Was Gene Roddenberry's vision of humanity's future

FTL is impossible, star trek will just as fantastical in 2269 as it was in 1969.

>>2412397
99% of the human population would be leaches jerking off

1% would feel inclined to further mankind and explore

>>2412404
>FTL is impossible
No it isn't. It's impossible with our current knowledge.

The much more unlikely thing is having all those humanoid aliens.

>>2412409
That's ok because we cant build space ships for everyone.

>>2412418
Well we would have more resources for spaceships if genocide the inferior races

File: 1487803574374.png (158KB, 666x607px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 666x607px

>>2412417
>n-no it isn't

File: Prototype Warpship.jpg (862KB, 2500x1408px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 2500x1408px

>>2412404
>FTL is impossible
[citation needed]
Last I checked, NASA was investigating FTL mechanisms and determined that some of them might be plausible. (See: Alcubierre Drive)
They even drew up a warpship concept and future construction plans if the drive was proven successful.
>>2412417
Considering our current knowledge of biology, it isn't too unreasonable to take such a conservative approach to evolution on other worlds. Maybe humanoid species are those with the greatest potential for evolutionary success.
Also, apparently the reason why most advanced alien species in Star Trek were humanoid is because a progenitor race that just so happened to be humanoid decided to seed every habitable world they could find with their genetic structure, thus influencing the evolutionary path of all native species thereof.

>>2412445
You don't need a warship, the alcubierre drive, if it works could have a horrible application as a weapon, it's literally capable of destroying a solar system.

>>2412397
As much as I'd like to think that humans would be pretty chill if all our material needs were met in a post-scarcity economy, the truth is it'd just be aristocrat-tier social backbiting on a massive scale. We'd get bored and unless we find some aliens to shit on (because that's how we work), a bunch of bored lazy people alone with each other in a box is not going to be fun for very long.

>>2412875
Remember that Star Trek takes place not only in a post-scarcity environment, but also one that saw two nuclear wars: the Eugenics Wars of 1992-1996 that killed 30 million people; and World War III, from 2026 to 2053, which killed 600 million people (which, if your curious, would make it proportionately twice as deadly as World War II) and saw every major city on Earth in ruins. There was, additionally, the "post-atomic horrors" that lasted even into the early 22nd century which resulted in millions of more deaths.

Also Earth in Star Trek has had artificial gravity technology from around the early 90s, maybe even the 80s, at least. Botany Bay had its own gravity, for example, and it was launched in 1996.

Finally, the Soviet Union never fell in Star Trek, which would also profoundly affect history.

Basically, Star Trek's history...isn't ours.

The society of Star Trek is a communist utopia. Naturally, those dreams are a load of bullshit. If all material needs of humankind are met it will simply lead to a nihilistic society whose only pasttime would be industrial suicide or living in a consumerist way that isn't any different than a vegetative state.

>>2413210
>Soviet Union never fell
>Two hundred years later, everyone is communist

roddenberry_rubbing_hands.jpg

>>2412485
WARPship, not warship.
You do give me an idea for Alcubierre space missiles, though.

>>2412435
Nice argument