17

In Star Trek Picard we see Raffi living at rock bottom for a while. She has no job after her discharge from Starfleet, and is clearly not doing as well. She describes her life as humiliation and rage.

And yet by modern standards she has a home, food, and power. Her drug usage isn't condoned but she's left largely alone to do it. By modern 21st century standards its a very soft landing.

Does it get worse than this? What is the worst possible economic outcome someone living on 24th Century Earth is likely to face.

The events of DS9: Past Tense imply that things aren't as bad as sanctuary districts and mass homelessness, but there's a lot of range between that and where Raffi landed. So what evidence do we have about how bad it can get?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LibraryLass@startrek.website 8 points 1 year ago

Not only does she have her necessities, her pissant trailer is bigger than any house I've ever lived in and is smack dab in the middle of a state park.

I've never been able to decide whether Vasquez Rocks is meant to be standing in for itself in that episode.

[-] LibraryLass@startrek.website 7 points 1 year ago

Memory Alpha seems to think that Vasquez Rocks is playing itself in that instance

[-] majicwalrus@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

My assumption was that Vasquez Rocks was playing itself and that it was no longer a state park because there was no longer a state. Most of the Earth outside of cities has probably largely been left to the wilderness and as such parking your RV in any place is probably allowed if not unusual.

[-] constantokra@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

Here and now, you can camp in plenty of locations, as long as you leave after a certain period. It may be that her trailer, or whatever it is, can just pop up and move, so she's just moving around. What does it really matter when you can transport anywhere?

[-] LibraryLass@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Probably, though one would presume protections would be in place for notable natural features.

[-] majicwalrus@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

Yes this is likely a consideration, but I also wonder if the ability for humans to live both without interference and in harmony with natural surroundings is now taken as a given such that no one is expecting anyone to deface or damage the redwoods even if they had set up their camp there to complete their research.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
17 points (100.0% liked)

Daystrom Institute

3235 readers
13 users here now

Welcome to Daystrom Institute!

Serious, in-depth discussion about Star Trek from both in-universe and real world perspectives.

Read more about how to comment at Daystrom.

Rules

1. Explain your reasoning

All threads and comments submitted to the Daystrom Institute must contain an explanation of the reasoning put forth.

2. No whinging, jokes, memes, and other shallow content.

This entire community has a “serious tag” on it. Shitposts are encouraged in Risa.

3. Be diplomatic.

Participate in a courteous, objective, and open-minded fashion. Be nice to other posters and the people who make Star Trek. Disagree respectfully and don’t gatekeep.

4. Assume good faith.

Assume good faith. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but report them if you genuinely believe they are trolling. Don’t whine about “politics.”

5. Tag spoilers.

Historically Daystrom has not had a spoiler policy, so you may encounter untagged spoilers here. Ultimately, avoiding online discussion until you are caught up is the only certain way to avoid spoilers.

6. Stay on-topic.

Threads must discuss Star Trek. Comments must discuss the topic raised in the original post.

Episode Guides

The /r/DaystromInstitute wiki held a number of popular Star Trek watch guides. We have rehosted them here:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS