8

In "Rogue Planet", Archer states that hunting went out of style on Earth over a hundred years ago.

However, the crew of the Enterprise clearly eat meat and, in "Dead Stop", Commander Tucker would eat replicated catfish and compare it (fairly favourably) to "the real thing". So it seems clear enough that humans of this era do not replicate all of their meat with the protein resequencer.

How, then, should we reconcile these two facts? Does Archer make some distinction between "hunting" and "farming" (which seems particularly dubious in the case of fish), or is this a plot-hole? Or is there perhaps something more... sinister... going on?

Lightness Races in Orbit
  • 12,202
  • 3
  • 49
  • 81
  • 8
    I would guess he meant hunting for sport went out of style. – Jack B Nimble Mar 14 '13 at 15:54
  • 5
    Don't see why farming seems dubious in the case of fish, especially catfish. And most meat consumers eat today is 'farmed' (cattle farms, pig farms, etc). How much hunting today is done for actual need as opposed to just sport ? – Stan Mar 14 '13 at 15:55
  • 2
    Archer hunts the most dangerous animal of all, Xindi. – Jack B Nimble Mar 14 '13 at 16:02
  • 1
    @Stan I mean that there is little distinction between hunting and farming for fish, because fish are generally farmed from their natural habitat. Though fish farms do exist. And I'd forgotten about hunting for sport. – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 14 '13 at 16:09
  • Related, but probably not duplicate as ENT is set ~230 years earlier: Has the human race gone vegetarian in Star Trek? – Izkata Mar 14 '13 at 16:39
  • 1
    Catfish, salmon, and most shrimp are almost entirely farmed. Somewhere, someone is growing those in a man-made pond, or in the case of some shrimp and of salmon, in giant cages submerged in the shallow ocean. It's not hunting at all. – John O Mar 14 '13 at 17:04
  • @JohnO Oh. Okay then. What about all those nets that keep tangling up dolphins and sharks? – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 14 '13 at 17:08
  • 3
    @LightnessRacesinOrbit Those are for other species of fish. If you like tuna, tuna isn't (currently) farmable. Cod isn't, haddock isn't, etc. Those are the ones that they use nets and longlines and whatnot on. Some research has been done on farming those (and since the Japanese will buy a single tuna for well over $1 million there's much demand), but it's still tricky and expensive. – John O Mar 14 '13 at 17:11
  • 1
    @JohnO That $1m tuna is a poor example; the bid was remarkably high but the auction in question is well-known for attractive ludicrous bids for celebration and publicity. That is, this is not a good example of tuna's market price. – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 14 '13 at 17:13
  • 1
    @LightnessRacesinOrbit It's not that poor of an example. We're talking about an 800 pound fish that goes for $25/pound even at the low end of the market... compare that to the typical farm catfish which might earn the farmer $10 gross. – John O Mar 14 '13 at 17:27
  • 1
    @JohnO Just saying it as 489 pounds, so $12.5k rather than $1m. You're not wrong about tuna; just pick a canonical example ;) – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 15 '13 at 10:07

3 Answers3

12

Archer meant hunting for sport/pleasure had gone out-of-style, along with other "bad habits": as mentioned by Commander Riker in First Contact: After first contact with the Vulcans, war, disease and pollution were quickly eradicated once humanity started pulling together.

Farming would still be necessary as not all food is replicated (any references comparing their food to the "real thing").

SteB
  • 3,834
  • 2
  • 32
  • 52
  • Also it is far from certain to say all people do not hunt, hundreds of year later Chakotay's father, who was a naturalist, would have almost certainly hunted his own food. – Caimen Mar 15 '13 at 19:15
  • 1
    @Caimen - he would have eaten what he killed, not done it for pleasure. Even so, he as in a distinct minority, I'm using ALL in a general sense, there may have been 1 or 2 humans in the Federation (how many billion?) who did kill for pleasure. – SteB Mar 15 '13 at 22:48
2

Like many things in Star Trek this is one of those details about future human life that is thrown out because it is what the writers' consider chracteristic of an 'enlightened' society - not because it really makes any sense in the larger context of the fictional world that has been created. Unfortunately these little tidbits are more often reflective of the ideals held by typical left leaning urbanites that form a significant part of the hollywood machine. The quotes mentioned here are a case in point of the view that we 'enslave' animals and other such nonsense like the fact that there is no 'money' yet there is clearly commerce in the future.

Michael
  • 29
  • 1
0

In TOS: 'All Our Yesterdays', Spock realizes something is wrong when he consumes meat. Quote: I’m behaving disgracefully. I’ve eaten animal flesh and I’ve enjoyed it. What’s wrong with me?

In a scene from Star Trek the Next Generation, 'Lonely Among Us':

Riker: We no longer enslave animals for food purposes.
Antican: But we have seen humans eat meat.
Riker: You’ve seen something as fresh and tasty as meat, but inorganically materialized out of patterns used by our transporters.
Antican: Sickening!
(http://rodscuriosityshop.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/introducing-in-vitro-meat/)

So apparently they don't hunt or farm animals.

Lightness Races in Orbit
  • 12,202
  • 3
  • 49
  • 81
Morgan
  • 26,564
  • 24
  • 132
  • 232
  • 2
    Okay but that is not Enterprise-era. In fact that is two distinct eras separated by like 100 years. – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 15 '13 at 10:07
  • 1
    True enough. It was late when I posted and missed that distinction. I can see by the criticism that it's better to say nothing than be to incorrect or in error while in the company of such mighty men. – Morgan Mar 15 '13 at 14:41
  • 1
    No need to get defensive. You made an error and I pointed it out. Move on! – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 15 '13 at 15:02
  • 1
    Then I would say no need to be offensive. I only came to this site in hopes of getting an answer, which BBog was kind enough to provide. I decided to interact and made a technical error, and so get peppered with negatives and subjective edits for my effort? Is that how this site works? If this is the norm, you can keep it and I'll happily go back to my chess games and waste no more time here. – Morgan Mar 15 '13 at 16:27
  • 3
    @Morgan: The negative votes are perfectly fine given that your answer has wrong information. Why would we make a positive/neutral vote? If we did that, we would be misleading visitors. Truly, don't take it personal - it isn't you, it is the answer itself. – Saturn Mar 15 '13 at 20:46
  • @Morgan: Oh, and we also got Chess.SE :) – Saturn Mar 15 '13 at 20:46
  • 2
    Omega, I'm new here and am still learning how things are done and what things mean. If no offence was intended and that's how it's done here then OK, I'm fine with that and apologise for my ignorance. I shall endeavour to do better. As for the chess, I play at a site with 30k active players with a million games in progress. Even so, I'll check the chess offering here at your recommendation. Thanks for your input and appologies to Lightness for my ignorance – Morgan Mar 15 '13 at 22:38
  • @Morgan: No problem! Our chess site is great for strategy discussion and such. Not that I play chess anyway. Welcome to Stack Exchange though! These sites are definitely different from most forums and such, but they are very rewarding. – Saturn Mar 16 '13 at 06:01
  • @Morgan: I don't believe that I have been offensive. You haven't been "peppered" with anything, and the edit was (a) unrelated, (b) not subjective -- I formatted your post according to convention and the site guidelines. Thanks! – Lightness Races in Orbit Mar 17 '13 at 22:36
  • Vulcans are culturally a vegetarian group. They are not human, so spock is not a good answer to this. Additionally, Spock reaction is in context more about his enjoying the meat than simply the meat itself. –  Jan 02 '15 at 20:34