Roddenberry's future man

[Khan Noonien Singh Jr 0]

Am I the only Trekker that finds Gene Roddenberry's future human an unworkable proposition?

 

Don't get me wrong, I love Star Trek (especially DS9 and Enterprise). But I hate the humans who inhabit the Star Trek universe. What a boring group!

 

The perfect humans who inhabited Roddenberry's universe aren't true examples of humanity. There is practically no diversity. Everyone is basically the same, as if all of humanity in the 24th century were physically perfect and enjoyed sipping hot drinks, reading Chaucer and listening to Mozart or Miles Davis in their spare time. Well, there's nothing wrong with that if that's what recrystalizes your dilithium. But not everybody likes that. I know I sure don't. Give me some 24th century rock and roll, show me a group of humans drinking too much, complaining about their stupid jobs and low wages, or engaging in "illogical" behavior like smoking or using drugs. You know, being human.

 

I think this is one area where Star Wars and George Lucas just totally trumps Star Trek. The believability of the human denizens of a futuristic fictional universe.

 

We've made some huge strides in the last several thousand years. But anyone familiar with Greek tragedy or the writings of our ancient Chinese, north African, and middle eastern forbearers can tell you - we haven't come that far. We are basically the same people with the same motivations. We hold to many of the same religious beliefs and philosophical positions and to the moral and ethical standards of those belief systems. And warp drive, first contact or global catastrophe in the form of a third world war won't change man's basic nature.

 

Which is why I enjoyed Deep Space Nine and Enterprise so much. Those two series got away from the beautiful people who spoke perfect English and viewed religious belief as a handicap rather than a positive extension of a person's character. I also loved the Ferengi. There's nothing wrong with accumulating a little latinum or hitting on your Dabo girls, Quark. Play on my brother.

 

One final question (sort of).......if, according to Picard in First Contact, "money does not exist" in the future, who pays the bar tabs of all those Starfleet officers drinking and eating at quarks? What does Jadzia gamble with? How does the UFP finance it's Starfleet or handle interstellar commerce? Again, this is an area Star Wars handled in a believable fashion.

 

Hopefully any future Trek series will be a little more realistic in it's depiction of human beings.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Khan Noonien Singh Jr

[Kor37 9]

Welcome to the boards, Khan. What a great 1st post! Very thought provoking. I too found the TNG crew very unbelievable. All of them were perfect and somewhat boring. I also feel that they were a bit stuck-up. If you didn't live up to their expectations, you were looked down upon (Barclay, for example).

My favorite Treks are TOS and DS9. They showed a much more diverse type of human.

[trekz 7]

Welcome aboard, Khan! I echo Kor's comments on your most excellent first post. Lot's of food for thought! Perhaps the Mirror Universe is a more realistic look at humanity (only half joking ) Although perhaps Roddenberry was envisioning Starfleet as the best, brightest and most evolved humans, but many are indeed a bit boring and judgemental toward human frailties. The idea that humanity would stop warring with each other is an exciting concept, but it certainly seems far from reality these days, and the idea that in just a few centuries we will evolve to that point seems questionable, although a noble goal. The pre-warp Zefram Cochrane (drinking & playing loud rock and roll) portrayed by Cromwell in the First Contact movie seems more realistic.

Edited December 19, 2006 by trekz

[MrPsychic 1]

Great first post Khan. I remember watching a show on Star Trek, and Ira Stephen Behr said he hated the utopia of TNG, that's why he worked so hard to make DS9 a dark and gritty place, especially during the war.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Welcome Khan, some very interesting thoughts - it's not so much I don't like the Roddenberry view of the future - but that I consider it pure fantasy - it's based on the premise that human nature will somehow change in the next 200 years when as you pointed out - it hasn't changed in several thousand years.

 

Some people also think that human nature will change in response to technology - again - sometimes technology just increases our ability to do great harm.

 

I'm not too put off by the "perfectness" of TNG because IMO the flagship of the Federation represents the best of the best - or something like the upper 1% in achievement of the population. Imagine the star quarterback or gymnast/valedictorians of all the high schools in the country going to one college (Starfleet Academy) and then take only the best of them and you have Picard's Enterprise. In other words they don't even represent the average member of Roddenberry's future.

 

I always had the same question about money as well - a totally unworkable theory.

[Kor37 9]

I always had the same question about money as well - a totally unworkable theory.

 

The money issued has been inconsistent in Trek. During TOS, some sort of credit system was mentioned. Apparently, they DID get paid somehow. In "The Doomsday Machine", Kirk tells Scotty that he just "earned his pay for the week". However, in the 24th century, gold pressed latinum seems to be used all over the place. Even Starfleet officers use it. Given this, I don't understand Picard's statement of not being no money in the future.

[Takara_Soong 4]

I thought it was explained that within the Federation currency was not needed. DS9 is under the jurisdiction of Bajor which is not a member of the Federation so currency was needed.