I missed this…what was his take?
Check out his blog for some great stories. Especially WILLIAM FUCKING SHATNER. That one’s hysterical.
Maybe not having kids skews my perspective, but the fact that there are children on starships doesn’t bug me. I actually think it is good.
As we have just noted, having kids on earth doesn’t make them safe. Alien probes with lethal intent, or invading hostiles, or giant space amebas can still kill your children. So can driving to the grocery store.
No one is forcing crewmembers to take their families. It’s not mandatory! But families that stay together perhaps feel that the benefits of being together, and exposing the children to the wonders of the universe, outweigh the risks. Do you not take your kids on transoceanic flights because the plane could go down?
The same with making the Enterprise look like a “business hotel”. TOS had a ship that was stark and utilitarian to the point of being Spartan. There was practically no art, no cheeriness anywhere. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ship smelled of oil and ozone and manly sweat. Not only is the Galaxy class ship more comfortable, it presents a better image on diplomatic missions. The ambassadors journeying to Babel probably thought they were riding the equivalent of a DC-3, but that was what they got.
What about all those guys named Bubba who were abducted while out fishing at three in the morning? :dubious:
“You’re not really here for the fishing, are you Bubba?”
If you don’t want to endure hardship, you shouldn’t join the service, period. There are tens of thousands of other people who are more than willing to take your place. And you should never, *ever *expose your loved ones to unnecessary risks. I don’t care how this is rationalized, it is simply unacceptable.
Modern naval vessels, BTW, are kept scrupulously clean and do not stink of anything, except maybe in the engine rooms.
There was a whole section devoted to the environmental engineering of the starship Enterprise in The Making of Star Trek. The ship was more than comfortable for the tasks it had to perform.
Sez you.
By your logic, kids shouldn’t be playing football, riding bikes, or, in ST time, ever leaving earth at all. I mean, space anomalies, rogue Klingons, or a warp core breech could kill all of you, or the Borg could come and take your little daughter and make her part of the collective. Might as well just wrap them in bubble wrap and never let them out of your sight.
They don’t consider Starship service hardship by the 24th century. The ship was designed for families. So your “choice” isn’t necessary.
I believe the Yamato was the only Galaxy class ship ever lost outside of the Dominion War. And in the case of the Odyssey, the families were removed first.
I think Starfleet thought the level of tech had made travel safe, and they could let families fly along. But, like NASA and the o-rings, they were wrong. I bet they don’t carry families going forward.
In the entire run of the show, how many children were killed on the Enterprise? I believe none. So, it was safe.
Seconded on all counts.
Its tendency to preachiness was intolerable back then, too.
To be fair, even Picard thought that having children on the Enterprise was a bad idea.
I think of it in terms of the early pioneers. Those wagon trains included families with kids, all vulnerable to disease, accidents, attacks by Indians, and so on. Their parents thought the risks were worth it: that’s what you did if you wanted a shot at a better life. And it must be remembered, people then were not as obsessed as we are with danger and safety — risk was a part of life, and facing it made you a stronger person.
I think the same argument could be applied to space exploration, though the utopian vibe of TNG kind of obscured the issue. Of course exploring unknown areas of space is dangerous. But to at least some people living in the Federation, the risk is worth it to be on the vanguard of human knowledge.
Anyone notice this thread got bumped after two years?
Not bumped…renewed for another season. 
Besides, kids are needed on a ship that is ostensibly engaged in exploration. Androids are rare and expensive. Humans are self-programming all-terrain exploration and analysis units that can be mass produced by unskilled labor.
And sooo pretentious. What the fuck is a “Jeffry’s Tube”? Bitch you crawlin’ through air ducts!
Jeffries Tube. Named after the designer of the original Enterprise, Matt Jeffries.
Seriously.
That’s right. Sez me.
How the hell would you know?
The one thing that really struck me as off about the way TNG treated kids (well, apart from the fact they couldn’t write believable kids) is that when a kid lost his parents in an away mission, the kid would just go back to their quarters to stew in their grief, alone and unsupervised. Couldn’t they find a family on board willing to foster a kid who was just orphaned?
Because if any had been killed, Picard would have thrown a party.
I agree with not hating Wil Wheaton the actor (as he got tons of hate back in the day) but can’t we still hate the poorly-written character? (former subscriber to alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die)
Oh, certainly. The writers had absolutely no idea how to deal with Wesley and it showed. They alternated between ignoring him and having him save the day when all the highly trained, highly experienced crew couldn’t. That shit got old quick.
If they’d made him a lot less smart, he could have been an interesting viewpoint character. We could have followed his growth season by season as he gets his “space feet” and eventually becomes a competent crewman before departing for the Academy.
But nooooo…