and to what extent it is like a fraction of a hologram, from which we can see the whole image.

Hoo's argument seems to conclude that there are enough clues in the episodes to be able to draw conclusions about the rest of the world. I remember in particular the comments about the lack of individual vehicles. People do massively prefer their own transport to public transport, and always have since the invention of the wheel.

The main reasons I can think of for not using your own transport are:

1) It is not possible for the journey you wish to take - you cannot drive across the ocean

2) It is too expensive - otherwise we would all have Lear Jets

3) It is made artificially expensive using taxation - London's Congestion Charge has worked in reducing the number of private vehicles in Central London

4) It is legislated against - I cannot think of a sensible example of this, but it would prevent the use of private vehicles

5) There is too much congestion and public transport is good - this is the situation in a vast number of European cities, though the large number of bicycles prove the point that people still prefer independent mobility, and the congestion implies that people *do* make the choice to use cars - the net result is in fact too many cars on the road, not an imperceptibe number of them

I would have to re-read the thread again, (which is my most convenient source of knowledge about this postulated universe), to see which of the above might apply.

However the only ones which would apply to a situation where the technology is available and where there is not congestion, (ie widespread use of personal transport), are real expense, taxation, and actual legislation.

One thing to note here is that NASA kept a fleet of about 24 jet trainers - these are expensive birds to fly - for their astronauts and other officials to use as personal transportation on official business.

"Official Business" included a certain amount of leisure flying for the astronauts so that they could keep their flying skills current: there was no point in recruiting the best pilots to fly missions if their skills degraded.

There are very very few privately owned military trainers, if any, because the military control the supply of them. Any that are in private hands tend to be models which are no longer used by the military, for the very good reason that the details of the birds they fly are secret.

If this were not the case, then every film-star with wings would be flying the latest fighters.

This is the nearest example I can think of of a situation in our world which is analogous to the situation described in the thread.

It'll take me a while to catch up with the thread. Post a reminder in this one if I don't reply for more than a week.



B

"Hoo's argument seems to conclude that there are enough clues in the episodes to be able to draw conclusions about the rest of the world. I remember in particular the comments about the lack of individual vehicles. People do massively prefer their own transport to public transport, and always have since the invention of the wheel."

Do you have an argument of your own?

"People do massively prefer their own transport to public transport, and always have since the invention of the wheel." - this was never substantiated and hoo never acknowledged the discussion on this before karl brought him along to my journal entry.

Your argument seems to be that you don't have one outside your faith in hoo and I perfer not to argue matters of faith.

*blinks*

Most of the post consisted of an argument of my own - mainly those observations about the circumtances in which people do not use privately owned vehicles. Hoo may or may not have justified his comments about private transport. I thought that my comments justified mine. They were - as they say - my own unaided work. I have not read the original thread since I posted the first post in this one.

My 'faith' in Hoo. Oh, Bain. I have no faith in Hoo at all. Quite the reverse, if the truth be told.

If you'd like to reply to my post on the basis of what I say in it, then please do so. If not - then it's a free site, but the offer has been made and made twice now.

Wishing you well.

Ben

You post was indeed in your own words. It was however nothing more than your own explanation of a premise that was put foreward by hoo.

This was never put foreward as a discussion about private transport.

Post 3, my post was exactly what you asked for in the other thread. Point by point.

Your reply was:
"As I said, my direct knowledge of Star Trek is limited to the first series and a couple of the movies, so I am not going to be able to discuss on an episode by episode basis." ...

"Hoo's argument seems to conclude that...
I remember in particular the comments about the lack of individual vehicles. People do massively prefer their own transport to public transport, and always have since the invention of the wheel."

Then your own words
"The main reasons I can think of for not using your own transport are:"

*******

From the origional thread that lead you to start this one.

"Not really. I was ignoring the slagging match.

Any thoughts on what I actually posted, Bain?"

and

"Which assumptions do you disagree with? I am always more interested in where I have got it wrong than in where I have got it right."

Now it seems you're glancing over your own post

One of the things I find fascinating about h2g2 is the extent to which I discover that I can use particular words, but fail to communicate, and someone else can reply and I simply fail to understand. Since I can tell that neither of us are dumb, I end up concluding that we simply use language in profoundly different ways.

This has happened to me a couple of times before, with researchers you can count on the thumb and index finger of one hand, so although it has happened, it doesn't happen often.

I am not sure if that is what is happening here.

It is a frustrating experience for all involved, because of the tendency to assume that someone who is clearly articulate, who can clearly think, who is clearly wanting to engage in a discussion, must therefore be being willfully stupid if they miss one's precisely crafted points.

Since I know neither of us are stupid, and since I know that I am not being willfully dumb, and since I assume that you aren't either, I suggest that we both take deep breaths, and start again.

I am reminded of a poem I wrote some time ago in another context entirely:

What I say is what I mean.
What you see is what you get.
What I think shows on my face,
and yet you're *still* confused, my pet?

I don't have any agenda.

In particular, I don't have any agenda regarding the Star Trek universe. I am willing to be swayed either way. Hell, I am sufficiently ignorant about it for it to be easy to sway me either way.

I am curious whether what I posted here in post 4 stands or falls on its own merits. Let's take it as a starting point. No need to go searching for another place to start.

If you can show me where I've got it wrong - then great - I have learned something, and I would hate to live the rest of my life only knowing what I know now.

You clearly don't think I have got it right. So maybe I have it half right, or a quarter right, or maybe I have it right, but you wouldn't put it like that.

I had a long conversation with Acid Overdrive about extinctions and whether or not they matter. We have profoundly differing views on the subject, but we read each others' posts and replied to them, and it became clear where things that each of us had said were sloppily worded, or where they were sloppily thought through. No-one 'won' the debate, because it wasn't a contest, but we were both winners because we understand each others' opinions better, and the reasons why we hold them.

I am hoping that you and I can do the same here.

Ben

"I remember in particular the comments about the lack of individual vehicles. People do massively prefer their own transport to public transport, and always have since the invention of the wheel."

I cannot argue the rest of your post because hoo's asertion that there is no private transport is one that I do not concede.

To argue the details of your point would require me to concede a point that I haven't.

You have stated that you cannot argue from a point of knowledge of episodes and there are epidodes like "little green men" - DS9 which hinge on a privately owned vehicle.

It is also stated that a starship can take years from concept to creation.

So
A) Private transport does exist
B) Depending on size and complexity, a ship is not something you just pick up at a used market like in Star Wars.

***************
I would also dissagree with "People do massively prefer their own transport to public transport"

Firstly many people would rather quickly get where they're going in a bus lane than crawl along at 10k/h or less in city traffic.

Yes Bain anyone who want to spend as little time travelling to work as possible would rather go there quickly. You are 100% right

That does not change the fact which you yourself have observed that there are people sitting in traffic jams.

People sit in traffic jams because despite as you have correctly said people would rather go quickly and cheaply even though it is slower and more expensive people would rather uuse their own transport.

Or why else would they sit in those traffic jams?

one love

Hi Blicky

Welcome to this thread.

I warn you, the first sign of a flame, hell no, at the first sign that you are reaching into your pocket and might be looking for something which could possibly be your lighter, I'll throw a bucket of water on you!

So if you end up in the corner of a room, soaking wet and with a wet hanky, you cannot say that you haven't been warned.

In the meantime, Bain, when I introduced the private transport / public transport thing earlier in this thread, I wasn't thinking of the starships. I was thinking of local transport on-planet. I should have said so. My bad.

Would you care to take another look at the points I was making based on that assumption?

B

" Bain, when I introduced the private transport / public transport thing earlier in this thread, I wasn't thinking of the starships. I was thinking of local transport on-planet. I should have said so. My bad.

Would you care to take another look at the points I was making based on that assumption?"

In that case you'll have to clarify your assumption.


karl brought hoo/member/number to the other thread...
considering the purpose of karl's presence in every other thread made on my space, I don't see this lasting

>> In that case you'll have to clarify your assumption.

Well, all that I currently have to say on the subject of local transportation has already been said, more or less as clearly as I can say it. Let me know what bits of it I haven't been clear about, and I'll do what I can to re-phrase them.


>> karl brought hoo/member/number to the other thread...
considering the purpose of karl's presence in every other thread made on my space, I don't see this lasting

*sigh*

If Karl = Blicky, then I'll ignore him if you ignore him. I have already told him that I will not be entertianed by any kicking fight's he starts. Regarding the superintelligent shade of the colour blue - I'll ignore Hoo if you ignore Hoo.


I am genuinely interested in holding a sane, flame-free conversation with you.

Ben

"fight's" = "fights"



(Note to self: Must not post at 2.00am)

okay, I haven't conceded that there is no private transport to begin with. So until you can convince me there isn't any, there is little point to discussing the details of a lack of private transport.

ooops I forgot the

<>

I don't know - why would they? Blinky, your whole posting contradicts itself! NB - I bus to work, and it's quick and cheap! (I used to walk, in my last job, 20 minutes and the only cost was my own energy! Now that's using your own transport.)

Hi Adeleide

This thread may have defeated itself, I think. The original intention was to create a space where Bain and I could continue the conversation which was happening elsewhere, where we could do it without being distracted by other people, and where we could leave the bitching and back-biting behind.

Yeah. I know. On Hootoo *everybody* can hear you scream.

Adeleide, I should warn you that I am applying the exact same no flaming rule to you that I applied to Blicky. Comments like "your whole posting contradicts itself" are simply too confrontational for this thread. I am genuinely wanting to have a sane discussion with Bain.

In fact, I'd appreciate it if you and Blicky ambled off to a different part of the forest and let us get on with it. Can't tell you to. Won't get upset if you don't. Can ask nicely. Am doing so now.

Ben

Hey, B., I saw the name of the thread on Bain's space when I clicked on his name - and whaddaya know, Blinky not making sense! (It really did contradict itself...) But even so, I'm off outta here, cos it looked like it was a good discussion, and I don't want to derail it.

Bain - I am not asking you to concede anything. All I am doing is inviting you to play an imaginary game with an imaginary world.


>> So until you can convince me there isn't any, there is little point to discussing the details of a lack of private transport.

Hey - Bain - cut me a bit of slack here! How can I convince you that there isn't any public transport without discussing it?

Actually of course, I am not trying to convince you. I am just playing and inviting you to play. All I am doing is kicking a few thoughts around like a football in the street. There're are no goal-posts, there's nothing to win, nothing to lose, it's just a nice way to pass the time.



I think I am going to quote chunks of post 4 and use them as a starting point, (since we really don't seem to have got very far in the intervening 14 posts).



No I'm not. I got diverted by real life and have used up this morning's internet time.



Back later.

B