Millenia-old technology

[Deks]

Well one thing to note is that Federation starships use parts made from odd alloys that might be difficult to create, or take time to create, thus slowing down construction while the metals and compounds are produced to the quality required for warp capable starships.

Also there might be a lot of rare and exotic materials used for components (aside from dilithium) that reduce the ability to produce certain things on starships. It might be easier to build certain styles of ships and civilian ships that might not require some of the more exotic materials for the improved sensor systems, shield systems, and weapons on larger starships, and the larger and faster warp cores of Federation starships.

Some of these materials might be able to survive a thousand years with minimal wear.

We quite literally have thousands of synthetic derivatives that were invented some time ago which can be synthesized in sustainable abundance with no damage to the environment for the purpose of replacing what some people would designate
'scarce' resources.

I find it highly unlikely the Feds would be unable to do that - especially by the 24th century where they have replicators.

Once you know a chemical composition of a material down to the subatomic level (which Federation science seems to be capable of), you can conceivably reproduce a synthetic derivative in abundance.
The process of technical efficiency allows you to do more, by using less.
And the Federation has over 150 different species contributing resources, sharing knowledge and technology...
We are talking of exponential jumps which we would have a hard time to quantify because they would happen ridiculously fast.

Trek writers seem to have never considered this.

 

[Ithekro]

And yet they still have mining colonies that mine rare metals and other elements that seem to be in short supply, or "only found on a few planets". And that's without the dilithium being considered.

And the replicators seem to have problems with some materials. Latinum for instance. It might not be that the replicator can't use that material, but it has to have some of that material to use within a compound. Having elements that are difficult for the replicator to handle arranging the atomic mass of accurately might be a problem to consider. Depending on how fiddily the nuetron and electron counts are for some of these materials, or if they are even more touchy by being different at an even smaller level than the electron. Or worse, having antimatter properties.

 

[Deks]

That was mainly done because of the writers inability to understand the process of technical efficiency as well as how science progresses.

Think of it of intentional in-universe limitation which was written for the purpose of creating a necessity of 'trading' - which for technologically advanced culture like the Federation seems... a bit unrealistic.
There's one thing in sharing resources and scientific knowledge... but the pool of data collected from dozens of different species would contribute heavily to scientific development.

Even dilithium (necessary to stabilize Antimatter reactions, was found in high quantities around virtually any star system... plus, the Feds have the ability to synthesize more or recrystallise the existing ones.

 

[Timo]

If science did provide us with the means to create desired matter and objects out of local stuff, we'd never go to the stars - there would be no point.

OTOH, if dirt-cheap star travel is invented before commercial transmutation of matter is, then the latter can be put on hold basically indefinitely, especially when it becomes obvious there are resources easily available on countless Class M'ish worlds. This seems to have happened to Earth, and perhaps also to many other Trek cultures, considering how ridiculously easy it is to invent warp drive and build interstellar vessels.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Deks]

If science did provide us with the means to create desired matter and objects out of local stuff, we'd never go to the stars - there would be no point.

We disagree there.
Humans are quite curious creatures, as such, even with science allowing us to create practically anything out of local elements (which can be pretty much found everywhere else in the universe most likely - albeit probably organized in a very different manner, depending on the region of space), we'd still go out to explore space for the sheer desire to satisfy our curiosity.
Although, if we retain the current socio-economic system (which is going to collapse pretty soon as is), we will probably never get out into space, because we will sooner destroy the Earth.

In Trek, Human curiosity was displayed as a chief motivator for going out and explore (that, and we finally got our act together for the most part)... to meet other cultures, share knowledge, exchange ideas, etc.

Discovering new material configurations in other parts of space is one thing... having to depend on that part of space to actually GET the material in question is idiotic... it simply doesn't make any sense (Especially for a civilization as advanced as the Federation - and no, I'm not overestimating their capabilities - nor do I overestimate ours... its a scientific reality [too many of which were ignored on Trek to create the moronic illusion in which some aspects of current day socio-economic system somehow survive into the 24th century - which is a clear cut projection that makes no sense).

OTOH, if dirt-cheap star travel is invented before commercial transmutation of matter is, then the latter can be put on hold basically indefinitely, especially when it becomes obvious there are resources easily available on countless Class M'ish worlds. This seems to have happened to Earth, and perhaps also to many other Trek cultures, considering how ridiculously easy it is to invent warp drive and build interstellar vessels.

Timo Saloniemi

Again... you seem to be basing that the only reason we'd go out into space is to exploit it... and that this is the primary drive behind the Federation expansion.
I would argue it is not the Federation's mindset...
The current socio-economic system in which we live in however (and should it somehow continue to survive) would indeed simply extend current greed like capacity and see space as nothing more than a thing to exploit (I find that prospect entirely distasteful).

Resources on other planets certainly help since that minimizes the necessity of bringing lots of your own stuff to the site in question... instead, you'd just bring technology that would automatically do the work for you and use the local resources (but in a way which minimizes the impact on that environment - something which our technology is more than capable of, but due to the current socio-economic system we live in, everyone only focus on 'money' and 'cost efficiency' - which have 0 to do with our ability to generate sustainable abundance for ALL with minimum environmental impact).

Humans in Trek colonize other planets to experience life in environments other than Earth.
To live in another part of space and seek challenges which that environment can provide, as well as study it, etc.

I cannot speak for most other races in the Federation, but one would think they DO have a tendency of sharing very similar ideas about space exploration - though some would have initially joined due to different reasons: benefits of mutual protection, etc.

This is likely why Humans 'lead the way'... as they were described and portrayed as most inquisitive about space exploration and try to talk with others first instead of picking a fight - compared to other races (example: Vulcans - who did some exploration, but not as extensive as Humans).
Andorians as well are not as bent on exploration, but once they settled their problems with the Vulcans and Tellarites... all 4 races founded the Federation in response to the Romulan threat, and subsequently (after the war) focused their efforts on exploration (a change from previous mindsets which many serving in SF seem to share).

For some reason, it was Starfleet that became the exploratory and defensive arm of the Federation - could be that the other races (Vulcans, Andorians and Tellarites) wanted to engage in a new mindset, but needed a relatively 'fresh' species to show them how it could be done... and this is where Humans came in (a bit of a romanticism and self-love of one's species - but regardless, it was written as a way to show the Humans in real life we can do far better compared to what we do now).

Point being... since this is a topic about the Federation... exploitation of space for its resources is not its agenda or motive (they are part of it because, as the Federation expands and new worlds are colonized, the resources of those worlds would be utilized - I'm simply saying that all the trading and shuffling all the materials, etc. is a waste of time since you can just as easily set up the automated processing technology on the spot from the get go [which is something they'd be able to do] and do things locally).

 

[Ithekro]

It seems more that there was a shift in technology and/or ideology between the 22nd and 24th centuries. The planets that would become the United Federation of Planets in the 22nd century do not seem to be advanced enough to have limitless resources. At least when dealing with the rare elements and exotic materials which do not seem to be found everywhere (perhaps they are created in rare stellar conditions not found in the creation of most star systems or nova).

The 23rd century Federation is still setting up mining operations and working with various planets of varying technological levels for certain materials, dilithium, and organic compounds for medical purposes. Also doing so in competition with the Klingon Empire. They do not yet seem to have the ability to have unlimited resources, though they have less issues than the United Earth and future allies had in the 22nd century.

By the middle of the 24th century, the Federation seems to rarely need mining colonies for rare minerals and the like. Sometimes they do need specific organic compounds for medical reasons, but they are almost not pressed for materals since the replicators are seemingly fully functional. There is almost no want for Federation citizens as long as they are in a larger world or colony, as oppose to an intentionally backward technologically or socially set up colony. Or a failed colony that has allowed its technology to fail. The Federation does not seem to be racing for resources with any other power for its own gain. Though sometimes they will deny materials to hostile powers by getting their first (they do attempt to hinder Dominion efforts to get resources). Only the rarest materals seem to peak the interest of Starfleet in this century...most because they are new, more than for their usefulness (unless it is USS Voyager, which has the issue with not being anywhere near Federaton space). The only thing that seems to be a value to Federation people in terms of wants are relics and antiques. Things that are rare because they are are old and not many survive to their time. They are of cultural significance more than material value. The items may be able to be replicated in perfect detail (if the detail is actually known), but there is still something, at least with humans, that desire an authentic link to the past and having a real item from a past century, regardless if it is actually functional or in mint condition.

 

[Timo]

Humans in Trek colonize other planets to experience life in environments other than Earth. To live in another part of space and seek challenges which that environment can provide, as well as study it, etc.

It's funny, then, that all the human colonizers in Trek seem to settle on Second Earths and live there like they did on the original one - or, better still, like their great-grandparents lived...

In contrast with any reasonable vision of future reality, the Federation exploring space is something that the Star Trek universe specifically allows, by making it so darned easy and cheap. You don't need the sort of preparations a polar expedition a hundred years ago did - you just take your warp-capable ship, a few hand phasers and tricorders, and a decent tent, and go. Colonization doesn't exist in order to support an exploration drive into deep space: colonies provide nothing the explorers would need, that we know of.

Some do provide materials that further colonies need, though, such as topaline - and like you point out, this would be rather senseless and inferior to home-brewing these substances unless mining of topaline were a trivially cheap and simple exercise. It's the same reason we burn oil now: more sensible ways to generate heat or rotary motion are skipped because oil is so incredibly cheap and easy to get.

What Starfleet does and what human or UFP colonists do appear to be two completely different things. And the latter does seem to be an ideological fugue first and foremost: Earth would be a paradise to live on, but so many people hate paradise that they settle on duplicate Earths to create their personal kind of hell there, often shunning not just luxuries (by their future definition, or even by their 20th century one) but basic tools and survival aids as well. This does not result in self-sufficiency, except in the mental sense, and thus nicely caters for all those conflict plots where Starfleet has to get the colonists out of the pit that they dug for themselves. The government thus plays little role in colonizing, but a major role in keeping the colonies viable.

That's not really exploitation of space in the classic imperialistic sense: all the benefits go to the colonists, while the homeworld does quite nicely all by itself. But it's certainly not conquest of space in the Cold War sense or the NASA sense, either.

It is of course fully possible that there exists a more "conventional" colony structure that we never get to see because those colonies are self-sufficient and don't need to phone Starfleet, like, ever. But Starfleet does busybody over basically everything that happens, including curious isolation such as the radio silence from Deneva - eventually, after as much as a year or more, but still. So us not getting a sampling of these "conventional" colonies would be a statistical miracle.

Another thing we never see after ENT is industrial-level hauling of resources. All the military transports and civilian freighters are featherweights, only good for hauling extremely valuable and compact items and substances. So self-sufficiency in materials probably is reality for all the major worlds, even if all the peanut gallery colonies pride themselves on their lack of such self-sufficiency, as it plays a major role on their illusory independence.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[SPCTRE]

More than once on Star Trek we've seen the crew happen upon the home of a long-dead alien race whose technology somehow still operates after being left unattended for thousands of years.

Nanomachines, son.

*

 

[JES]

...Before the airing of the first episode, that is. The hierarchy and the menial jobs were there already in the first pilot.

Indeed... though Rodenberry DID have ideas about 'new Humans' in the 23rd century which suspiciously represented the types of Humans (and other races?) that might emerge on a large scale by living in a 'Resource Based Economy' (The Venus Project).
This was conveniently pushed aside.
He actually wanted the Federation in the 24th century to explore other galaxies (which is FAR more in line with exponential development in technology - though with multiple species working together, the Feds by the 24th century would be even MORE advanced than that).

And the slope seems to grow steeper. Books from the 17th century could be considered eternal if properly kept on a standard household shelf; books from the 19th are thrash that will decay in a matter of decades; books from the mid-20th century may be good and durable paper or then material specifically designed not to stand the test of time; magnetic tapes and disks from the 1970s-80s are somewhat sensitive to the environment; and CDs from the 1990s and beyond will corrode in no time flat if they haven't been scratched to uselessness before that. Since then, data has gone media-free, but that only introduces a new set of problems, as data may become unusable in anything ranging from years to seconds if the software doesn't get properly supported and perpetuated. And the "years" part doesn't seem to exceed five nowadays. Heck, five years ago, I couldn't be bothered to print out my digital photographs; now I have to, as no reliable storage media exist any more.

Lack of reliable storage is a fault of the monetary system.
Any system in which you have money and ultimately profits for continued existence will continue to FORCE planned obsolescence because the businesses will want to make profits in the long run.
But as such, planned obsolescence is insanely wasteful... and on top of that, we DON'T get state of the art technology to boot... we get derivatives of derivatives based on 'existing' materials and methodologies for no other reason but because they are 'cost efficient' (seeing how transitioning to new methods of production and superior synthetic materials and state of the art science - which would incidentally generate technology that would for all intense and purposes to most seem like 'magic' - is perceived as 'too expensive', regardless that we had the resources and the knowledge and the know how to do it for a long time).

The Federation (supposedly) doesn't limit itself artificially like this... hence what we barely got to saw was likely but a fraction of their full scope which was never realized on TV.

...Supposedly weren't more "ancient" than, say, Ben Franklin, so their equipment surviving till the 2260s isn't necessarily a statement for longevity. But they seem to come from that user-friendly lot of Ancients who make their gear easily operable and include engraved instructions - very similar to the folks that built the Stargates for That Other Show.

Timo Saloniemi

Agreed... the Federation also follows a similar principle on user friendliness and instruction manuals.

I guess the novels can more or less easily remove the planned obsolescence aspect from Federation tech.
I think they do have a tendency to expand vastly on their technical capabilities.

And it is unlikely that things are going to change, so long as the suppliers continue to get their way, and most consumers are unaware, and don't demand that the supplier make their products last longer.

In order for things to change, you'd probably have to:

1) Irrefutable proof for your claims.
2) Take these claims and proof to at least one major news outlet
3) Hopefully have this spread like wildfire
4) Have there be a public outcry that the suppliers make their products actually last, and not designed to, well you know.

The light bulb is a perfect example. A pain to change, but it only burns out because the filament isn't strong enough, and you're forced to buy more. I wonder if anyone has even tried producing light bulbs that actually last?

And even then, the corporations are probably going to deny that it is even possible, or say that it would bankrupt them, or increase the prices dramatically.

It might take an executive order, or some sort of persuasion, to get them to do so for all I know!
Or for companies to start what the current corporations refuse to do!

It is likely that the financial system collapsed after the Nuclear Holocaust, and while the wealthy elite were hiding out in their bunkers, new entrepreneurs were at work changing the ways that things were produced.
Needless to say, consumers probably didn't want their inferior products, once they returned to the fold.

 

[JES]

I also had another thought, on whether or not we might exploit space.

Unfortunately, space travel is very expensive, so the first ones in space will unfortunately be the ones with the money to do so.

And with our current system where money moves everything, that will likely be the main excuse to get out there: to mine the asteroid belt for minerals, or to set up massive solar collectors in orbit to beam energy to the surface, or to collect helium three.

Whoever can successfully set up a corporation to do any of this is going to be VERY rich.
If part of that money can be used to fund exploratory missions deeper out of the Sol System, or to explore the ruins of Luna and Mars, then that will likely be considered a bonus.

BTW: how much longer do you expect the current socio-economic system to live anyways? Should I be scared now?

 

[Deks]

The monetary system is bound to collapse in the next 16 years or so.
MIT apparently conducted a study where they stated that Capitalism has until 2030 until its completely gone.
But I would estimate these studies did not take into consideration exponential integration of automation - which could easily reduce that time frame to 2024 or 2025 (or about 10 years at most).

Resource Based Economy (the Venus Project) is an option that would fully integrate science and technology (full scale automation) as a replacement socio-economic system, but it requires a transitional period of about 5 to 10 years which would include extensive education of the general public to take place - incidentally, this is already happening because we live in a day and age of global communications (think social networks such as Facebook, Instagram, Tweeter, etc. which provide numerous sources of info outside of only few media)... and this is growing at an exponential pace.

The transition will occur either way... however, it is estimated that it will be very 'painful' for many who refuse to let go of the existing socio-economic system (mind you, an increasing number of people is changing their minds about it as we speak, because the circumstances are forcing them to question the existing paradigm).

The Federation actually resembles in some ways a Resource Based economy (Which is where Roddenberry got his idea about a moneyless society - however, he was unable to fully integrate all of the premise on TV because the networks at the time thought it would make the show 'unrelateable' to the audiences)... and, the Feds seem to be 'stuck' in a transitional period.
They are about 95% there... but they still retained prisons, the notion of leaderships and governments.

No wonder Roddenberry wanted the Feds in the 24th century to explore other galaxies... it would be far more in line with exponential development in technologically advanced societies which live in a socio-economic system resembling a Resource Based Economy.
I don't think Roddenberry was losing his mind when he was dying... people simply failed to understand how living in a completely different environment results in a different behavior (and they found it 'too idealistic' I suppose because its a complete polar opposite when compared to the monetary system and the deranged behaviors it generates - which many seem to accept as 'functional').

 

[JES]

I'm also wondering about a number of other factors, that might make the transition more painful:

1) How long would it take for the governments to implement and stabilize this new Resource Based Society?

2) Looting and rioting resulting from the economic collapse, making it even harder to let go of the collapsed system, while authorities try to maintain law and order. Might this hamper efforts to facilitate an economic transition?

3) How long would the government be able to stay operational and maintain law and order, while they facilitate a transition? Would they declare martial law, declare our rights invalid, and when would they re-establish our constitutional rights (and some worry that they might not at all, and the post socio-economic system would be totalitarian. I don't think I have to say that this would lead to resistance groups, and civil unrest)?

4) The wealthy elite attempting to sabotage or slow down any projects to make a transition, either to hold onto their power, take as many down with them when their wealth means nothing, or try to secure power in the new economic system, or fail trying.

5) There is also the issue of governments dragging their feet in beginning to set up the logistics for such a system, until the last moment (making things worse).

6) Or some religious whack-jobs doing something stupid, seeing the economic collapse as a sign of the end of times.

7) Which could be even worse, if resource-scarce countries start to fight over resources, when they no longer receive any aid.

Hey, I don't want to be thrown out on the street, or have strangers trying to loot my home, when things finally go south.

But I'm loving what I've seen in the Venus Project. It looks like paradise, and I'd love to do what I love doing for a living: designing fictional space vehicles. I don't mind if I get paid or not, as long as in the end I have a nice place to live, functional, safe, and aesthetic means of transport, good food to eat, and my hobbies.

I'm not all together comfortable about depending on an AI being the form of government. Maybe we should also have elected people who spend terms making sure that they don't make any decisions that would be, IDK, immoral?

I guess maybe I've heard too much about the droid apocalypse, or I Robot is too fresh in my head.

 

[Ithekro]

There ar certain constructs of the Venus Project that are unrealistic simply because we are human that have behaved in specific patterns for all of out recorded history and all evidance from pre-recorded history. These are things like the concepts of leadership which derive from social patterns that can be observed evenin other species, so it isn't just a construct of any particular socio-economic system, but a biological pattern that seems to be retained. There are people who lead and people who follow, regardless of the system in place. That is just how things get done.

Now if you totally automate the leading by computer....are we human? Are we then all just followers what then have the freedom to do what went as long as the system is being maintained and the resources can be equally distributed by need?

Wasn't that what the likes of Captain Kirk were fighing against in the various computer controlled societies? Thae a species needed to be themselves rather than controlled?

 

[Deks]

There ar certain constructs of the Venus Project that are unrealistic simply because we are human that have behaved in specific patterns for all of out recorded history and all evidance from pre-recorded history. These are things like the concepts of leadership which derive from social patterns that can be observed evenin other species, so it isn't just a construct of any particular socio-economic system, but a biological pattern that seems to be retained. There are people who lead and people who follow, regardless of the system in place. That is just how things get done.

Observations indicate otherwise.
Namely, people who are exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking (how to question everything - even themselves and their cultures) and problem solving have no need for 'leadership, people in positions of power, etc.'.

We live in a day and age where we have access to highly advanced technologies.
Decisions shouldn't really be 'made' (which implies personal bias), but rather 'arrived at' using the scientific method.
Other observations indicate that incorporation of the scientific method in the social system actually works.

Decision in RBE would probably be 'dictated' by the carrying capacity of the planet, available resources as well as automation and our scope of scientific and technical knowledge (however, utilized in a way that actually takes care of the environment).

Now if you totally automate the leading by computer....are we human? Are we then all just followers what then have the freedom to do what went as long as the system is being maintained and the resources can be equally distributed by need?

If you ever used a computer or a simple calculator in your life... perhaps even a simple scale... you already delegated your decision making to machines.

However... machines simply allow us to precisely measure what is happening in the environment, and after that, it is our responsibility to integrate this data when it comes to living our lives or solving problems.
The current monetary system however does a complete opposite.

Wasn't that what the likes of Captain Kirk were fighing against in the various computer controlled societies? Thae a species needed to be themselves rather than controlled?

Fact:
You live in a monetary socio-economic system which has the 'ruling elite' that controls society and people's lives to a massive extent and creates the following:
Social stratification, enormous prohibition of access to basic necessities and numerous desires through usage of 'money' (if you don't have it , you can't have it - the notion that 'working for a living' somehow has to justify our right to exist - which to be honest is completely deranged and inhumane at best).

Kirk was at times a moron.
The only reason he was 'obliged' to 'free' people from 'computer controlled society' is because they were portrayed as being 'oppressive'.

Besides... a RBE isn't about computers controlling your life.
Its about using science and technology so we can arrive at decisions and act immediately to solve problems (bureaucrats and politicians ARE NOT problem solvers... ergo, they only serve to maintain the status quo).
If you have a disaster on Earth where a tornado hits and destroys numerous people's homes... do you debate the issue or do you ACT?

You act.
You use resources, science and technology which would prevent such issues in the future...
For example: you use 3d printers/contour crafting to design tornado resistant homes or high-rise building in 24 hours, or up to a week (inverted cones anyone? The geometric shape itself cannot be picked up by a tornado... and you would obviously use superior synthetic materials that can be made in sustainable abundance with little to no damage to the environment).
You don't debate... you don't leave people in shacks and have them fend for themselves - that's utterly moronic.

Nothing the RBE proposes is 'unrealistic'... difficult to understand perhaps for some, because the way of life they live now is simply different to what RBE proposes.

What I find 'unrealistic' however is people today who are seeking justice in a fundamentally unjust system.
The whole field of neuroscience is completely incompatible with the justice system as it exists in most countries.

Lack of education is the problem here.
Science and technology have gone radically forward, while most of the people seem to implement ways of doing things from 200 years ago.
Its insane, and incidentally, when you look at how society works... it's designed to keep people thinking in such a manner.
That is why those who question the existing society and ways of doing things are often singled out and ridiculed... but realistically, change is inevitable.
Life doesn't stand still.

TVP is not a 'utopia'... its simply a lot better compared to what we have now.
A 'utopia' implies perfections - that we have done the best we can do and that there could be no more improvement... incidentally, too many people look at Capitalism like this - and as such I simply tell them: 'You are the ones making a utopianist projection by saying that, because you think we cannot do any better.'

 

[T'Girl]

The monetary system is bound to collapse in the next 16 years or so.

MIT apparently conducted a study where they stated that Capitalism has until 2030 until its completely gone.

No, the MIT study (which was based on information that's 40 years out of date) predicted a "global economic collapse" and not a collapse of the monetary system nor the end of capitalism. Basically a depression.

If you ever used a computer or a simple calculator in your life... perhaps even a simple scale... you already delegated your decision making to machines.

No, that's employing a machine to provide information, you (the Human Being) then utilize that information to make a decision.

the Venus Project

Otherwise known as the end of democracy project.

Besides... a RBE isn't about computers controlling your life.

As you've described it, yes it is computers controlling your life.

which would include extensive education of the general public

Indoctrination of the general public. If you truely advocate people being free thinkers Deks, why is "extensive education" necessary?

I don't think Roddenberry was losing his mind when he was dying... people simply failed to understand how ...

The writers on TNG repeatedly asked Roddenberry to describe how his economy system supposedly work, so the information could be incorporated into scripts. Roddenberry couldn't tell them because he didn't understand it either.

It was just a vague idea with no substance.

")
　

 

[Deks]

No, the MIT study (which was based on information that's 40 years out of date) predicted a "global economic collapse" and not a collapse of the monetary system nor the end of capitalism. Basically a depression.

My fault for lack of proper extrapolation... however, a 'global economic collapse' doesn't really sound like a 'depression'.
In case you hadn't noticed... there won't be any 'recovery' this time around.
Things are rapidly changing in the favor of highly automated future.
How do you expect the current system of 'working for a living' to survive?
Simply speaking: it cannot.

No, that's employing a machine to provide information, you (the Human Being) then utilize that information to make a decision.

You basically repeated what I stated here... however... its' not about 'making' a decision, but instead 'arriving at' decision.

Otherwise known as the end of democracy project.

Very humorous... considering that 'democracy' doesn't even exist in reality.
You are simply provided an illusion that your vote actually matters, all the while people in positions of power are the ones who select your candidates, and those candidates end up doing the bidding of those who provided the funding.
They might give the general populace certain things... but they are miniscule at best, while 98% of their 'promises' end up being unrealized (which seems to repeat itself over and over again).

Shifting away from politics...nature is quite simply speaking a 'dictatorship'.
You can either live in accordance to natural law, or you can go against it (like we are doing right now) and end up making life miserable for everyone, as well as destroy the environment on which Human life depends upon.
Instead of using science and technology for betterment of everyone with a minimal impact on the environment, we use it to destroy the environment while doing little or nothing to repair the damage.
For over 50 years, we had access to technical solutions that would lower the footprint of our species on this planet by orders of magnitude (without curbing down birth rates or killing anyone in the process).
But instead, we go about this planet consuming everything ad infinitum not really caring about 'technical efficiency' and instead allow 'cost efficiency' to tell us how to do things.
For a technologically developed society... that is quite simply moronic.

As you've described it, yes it is computers controlling your life.

Do not attempt to project personal bias into this.
I already explained that in RBE computers simply provide Humans with real-time information on what is happening and that we would test and implement most technically efficient solutions based on that data which would enhance the quality of life for everyone while preserving the environment.
It is the process of the scientific method - nothing more.

Fun fact: your life is currently controlled by greedy idiots who do not know how to solve real life problems and therefore use whatever means at their disposal to keep the general population as docile and ignorant as possible, occupying their attention with frivolous nonsense as well as 'jobs' so they couldn't shit their attention to solving problems.

You also live in a society that creates imaginary laws and regulations which you have to abide by... and if you do not, you end up in jail, or worse.

If using computers for better arrival at decisions and solving problems is your idea of 'control'... then I would personally prefer that to the deranged system we currently have.

Indoctrination of the general public. If you truely advocate people being free thinkers Deks, why is "extensive education" necessary?

If you want to bring everything down to 'indoctrination', then how is capitalism different?

Everything starts from education.
Humans/we are victims of our cultures.

If you do not expose people to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving, nor do you encourage them to seek information that even contradicts various things that aren't necessarily 'widely accepted', you end up with people whose perceptions are extremely narrow and don't have the capacity for 'looking at the bigger picture'.
By limiting information and critical thinking, you effectively make people more susceptible to being manipulated and used by others - or in short... exactly what is happening right now (and has been happening for a long time now).

I'm hardly advocating 'indoctrination' - because that implies I would tell people how to think and lead their lives.
I advocate exposing people to a broad spectrum of information, critical thinking and problem solving and encourage use of the scientific method to solve problems (because, to date, the scientific method demonstrated actual reliability in actually solving real problems).

The writers on TNG repeatedly asked Roddenberry to describe how his economy system supposedly work, so the information could be incorporated into scripts. Roddenberry couldn't tell them because he didn't understand it either.

It was just a vague idea with no substance.

Which again doesn't support the notion that Roddenberry was 'losing his mind' as some people seem to infer.

It is my understanding that Gene Roddenberry got his 'inspiration' of the Federation economic system from Jacque Fresco's idea of a resource based economy (he had various sessions in the past which apparently Roddenberry attended).

As for Gene's inability on explaining it... that's a rather simple one: he might not have understood the concept of RBE properly to explain it in detail, or he did manage to get some of the basics, but not enough again to extrapolate the details.
Those who asked him about it might have lacked the necessary information and context to understand it themselves, or they might just not have liked it because it clashed too much with how our world currently works (which is why they might have decided to fill in the holes by projecting various current day aspects into the show and its time-frame).

This is why I said the Federation in the 24th century seems to have incorporated various aspect of RBE, however, it wasn't all the way there (it was effectively 'stuck' in a transition period).

Some of the writers who came after Roddenberry probably weren't aware of Cybernation or RBE as a concept... while others might have, so we saw odd mixtures that seemingly contradicted one another at times.
Even today, just how many ST writers are aware of RBE or TVP?

Grasping the concepts of RBE/TVP in detail can take time.
It even took me well over a year of studying the necessary materials to gain the level of understanding I have right now (but I do not pretend to understand all of it... not by a long shot).

Roddenberry might not have had easy access to such materials at the time like we have today.
At best, he might have attended a few lectures that Fresco had, but even with that, it would depend on what the lectures covered, to what extent... and how much of it Gene Roddenberry actually understood.

As far as I'm aware... his original idea about the Enterprise-D exploring other galaxies in the 24th century was apparently rejected by the network or someone else because it (along with a radically different socio-cultural idea) seemed that the audiences wouldn't be able to 'relate' with it.
That premise actually fits extraordinarily well into the concept of exponential technological development.
What we ended up seeing on TV however didn't go much further from where TOS was.

 

[T'Girl]

It is my understanding that Gene Roddenberry got his 'inspiration' of the Federation economic system from Jacque Fresco's idea of a resource based economy (he had various sessions in the past which apparently Roddenberry attended).

Problem with that assertion is that one of the main concepts of Jacque Fresco's idea is a certain type of government. Central planning, administered by computer.

The Federation Council was Roddenberry's idea, the Federation's governess is by living breathing representatives from the Member worlds. If Roddenberry actually wanted to insert Jacque Fresco's administration by computer into the Trek-verse, he could have done so right from the beginning of Next Generation.

But he didn't.

Roddenberry was running the show initially, the writers worked for him. There were a fair number of new idea in TNG, especially the first season, but also later. There was never a hint that the Federation or Earth were administered by computers. Nor is there any clear evidence that central planning was present.

No, the MIT study (which was based on information that's 40 years out of date) predicted a "global economic collapse" and not a collapse of the monetary system nor the end of capitalism. Basically a depression.

... however, a 'global economic collapse' doesn't really sound like a 'depression'.

First off, the use of "collapse" is an example of hyperbole, an exaggeration to pull attention.

In case you hadn't noticed... there won't be any 'recovery' this time around.

Why not? There was a recovery from the last large global economic "collapse" that occurred between 2007 and 2009. There have been a half dozen global recessions in the last half century.

Large scale economic depressions, involving large regions of the Earth, date back to the third century.

Very humorous... considering that 'democracy' doesn't even exist in reality.

Outside of the world of conspiracy theories, yes democracy exists.

You are simply provided an illusion that your vote actually matters ...

Commonly in America, elections are won and lost by only a few hundred or few thousand votes.

In the 2000 Presidential election, George W. Bush took the state of Florida by a margin of 537 votes (out of 6 million cast). Winning the state of Florida resulted in Bush gaining a majority of votes in the Electoral College, winning the presidential election.

Of course individual votes matter

... all the while people in positions of power are the ones who select your candidates, and those candidates end up doing the bidding of those who provided the funding.

The Illuminati doesn't control the world's political system.

Indoctrination of the general public. If you truly advocate people being free thinkers Deks, why is "extensive education" necessary?

If you want to bring everything down to 'indoctrination', then how is capitalism different?

The current educational system (which exists in a capitalistic society) encourages a variety of opinions and freedom of thought.

This would be the system that you (seemingly) would want to change away from in favor of your "relevant general education." How do you justify referring to this new educational system as "relevant?"

Do you deny that one of the prime purposes of this "relevant general education" would be to create a social/culture reorientation of the public to enable a change to the world that you are advocating?

The current disparity of thoughts and beliefs in the world would have to come to a crashing end, in order to effect the change to a "Venus Project" type world order there can't be a significant percent of the population that opposes this change.

Which again doesn't support the notion that Roddenberry was 'losing his mind' as some people seem to infer.

Multiple sources note Roddenberry's mental health decline in his later life, the end result of years of heavy alcohol and drug abuse. In September of 1989 Roddenberry suffered a stroke.

.

 

[Wingsley]

But how can that be, in a replicator-equipped culture?

The 23rd century did not possessed (or so it seems) replicator technology. Given the size of the Federation, using non-replicator methods should have filled the sky with Connies. So why not? It would make sense that it was a material bottle neck somewhere.

Either that or the Federation possessed a philosophical restriction on build too large a fleet.

Material restriction seems unlikely even without replicators.
Technical efficiency allows us (Humans in real life today) to do more by using less.
For instance, there's enough raw material on the landfills alone so we can generate 10 times more compared to what we do now, using 3 times less resources (and we already generate abundance - more than enough for every person on the planet in every field).
Extraction of new materials from the Earth is entirely unnecessary at this point... seeing how using the landfills would also spend less power compared to extraction and transportation of raw materials which then have to be taken for processing.
Recycling could conceivably be done on the spot.

A philosophical restriction seems like a more logical description because the Federation is supposedly not an empire that wages wars with other cultures (though I guess it wouldn't hurt to have a bit more ships which would be able to respond faster inside Federation space)... seeing how the Federation technical efficiency would easily trump our own by thousands of orders of magnitude by the 23rd century (most likely - that is, if you take into account exponential rise in automation and technology into account).

In SOL alone, the asteroid field could be easily used for the purpose of harvesting raw materials and creating starships from that using computerized automation.

Upgrading ships would probably be done by harvesting their own components and whatever else needs upgrading for their raw materials and synthesizing anywhere between 2 and 10 new components (or hull panels) from the harvested materials (figuring if the upgrades in question come after every 6 months or a year) - because with multiple races working together and focusing on technical efficiency (which is what Federation likes to do), they'd be more than able to create far more with less like we can.

I am fascinated by this argument. Do you have any citations / sources that can vouch for the claim that we can recycle and draw energy from landfills, thus not needing any new raw materials such as steel, aluminum, etc.?

 

[T'Girl]

Landfills through the decomposition of garage produce methane gas (other gases too), many landfills collect the methane and burn it for electricity (there are other uses too).

Most landfills that do this generate power in the single digit megawatts or less, but the combined landfills in Orange County California generate over 50 megawatts, about 1 percent of the county's total power use.