In Star Trek doesn’t WW3 also include the Eugenics Wars where Khan Noonian Singh came to power?
The memory alpha wiki page for the Eugenics War lists the result of the war as: “Earth is devastated” and mentions humanity almost being thrown back to the Dark Ages.
There’s also this quote:
This is Earth in our 21st century. Before everything went wrong. Our conflict… started with a fight for freedoms. We called it the Second Civil War, then the Eugenics War, and finally just World War III. This was our last day. The day the world we knew ceased to exist. What began as an eruption in one nation, ended in eradication of 600,000 species of animals and plants, and 30% of Earth’s population. Global suicide… - Christopher Pike
The memory alpha page for 21st century also says this in the very first paragraph:
After World War III devastated large parts of Earth placing Humanity in near-extinction
And this in the timeline:
2053 - World War III ends with a nuclear holocaust resulting in the deaths of some six hundred million Humans. Earth begins its long journey towards recovery.
There’s also a whole page about the “Post-Atomic Horror”, which was the era that Q recreated for his court room when he was judging Picard as a representative of humanity in the first episode of TNG.
The Black Plague did away with roughly half of Europe’s population, but was that counted as the world having ended? No. Did people at the time think so? Probably yeah.
Sounds pretty post-apocalyptic to me.
It’s a post-scarcity meritocratic society brimming with life and good values and which posses near godlike technology and interstellar travel.
Put that sentence in front of someone and I dare say a majority will not describe it as “post-apocalyptic”.
Yes, there have been wars, and 21-22nd was probably worse globally, but to someone living in 1913 Western Europe, it may have felt that the world was ending. But I’m sure just because Europe was devastated you don’t consider yourself to live in a post-apocalyptic Europe, do you?
It’s more a descriptor of the setting than going by any actual canonical facts. Kinda how “Outlander” is technically classified as science fiction even though it’s basically 100% historical drama.
I think if someone didn’t know what ST was and you told them “post-apocalyptic”, they might be a little disappointed.
I didn’t say “world ending”. Only you are referring to the world ending. The term being used by me and others here is “post-apocalyptic” and you seem to be conflating that with only meaning the world literally ending, but the term is not as simplistic as that.
Following a large-scale disaster in which civilization has been destroyed or has regressed to a more primitive level
When I hear “post-apocalyptic” I think of things like society having effectively collapsed or regressed as the result of a nuclear holocaust or some other cataclysmic event and whoever is left is struggling to rebuild with factions fighting over the scraps. The world hasn’t ended in this scenario, it has regressed.
Nuclear holocaust and almost pushing human civilisation back to the dark ages while factions fight over what is left is exactly what is described as having happened during the time period following Star Treks WW3.
Judge Dredd, for example, is another universe that is most definitely considered by most to be post-apocalyptic even though Earth still has a massive population living in continent sized mega cities. Judge Dredd is set during a time period where humans are experiencing societal collapse a few decades after a nuclear holocaust. This is similar to how i imagine Earth is in Star Trek immediately following WW3 during the time period known as the Post-Atomic Horror. And we are shown a snippet of that collapsing society by Q during Encounter at Farpoint.
Comparing this kind of scenario with our WW1 or WW2 doesn’t work because neither of those wars set back human civilisation. Even considering the devastation and human loss, human civilisation experienced massive growth spurts in technological expansion both during and immediately after those conflicts. Humanity went forward, not backward.
Comparing it to the Black Plague also doesn’t work because, while devastating to the population, society did not collapse. The Black Plague did not result in any countries being wiped out or collapsing.
I think this debate is more semantics than anything. Human civilisation in the Star Trek universe has experienced a global apocalyptic event resulting in all of Human civilisation being pushed backwards significantly. This is not the same as a devastating event confined to certain regions like both real WW’s (even as massive as they were) and the Black Plague. The shows take place after these apocalyptic events, therefore the shows are post-apocalyptic, but the shows themselves are also set so far beyond that time period they themselves could also be considered post-post-apocalyptic as humanity has recovered by that point.
It’s a post-scarcity meritocratic society brimming with life and good values and which posses near godlike technology and interstellar travel.
Exactly, but we also learn from Picard in the first episode of TNG, during the encounter with Q, that humanity has achieved this level of society as a direct result of learning from the horrors of WW3 so that they don’t repeat the same mistakes. That post-scarcity society evolved from a post-apocalyptic society. Therefore the show can be considered both post-apocalyptic and as you describe. The two descriptions are intertwined and both valid. Just because the underlying post-apocalyptic side of the shows theme isn’t apparent at first glance doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It serves as the origin story of the post-scarcity society on the display in the show.
Tldr (edit I did actually read) it’s subjective, yes. Descriptors of genres aren’t objective facts. Entirely my point. Well elaborated.
But I’m pointing out that if some random teen came up to you to ask for suggestions of “post-apocalyptic shows”, I’m pretty sure you know they would be disappointed when watching Picard having tea and discussing philosophy when all they wanted to was half-naked people in leather duking it out in a blood-dome, you know?
I’d that Dredd is considered that post-apocalyptic by people’s who don’t really know the canon. More like dystopian future. But hey, like I said, subjective terms. Use them how you think best.
I’d agree calling ST “post-dystopian”, perhaps. And I’m not arguing that people diegetically would not have thought “the world to have ended”, but again, subjective, imo.
In Star Trek doesn’t WW3 also include the Eugenics Wars where Khan Noonian Singh came to power?
The memory alpha wiki page for the Eugenics War lists the result of the war as: “Earth is devastated” and mentions humanity almost being thrown back to the Dark Ages.
There’s also this quote:
The memory alpha page for 21st century also says this in the very first paragraph:
And this in the timeline:
There’s also a whole page about the “Post-Atomic Horror”, which was the era that Q recreated for his court room when he was judging Picard as a representative of humanity in the first episode of TNG.
Sounds pretty post-apocalyptic to me.
The Black Plague did away with roughly half of Europe’s population, but was that counted as the world having ended? No. Did people at the time think so? Probably yeah.
It’s a post-scarcity meritocratic society brimming with life and good values and which posses near godlike technology and interstellar travel.
Put that sentence in front of someone and I dare say a majority will not describe it as “post-apocalyptic”.
Yes, there have been wars, and 21-22nd was probably worse globally, but to someone living in 1913 Western Europe, it may have felt that the world was ending. But I’m sure just because Europe was devastated you don’t consider yourself to live in a post-apocalyptic Europe, do you?
It’s more a descriptor of the setting than going by any actual canonical facts. Kinda how “Outlander” is technically classified as science fiction even though it’s basically 100% historical drama.
I think if someone didn’t know what ST was and you told them “post-apocalyptic”, they might be a little disappointed.
I didn’t say “world ending”. Only you are referring to the world ending. The term being used by me and others here is “post-apocalyptic” and you seem to be conflating that with only meaning the world literally ending, but the term is not as simplistic as that.
Meaning of post-apocalyptic according to Oxford:
When I hear “post-apocalyptic” I think of things like society having effectively collapsed or regressed as the result of a nuclear holocaust or some other cataclysmic event and whoever is left is struggling to rebuild with factions fighting over the scraps. The world hasn’t ended in this scenario, it has regressed.
Nuclear holocaust and almost pushing human civilisation back to the dark ages while factions fight over what is left is exactly what is described as having happened during the time period following Star Treks WW3.
Judge Dredd, for example, is another universe that is most definitely considered by most to be post-apocalyptic even though Earth still has a massive population living in continent sized mega cities. Judge Dredd is set during a time period where humans are experiencing societal collapse a few decades after a nuclear holocaust. This is similar to how i imagine Earth is in Star Trek immediately following WW3 during the time period known as the Post-Atomic Horror. And we are shown a snippet of that collapsing society by Q during Encounter at Farpoint.
Comparing this kind of scenario with our WW1 or WW2 doesn’t work because neither of those wars set back human civilisation. Even considering the devastation and human loss, human civilisation experienced massive growth spurts in technological expansion both during and immediately after those conflicts. Humanity went forward, not backward.
Comparing it to the Black Plague also doesn’t work because, while devastating to the population, society did not collapse. The Black Plague did not result in any countries being wiped out or collapsing.
I think this debate is more semantics than anything. Human civilisation in the Star Trek universe has experienced a global apocalyptic event resulting in all of Human civilisation being pushed backwards significantly. This is not the same as a devastating event confined to certain regions like both real WW’s (even as massive as they were) and the Black Plague. The shows take place after these apocalyptic events, therefore the shows are post-apocalyptic, but the shows themselves are also set so far beyond that time period they themselves could also be considered post-post-apocalyptic as humanity has recovered by that point.
Exactly, but we also learn from Picard in the first episode of TNG, during the encounter with Q, that humanity has achieved this level of society as a direct result of learning from the horrors of WW3 so that they don’t repeat the same mistakes. That post-scarcity society evolved from a post-apocalyptic society. Therefore the show can be considered both post-apocalyptic and as you describe. The two descriptions are intertwined and both valid. Just because the underlying post-apocalyptic side of the shows theme isn’t apparent at first glance doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It serves as the origin story of the post-scarcity society on the display in the show.
Tldr (edit I did actually read) it’s subjective, yes. Descriptors of genres aren’t objective facts. Entirely my point. Well elaborated.
But I’m pointing out that if some random teen came up to you to ask for suggestions of “post-apocalyptic shows”, I’m pretty sure you know they would be disappointed when watching Picard having tea and discussing philosophy when all they wanted to was half-naked people in leather duking it out in a blood-dome, you know?
I’d that Dredd is considered that post-apocalyptic by people’s who don’t really know the canon. More like dystopian future. But hey, like I said, subjective terms. Use them how you think best.
I’d agree calling ST “post-dystopian”, perhaps. And I’m not arguing that people diegetically would not have thought “the world to have ended”, but again, subjective, imo.