Was it too politically suggestive, too restrictive to the little imaginations of the writing staff? Perhaps we'll never know.
What's ironic is that their choosing so glaringly not to deal with the warp 5 limit on screen is by metaphor the worst thing we could do in RL when facing the problem of actual environmental pollution. TNG raises an issue as a metaphor for pollution, and then ST as a franchise deals with the issue by sweeping it under the rug. Good advice!
Agreed. It's been a long while since I've seen the ep, but as I recall, the environmental damage (pollution, etc.) will be so bad that a region of space will be uninhabitable if ships continue to use warp at all. Picard wrangles with this and is upset that space travel, his passion has proven to be destructive. Oh man, the right thing to do is 'change our ways' to avoid long-term consequences that will only become serious generations from now.
But then Starfleet, given ALL the scientific evidence, does not ban the use of warp, but caps it to lessen the inevitable damage (i.e. government X does not ban gasoline cars that consume precious resources at an incredible rate and pollute and damage the environment, but merely decrees that they be slightly more fuel and emission efficient)
So now the CORRECT solution has been denied Picard, so he can continue his moral outrage, while still traveling at warp, and even being granted exceptions to the 5.5 limit in emergencies. OK, exceptions for dire situations make sense, but I'm still unsure as to the episodes point of view.
Are we Picard? Outraged because our leaders have failed to react seriously enough? But then Picard has defied his leaders on ethical grounds in the past, been proven correct and effected change. So is this problem just not important enough for him to take a stand over? Or would it just be too much of an inconvenience? Many today don't feel the need to react strongly to such a long term problem. Is that the point? Do Picard and crew represent how people of the world (specifically most Americans) actually react today? Upset, but feeling powerless, or that the problem is too abstract to enforce an uncomfortable solution? Wo, with the allegory in place, should WE as 20th and now 21st century peoples be expected to take even stronger action than our ethically evolved 24th century counterparts?
If elected political leaders today were to ban automobiles altogether in favor of public transportation, or lower speed limits to 35mph even on highways for all but hybrid or electric cars, change would occur at a huge financial and political cost. Well UFP politics have never been greatly explored, but the society the show is selling indicates a lack of want, so the financial incentive would be lessened or reduced, and if the true aspiration is to better themselves, then tough decisions should trump re-election concerns. But if this enlightened society is unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps, how could today's society with its political realities be expected to do better?
Interesting topics for discussion and debate, but hard to make compelling, especially when the show's solution is so muddled, then conveniently forgotten or solved off-screen. The debate is worthy, but the drama ultimately went nowhere.
