My impression is that the protagonists of Dune are all incredibly wealthy, so money isn't an issue.
Star Trek Economy
- Thread starter AdmiralBruno
- Start date
My impression is that the protagonists of Dune are all incredibly wealthy, so money isn't an issue.
Wikia is a very good place to look for stuff on science-fiction and fantasy universes, so it is a failure on my part that I did not discover Dune's Wikia site earlier.
Dune Wiki - Frank Herbert, David Lynch, Sandworms -- several references, no article -- common use
Isaac Asimov, Foundation Series Wiki -- these two Wikia sites overlap, with the Asimov one containing a lot of Foundation-series stuff. Not much on Foundation-series money there, though the series has credits and kalganids. That's money issued by the government of the planet Kalgan.
The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy -- several references, no article
The Future Of Mankind - A Billy Meier Wiki -- money is mostly an Earthling thing in the Meierverse, it seems
-
Star Trek A Look at Money in Star Trek - Italian Style by Gabriella Cordone
Its references are a confusing, contradictory mess. "Gene [Roddenberry] did not want that in his universe there was the concept of accumulating wealth, nor that money was the drive to engage in a job." Yet the series has "Federation credits", "latinum", etc. in various places, though "Truth to tell, in the Original Series we never see our heroes handling money, but they talk about salaries...".
Dune Wiki - Frank Herbert, David Lynch, Sandworms -- several references, no article -- common use
Isaac Asimov, Foundation Series Wiki -- these two Wikia sites overlap, with the Asimov one containing a lot of Foundation-series stuff. Not much on Foundation-series money there, though the series has credits and kalganids. That's money issued by the government of the planet Kalgan.
The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy -- several references, no article
The Future Of Mankind - A Billy Meier Wiki -- money is mostly an Earthling thing in the Meierverse, it seems
-
Star Trek A Look at Money in Star Trek - Italian Style by Gabriella Cordone
Its references are a confusing, contradictory mess. "Gene [Roddenberry] did not want that in his universe there was the concept of accumulating wealth, nor that money was the drive to engage in a job." Yet the series has "Federation credits", "latinum", etc. in various places, though "Truth to tell, in the Original Series we never see our heroes handling money, but they talk about salaries...".
She concludes
Money - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki
New World Economy - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki
But such moneylessness is contrary to the numerous references to some sort of money. Seems like a big mess that the series' creators never thought out very well.
Sometimes no money at all, sometimes using money for various things.
New World Economy - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki
But such moneylessness is contrary to the numerous references to some sort of money. Seems like a big mess that the series' creators never thought out very well.
Hypothedically, if people from Earth lived in a money-less environment, and people on Vulcan had a money based merchant economy, what would happen to Earth people who traveled to Vulcan? Would they be completely helpless?
And what would stop the Tellars from arriving in earth orbit with a large empty freighter and loading up merchandise to sell in the next star system over? Or would there be anything to stop them, legally?
I think (imho) the reason the Star Trek writers kept putting references in scripts to Earth and the Federation having a "normal" economy (money, banks, businesses) is that the writers themselves lived in just such an environment. And their day to day lives naturally were in their minds.
Rodenberry based TNG moneyless economy on Resource Based Economy as proposed by the Venus Project (look up their main website and FAQ to get an idea behind how it works).
Essentially, it's automation that brought about elimination of 'working for a living' and a different concept was adopted where Humans (and others who join the Federation eventually) are free to pursue higher things.
The idea of doing more with less - technical efficiency.
I find it sceptical that a technologically advanced society would still be using money.
It's simply speaking inefficient and creates a needless barrier between automated production of abundance in goods and services (and actually, we in real life ALREADY produce massive abundance in goods and services - certainly more than enough for everyone, but we do it in a technically inefficient capacity that is destructive to the planet, whereas we had numerous other methods at our disposal for about 40 years).
Not to mention that when you automate everything and anything (which is already possible to a high degree considering we have machines that build other machines, can maintain themselves and each other, are also doing R&D, teaching Humans about space, how to operate, teach us about art, etc. - the info is available online and I have the relevant links to provide the info should you request it), there is simply no need to Humans to work for a living because why would you want to expend money on manual labour which requires rest, breaks, sick days, etc. next to a machine that does the same work, hundreds to thousands of times faster and better, 26/7 (there are apparently 26 hours in a day in the 24th century) with less than an annual income of what a Human would need?
Also, technological automation is one of the primary reasons behind Capitalism breaking down right now in reality.
Besides, you need more understanding in neuroscience and epigenetics to understand that Humans don't need 'money' as an incentive to work.
It's just that the definition of work was changed - although, Star Trek never really properly showcased automation in its fullest potential.
Plus I find it ludicrous that manual labour would be used in construction of starships. That's highly unrealistic considering the dangers involved, the need about precision, etc.
Only machines and automation can do this reliably on a continuous basis - hence why manual labour in construction in the late 21st century and onward is plain and simple idiocy.
Nothing too awkward about non-monetary based economy... it's just different to people who mainly use a monetary based system and know of nothing else (or were taught to associate anything else with being 'bad' - because any culture/system will condition people into defending the current system and its way of doing things).
However, the RBE as portrayed in Trek was not a full blown RBE - I think Federation in the 24th century is somewhere in the later stage of transition with most elements of RBE in place, but retaining notions of governments (people in positions of power), prisons, etc. (these elements were kept so the audience has something to 'connect with' from the present day).
Though, if you have a general population exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving, such a population has no need of leaders or people in power (why would you when you already know the right from wrong and how to live your live much more in line with the natural law and the scientific method).
Essentially, it's automation that brought about elimination of 'working for a living' and a different concept was adopted where Humans (and others who join the Federation eventually) are free to pursue higher things.
The idea of doing more with less - technical efficiency.
I find it sceptical that a technologically advanced society would still be using money.
It's simply speaking inefficient and creates a needless barrier between automated production of abundance in goods and services (and actually, we in real life ALREADY produce massive abundance in goods and services - certainly more than enough for everyone, but we do it in a technically inefficient capacity that is destructive to the planet, whereas we had numerous other methods at our disposal for about 40 years).
Not to mention that when you automate everything and anything (which is already possible to a high degree considering we have machines that build other machines, can maintain themselves and each other, are also doing R&D, teaching Humans about space, how to operate, teach us about art, etc. - the info is available online and I have the relevant links to provide the info should you request it), there is simply no need to Humans to work for a living because why would you want to expend money on manual labour which requires rest, breaks, sick days, etc. next to a machine that does the same work, hundreds to thousands of times faster and better, 26/7 (there are apparently 26 hours in a day in the 24th century) with less than an annual income of what a Human would need?
Also, technological automation is one of the primary reasons behind Capitalism breaking down right now in reality.
Besides, you need more understanding in neuroscience and epigenetics to understand that Humans don't need 'money' as an incentive to work.
It's just that the definition of work was changed - although, Star Trek never really properly showcased automation in its fullest potential.
Plus I find it ludicrous that manual labour would be used in construction of starships. That's highly unrealistic considering the dangers involved, the need about precision, etc.
Only machines and automation can do this reliably on a continuous basis - hence why manual labour in construction in the late 21st century and onward is plain and simple idiocy.
Nothing too awkward about non-monetary based economy... it's just different to people who mainly use a monetary based system and know of nothing else (or were taught to associate anything else with being 'bad' - because any culture/system will condition people into defending the current system and its way of doing things).
However, the RBE as portrayed in Trek was not a full blown RBE - I think Federation in the 24th century is somewhere in the later stage of transition with most elements of RBE in place, but retaining notions of governments (people in positions of power), prisons, etc. (these elements were kept so the audience has something to 'connect with' from the present day).
Though, if you have a general population exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving, such a population has no need of leaders or people in power (why would you when you already know the right from wrong and how to live your live much more in line with the natural law and the scientific method).
No, Gene Roddenberry most certainly did not.
One of the Venus Project's main ideas is a certain type of government. Central planning, administered by computers. There was never the smallest suggestion that the Federation was administered primarily by computers. Nor is there any evidence that the economy and society is centrally planned.
The Federation Council has been consistently depicted as being composed of living representatives from the Member worlds. If Roddenberry actually wanted to insert a Venus Project style administration by computer into the Trek-verse, he could have done this with TNG.
But of course he didn't.
If Roddenberry based Star Trek on what you're saying, then why does Star Trek have leaders and people in power?
The planet Bajor has a twenty-six hour day, DS9 (being a Bajorian station) observes a twenty-six hour day. The twenty-six hour day isn't universal.
.
Last edited:
I said he BASED it on RBE... I also said that the concept wasn't fully brought to life on the TV show.
Hence why I stated that the Federation was mostly in an in-between stage (transition) to RBE. Mostly there, but with left-over concepts from the past (leaders, etc.) still in place due to the suits who ran the network (or at least it LOOKED like that).
As for RBE having a government... if you want to call it like that, but it wouldn't be government in any current sense of the word... nor would you have anyone telling you how to live your life (not even computers).
Computers only provide relevant (more accurate) data about the environment.
You would essentially arrive at decisions based on this data considering the likelihood of this data being far more accurate since it is based on the scientific method as opposed to personal opinions.
And if you used a calculator or the Internet in your life for calculations or data retrieval (based on peer-review for example), you ALREADY delegated your decision making to machines.
This process is by far better than having politicians who are NOT problem solvers and basically know nothing except politics.
But the process in question also needs a general population exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving (for which we had an indication this was achieved to a high degree in early TNG).
So, final decisions would be up to us in RBE, computers merely provide available solutions based on the collective data we accumulated to this point as well as available resources - and since computers can do R&D much faster than Humans (IBM's Watson already did that for medical research and astronomy), we'd still contribute, but computers would easily take those ideas and test them to see which ones work and which ones do not (far faster than Humans can... and you don't need general Inteligence for this... only highly specialized computers and machines, which existed for decades).
At any rate... Trek didn't showcase this in its totality, but it got somewhat close in early TNG using it as a baseline.
Hence why I stated that the Federation was mostly in an in-between stage (transition) to RBE. Mostly there, but with left-over concepts from the past (leaders, etc.) still in place due to the suits who ran the network (or at least it LOOKED like that).
As for RBE having a government... if you want to call it like that, but it wouldn't be government in any current sense of the word... nor would you have anyone telling you how to live your life (not even computers).
Computers only provide relevant (more accurate) data about the environment.
You would essentially arrive at decisions based on this data considering the likelihood of this data being far more accurate since it is based on the scientific method as opposed to personal opinions.
And if you used a calculator or the Internet in your life for calculations or data retrieval (based on peer-review for example), you ALREADY delegated your decision making to machines.
This process is by far better than having politicians who are NOT problem solvers and basically know nothing except politics.
But the process in question also needs a general population exposed to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving (for which we had an indication this was achieved to a high degree in early TNG).
So, final decisions would be up to us in RBE, computers merely provide available solutions based on the collective data we accumulated to this point as well as available resources - and since computers can do R&D much faster than Humans (IBM's Watson already did that for medical research and astronomy), we'd still contribute, but computers would easily take those ideas and test them to see which ones work and which ones do not (far faster than Humans can... and you don't need general Inteligence for this... only highly specialized computers and machines, which existed for decades).
At any rate... Trek didn't showcase this in its totality, but it got somewhat close in early TNG using it as a baseline.
By you're own admissions, Star Trek didn't showcase it at all.
This is presumably it: Home - The Venus Project From The Venus Project - The Venus Project it was named after where some of its supporters are working at: Venus, Florida.
It seems to be about building an infrastructure of automated manufacturing that will give everybody an upper-middle-class standard of living without anybody having to work very much. From the looks of it, the infrastructure will be shared, instead of separate for each person, like for the Solarians in Isaac Asimov's "The Naked Sun". Everybody will live in huge apartment/condo complexes and travel by a public-transit system.
It seems to be about building an infrastructure of automated manufacturing that will give everybody an upper-middle-class standard of living without anybody having to work very much. From the looks of it, the infrastructure will be shared, instead of separate for each person, like for the Solarians in Isaac Asimov's "The Naked Sun". Everybody will live in huge apartment/condo complexes and travel by a public-transit system.
*cough* Picard *cough*
The Venus Project FAQ section also includes this quote, "While communism is a much more humane social system than what we have today ..."
One of the phrases used frequently in answering FAQ questions is "people will be educated." As in, people will be educated to not want certain things, or people will be educated to think a new way. As if people were objects who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for themselves, they have to be steered.
The big problem I have with Deks previous statement is that he said "Roddenberry based TNG moneyless economy on Resource Based Economy as proposed by the Venus Project," as opposed to saying "Roddenberry cherry-picked a small number of concepts out of the overall Venus Project," which could have possibly have been a defensible position.
I do maintain my statement that TNG wasn't based on the Venus Project, there are just too many thing in the TNG (and other) series which are in opposition to the Venus Project's philosophy. One example would be we see the cities of San Fransisco and Paris, under the Venus Project these cities would have been either deliberately demolished or turned into "museum cities." They would have been replace with endless monotonous identical buildings.
And there are people in leadership positions, businesses, corporations, banks, and governments. There's no evidence that people obtain all their needs from "distribution centers."
Picard, Sisko, and Janeway hold senior positions in a structured hierarchy.
We see a legal system in place, there has been no elimination of laws (because without money, people don't require laws).
.
People are educated in this way right now, from infancy onward. The idea that we freely choose who we will be is a mirage.
No, because if that were true, the resulting adult population would think the same, which obviously we don't. The whole point of the Venus Project's "relevant education" to accept the Venus Project and it's goals.
In America as you go from school district to school district the curriculum is very different. There isn't an effort to produce a adult population that thinks in lockstep.
Our current educational system produces independent thinkers and skeptics ... which scares the hell out of some people.
Which is good.
.
In America as you go from school district to school district the curriculum is very different. There isn't an effort to produce a adult population that thinks in lockstep.
Our current educational system produces independent thinkers and skeptics ... which scares the hell out of some people.
Which is good.
.
Last edited:
Mostly we do. "Everyone" knows that blue is for boys, pink is for girls, communism is bad, America is great. There are a few fringe thinkers, but they are anomalies.
Bwahahahaha
Rather weaksauce media sniping aside, there are some interesting ideas in the Venus Project thingy whether or not this or that Trek economy was "based" on it, which isn't a very interesting question. It's more about technical detail than social realization, of course, which is always the Achilles' Heel of any schematic economic idea dreamed up by humanities- and politics-averse STEM specialists -- but it at least has some kind of a different, and more interesting, fundamental basis from "technology will produce so much abundance that inequality will magically cease" which AFAICT was the actual Trek premise.
Last edited:
D
Deleted 69012
Guest
What episode is the unemployed guy in? Not recalling it.
A world in which in which everyone has the resources to survive and works because they want to contribute to society and a world in which everyone works at a sustainable wage are very similar, but the second one says you're only working to avoid the spectre of starvation and homelessness and if you become ill, injured, or aged that you're left to die. I think a world where people contribute to society because they believe it's worth doing (because it is) and it's rewarding (because it is) is more positive and more in keeping with Star Trek.
Functionally, the worlds are very, very similar.
The mansion is just a metaphor: Our culture asks, "if you have physical wealth, why would you give it away?" Star Trek's Earth asks, "if you have physical wealth and others need it, why would you keep it?"
Again, you're looking at things in terms of someone taking. You're thinking in terms of "someone else" or government taking care of the homeless. In Star Trek, you don't have to be responsible for someone being homeless to help them out. That another person is homeless and you have the resources to share is enough reason to help. "Let me help," those three important words where the people of the future insist on giving from themselves to help others.
The future of Star Trek isn't a better world than our own because idle homeless people fill every spare bedroom; it's a paradise because folks aren't declared useless by society because a spreadsheet said the ROI for a science school for teens wasn't right or because federal funding for space shuttle research got diverted to pork barrel projects or because someone wanted to improve their profits %3 by slashing their workforce for Q3. Most people will contribute to society if they can and most people will help others if they aren't afraid of losing what little they have. The removal of artificially-competitive, artificially-meager economic systems designed around the pursuit of material wealth is what enables the future to be better.
I don't--yes, that's the quote I was referencing. If you believe popular management is a sign of evil, man, I can't even begin to argue. Obviously, Star Trek canon is laden with corrupt/stupid admirals and questionable actions by Starfleet and The Federation Council (Insurrection wasn't just a fevered dream, right?)
The reference is another example of an idea. It's not a literal thing. If people are good they don't need to be forced to be good people. A culture which fosters empathy, shuns greed, and praises folks contributing to the common good solves more problems with pats on the back than government can with guns.
If you need to threaten people with starvation or guns for your utopia to work, then I would seriously call into question its status as a utopia.
Similar threads
