I will repeat what I said 2 posts ago Not everyone is going to be able to be a captain of a starship or be a doctor ect Someone has got to do the REAL crapy jobs. I dont think anyone is going to enjoy scrubbing the poo tubes on a Fed starbase for example. But these jobs need doing so they will have to be some sort of reward system to act as incentives. If I was born in the 23rd century but was unlucky enough to be born without the abilitys to become a starfleet officer or scientist and I had the choice, live in la la land and do nothing and have every luxury I want provided or work in waste extraction or become a red shirt I think I will pick the lazy low risk do nothing option! At the end of the day people seem to think you have to have either 100% uncontrolled capitlism or 100% la la land unrealistic do what you want socity with zero indvidual responsibility. As I said I see a very fair balance!!!
O and I remember Sisko telling nog that when in the acadermy he used up all his engery allowance on transporting back home. So there is obvisoluy some method of energy accounting.
Menial jobs will be filled by robots or holograms in the future. There will be no need for a toilet scrubber in the 24th century. We're already seeing this happen in real life as factories are becoming more automated.
Holograms only game in after about 2371. Before you could see lots of background people doing pretty lame jobs. Even Rom worked in waste extraction at one point. Plus someone has to oversee the robots and replicators ect
Well, that's you. If doing nothing makes you happy, and there is no stringent scarcity to overcome, I have no problem letting you waste away your days. Some people, on the other hand, have self-esteem and a desire to feel useful.
I suspect there will be less need for the real crappy jobs, but I still don't see how the argument "not everyone will have a great job" is a refutation of anything, because no one is claiming that they will. Perhaps some kind of incentive system is used, or the "crappy jobs" are rotated democratically. Who knows? More to the point, what does it matter? People voluntarily do stuff now like cleaning up trash in parks or clean up after animals in shelters, and they do it FOR FREE. So I don't understand why you think it would be different in the future.
Put it has already been stated by sisko that there was some sort of "price" to pay for useing transporters for civilian use. Im not saying its a corrupt Capitalist system like now. But its does seem people do have to take SOME personal responsibility. Its not a childish do what you like socity. Why is everyone not living in mansion? Its shown that some people are living in box like appartments. Maybe you have to EARN a better home? But in this system everyone has the chance to get that dream mansion or penthouse appartmet all you have to do is WORK either it be cleaning starfleet toliets or inventing a transwarp drive.
This seems more sensible and likely. I don't think the old cliche of "one world government" is either desirable or ever likely to happen. The continual growth of multinational business and international travel, along with modern communications network is undermining even national governments. Any real attempt at an international government would simply act as an accelerant to political terrorism of all kinds, and quite reasonably so.
Im typing on a Ipad on the hurry. Shot me for missing a few E and A's and comas on things. Its a sign your argument makes sense when people start picking on spelling and grammer There is one thing that pisses me off and thats Grammer and spelling NAZI's on a forum.
No. It's a sign you suck at "spelling and grammer". Your arguments have been already commented and refuted.
Indeed. Robert Picard refused to allow replicators in the family home, yet they seemed fairly well off. Most likely they made their living from selling Chateau Picard. There's also Richard Bashir (Julian's father) who seems to bounce from job to job quickly.
Not really refuted. You have yet to refute the fact that Sisko stated that its seems to cost civilians to use it on earth. And as somebody else stated there do seem to be people that bounce from job to job. Maybe I "suck" at spelling but at least I can read!
All we heard about "transporter credits" was that they were associated with Starfleet cadets. Sisko, as a cadet, used up "a month's worth of transporter credits" (presumably in less than a month) transporting from San Francisco to his parents' home in New Orleans to eat dinner because he was homesick. What this idea suggests to me is that Starfleet cadets are issued credits for the use of transporters, with the intention of controlling their travels. It does no good to allow cadets to leave campus willy-nilly - discipline must be built up in them by controlling their freedoms. They can't transport home from their starbase or starship every time they feel homesick. Might as well get them conditioned before they graduate. There was no indication that civilians are issued or have to deal with "transporter credits".
^ But the Federation does have "credits" in a general sense, we've seen that word used many times as well. And not always by Starfleet.
And NO indication it was confined to just starfleet. All we can do is Assume. But it makes sense as why does'nt every Earth Citzen live in a mansion or Penthouse? Harry Kim seemed to live in only a basic apparment before he left for Voyger. It seem you still have to earn a better home. No will homeless and no one is going to take your home away ever BUT it seem that to get your shiny dream home you have to work. On the other hand you see Kirks lodge and the Picards vinyard, these people obviosly have earned this places through there contributions.
Perhaps the most basic kind of lodging in the Federation is something like those hotels you sometimes see (IIRC, they're mainly found in Japan) that have hundreds of rows of cubicle-like chambers which have the bare necessities of life. Thus, if you want anything more than that, you have to work.
Na I dont think it would be THAT stingy. More like a simple box appartment with a bed, replicator, living room and toliet.
I assumed nothing. We know for a fact that "transporter credits" are issued to Starfleet cadets. We know nothing beyond that. You can assume transporter credits are issued to everyone in the Federation if you like, but there's no evidence of that being the case. Who says they don't? If I'm going to assume, then I assume that everyone has an apartment in every major city that they enjoy visiting, and that every citizen has a mansion-sized home somewhere on Earth, depending on their preferences. It's not as though we all want beach houses. Some prefer log cabins in the mountains. Others might prefer to live in the desert, or the savanna, or on the far side of the moon. It's not as if it's any more difficult to get to the moon in the 24th century than it is to get from New York to London. Harry Kim is a Starfleet officer - it may have been assigned to him, for all we know. The Federation used credits in the 23rd century, and a vague mention of an account of Crusher's in the 24th century (to buy a bolt of fabric at Farpoint). Beyond that, what are "credits"? The name of their currency, or is it a credit for "housing allowance" or a "goods allowance" or "transporter allowance"? We don't know. Maybe credits are nothing more than IOUs! Frankly, we don't know much about Trek's idea of the economics of interstellar civilizations, but I'm willing to bet that such a thing would be far different than merely international economics nowadays - and does anyone really understand international economics?