Anonymous asked: do u ever cry abt space rovers bc we sent them out there to d i e
Okay, I mean, on the one hand yes.
But on the other hand, like.
Do you ever sit back on your hands and look up at the stars and think about how we put little pieces of ourselves in space rovers and sent them up there to explore.
About how humanity could have named them anything and we called them Curiosity and Voyager and searching-words and traveling-things.
About how we crave exploration and learning and newness so much that we taught them to do the same, to seek knowledge and answers all their lives–because that’s all we do, you know, we have our little batteries going boom in our chests and we learn and grow and travel as much as we can before our batteries run down.
About how we put a Golden Record of information from Earth in a ship and sent it out, just on the random off chance that someone would find it, and people added greetings and kind words and “please come find us, because we’re alone in this endless black and you might be alone too and maybe we can be not-alone with each other,” and then we entrusted it to one of these things that we had made.
About how space rovers are each a message in a bottle, the best and most curious part of humanity, the part of ourselves that we hope is at our core, the part of ourselves that we believe is the most worthy.
About how we filled them up with our souls.
Because sometimes I think about that, and then I really cry.
zhaan:
ive been thinking lately about the tng/ds9/voy triad and like, im sure im giving someone in writing the benefit of the doubt, but how perfectly those series reflect and mirror each other philosophically, like 3 sides of the same coin, and its pretty damn good. tng 2 me is exactly summed up by siskos quote of its easy to be a saint in paradise. ds9 itself is about war in all its impersonal brutality and the nasty side of politics and especially of the federation itself, and surviving that. voyager is about being so far removed from it all and still trying to keep up a moral highground - without any outer context to supply it anymore, and no overarching institutional law (read consequence) at all. and that theyre set the same time too. and then you go into it a bit more and you see each independant show bring this up in itself a few times (even if they continue regardless the next episode which is pheh). its just really fucking cool 2 me
like picard is about following the rules even if its wrong. he’ll debate it to the cows come home the writers will go Ah Ah Ah Is This Right? but he will always side with the federation - law - because law is primarily good. ds9 lampshades all of tng by having sisko be forced to do horrible terrible things for the good of federation at large, and how he takes things into his own hands to protect others because he doesnt actually trust the federation at all and for good reason - law is primarily bad. taking the federation away entirely - voyager makes an effort of trying to be about janeway trying to apply irrelevant morals to her crew for stabilitys sake, which in the end the writers dont really do very well as she always sides with federation morals but theres a few where she dont because the law is inapplicable, utterly
and its just like, i dont know, its cool
So…
Picard is Lawful Good, Janeway is Neutral Good, and Sisko is Chaotic Good.
Yes?
(via yea-lets-do-this-shit)
