Wish List for Star Trek: 2017

[hux]

If there really were a shortage of business space (well, hobby space, really) then the bureau in charge of managing such stuff might revoke licences of people whose establishments are not well liked and thus not benefit the populace. If no one likes your gumbo and there are little or no customers, you restaurant licence is revoked and the premises are given to someone else so that they can have a go.

If your wine/product/restaurant isn't successful, why would the government care since we all have everything we want? And how long do you get to keep your unpopular restaurant before someone else gets a turn?

If we don't own our businesses, do we own our homes? What if someone could live in our home better than we could?

Can I wander around Sisko's restaurant and sleep on the sofa since it's a public property owned by no-one?

If i'm poisoned by Picard's piss-wine, is it his fault or the governments who sanctioned his business?

Who determines whether his wine is as good as someone elses. maybe it sells well but someone else could sell even more if they were given the chance.

Etc

 

[Rahul]

1.) Leave the "no money in the future" - angle of Star Trek intact. Earth and the Federation in Star Trek is a post-scarcity society. It's one of the core characteristics of Star Trek.

No it isn't. In ~700 hours of content, it's been mentioned in a few fleeting lines of dialog.

Which means it has appeared more often than the mirror universe, tribbles, Borg and Andorians and Tellarites combined. And it was probably mentioned in as many episodes as klingons have appeared in. How can you get more 'core identity'? The fact that you didn't like it and chose to ignore it in the past doesn't change that. I don't like the prophets in DS9. They are still undeniable a core part of that show.

Non the less, it still doesn't change the fact that currency and economics are mutually exclusive. Nor does it change the fact that, no matter how abundant all resources are, there's always a cost, eventually.

So what? Federation economy deals in incredible large scales. Building starships and such. Processing ressources of whole solar systems. Who knows what entire civilisations use as currency to trade with each other? Probably large quantites of non-replicatable ressources (like anti-matter or energy), or papers with options on them. In a smaller scale for human beings that's basically post-scarcity. Why would you need "money" to buy an apple if the smallest quantity of tradeable goods is "one billion terawatts", and anything below that is basically meaningless because there exists so much of it for each individual being on the planet?

2) Don't explain how it works.

And thus the whole thing becomes preachy and unrealistic, which is why it doesn't belong.

Like warp drive? Or beaming? That isn't precisely explained how it works either. That's science fiction for you.



Again:

We have 400+ years to figure that out. If we could solve this on internet boards, we would have our Utopia by now.

My bet is, the one true ressource in a post-scarcity society is time. You need time to advance in your job. You need time to become an officer. you need time to master a skill. You need time to practice and become an artist. With that, society still works, people still go to work, and people still have goals in their life, because they want to achieve things that make them happy in the time they are given. And the more time has gone into a product - wether it's a masterfull french wine, or an archaeological find, or a painting - , that's what defines it's value in such a society.

 

[Goji]

Kirk told Scotty he'd earned his pay for the week in "The Doomsday Machine".

Pretty sure that episode predates any of this no money stuff. It has seniority.

The first mention that I can recall of there being no money in the future is in "The Voyage Home". And it was mostly a joke.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It being good, with likeable characters and interesting storylines. And maybe set it in the Abramsverse, just to piss off some people on the internet who richly deserve it

 

[Deks]

Depends on how you define post-scarcity.
In reality, resources ARE finite, however, there's more than enough to go around - namely Humanity is producing 'abundance' in material goods and services using science and technology, and being capable of doing more with less.

It is our poor management/distribution of resources (read, market based economy that prohibits access with 'money' and generating artificial scarcity) that's the problem here - coupled with an outdated system that demands infinite growth (on a finite planet - an idiotic premise to say the least) and cyclical consumption, along with planned obsolescence for the sake of catering to 'cost efficiency' and profits, as opposed to technical efficiency and sustainability.

You don't need replicators to achieve abundance... merely clean abundant energy (which in real life can easily come from geothermal, solar, wind, tidal and wave - and we're talking Zettajoules of power here coming from just geothermal that would last us thousands of years) and automation.
In Trek, energy generation would probably be done in a similar capacity on planets, while anti-matter and fusion would mostly supplement the grids if needed - on Starships, fusion and anti-matter are primary energy sources.

I personally don't want to see a market based economy in Trek for the simple reason that it only serves to promote the ideologies of current day societies into the future (which is really absurd - that would be on the level of Star Wars, and THAT is much more of a fantasy than science fiction - Trek at the very least tried to differentiate itself by showing something different, a different version of Humans - though it was poorly fleshed out, mainly due to lack of proper information on the subject and because they wanted other stories to tell to satisfy ratings)... the writers should look into Resource Based Economy (aka, The Venus Project) to get their clue on how to portray a moneyless economy and showcase a possible (and positive) evolution of Humanity - I'm sick to death of dystopian stories that have 0 clue on how science works, let alone promote the nonsense of 'Human nature', and that tehcnology is going to destroy us all (that's for the most part unsubstantiated nonsense written by those who understand little to nothing about how science and technology work - so I think we need less ignorance, and more quality this time around done with some research).

If Trek was based on science initially... let it be that again... only much more closer to real science - because comes on, we live in the information age today where it's ridiculously simple to access a huge body of scientific knowledge on these things and give us relatively accurate information when it comes to motivations, behaviour, etc.

Also, picking up a calculator to properly define Warp speeds, and how long it takes to reach a destination (and then writing a story around that) wouldn't hurt either.

As for what would Humans do in a moneyless future.
Money is a poor motivator for Humans. It's a good motivator for doing repetitive tasks, but nothing beyond that - so, let automation handle boring/repetitive tasks and allow Humans to dedicate themselves to higher things without the pressures/demands that exist today to justify your own existence.

When it comes to Picard's brother producing wine and having that land... I think it was a combination of inheritance prior to the new world economy (aka, moneyless economy), with a desire to dedicate themselves to making wine in a 'traditional way', simply because this way of life was satisfying to Picard's family at the time, and Picard's brother.
Same would apply to Sisko's father and him running his restaurant. They do it because its something they like doing.

We have over 150 million volunteers around the globe doing all kinds of things for free... and most people when they aren't at work usually do 'something' without needing money - some people do very constructive and complicated tasks, and aren't being paid a dime to do it either - they do it for the sheer enjoyment, or just because it is something that piqued their interests.

Trek merely created an environment where working for a living (and subsequently forcing people to justify their existence) was rendered useless, and encourages people instead to find their real passion in life and contribute to society like that - which in actually would contribute to society in a far 'richer' capacity than someone working behind a till or in customer service simply because it is 'demanded' of them to do so, to push money around for the sake of it.
Everything Humans do can contribute to society... its just that in Capitalism, the priority is shifted towards cost efficiency and accumulation of profits.

Kids in reality are really curious... they don't get paid to do stuff... they just do them.
Now imagine what such kids would grow up to accomplish without pressures of having to pay for bills and working on mundane tasks for the sake of moving money around.

This kind of society is very much doable in real-life, and the majority of reasons behind why some people are against it is because they were raised in a given culture and way of life they think is the valid one... meaning that this cognitive bias will likely override a possible showing of an environment where things are done differently and discard it as 'unrealistic' or less important... simply because they don't know any better/differently.

But as I said, Trek tried to move beyond such things at times - though it was poorly fleshed out.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Which means it has appeared more often than the mirror universe, tribbles, Borg and Andorians and Tellarites combined. And it was probably mentioned in as many episodes as klingons have appeared in. How can you get more 'core identity'? The fact that you didn't like it and chose to ignore it in the past doesn't change that. I don't like the prophets in DS9. They are still undeniable a core part of that show.

Those are all tangible things, not some fanciful philosophy. Despite insistence to the contrary, Star Trek has no "core" ideals, principles, or political agenda. They are always adapting to the speed of the plot and the current geopolitical climate.

So what? Federation economy deals in incredible large scales. Building starships and such. Processing ressources of whole solar systems. In a smaller scale for human beings that's basically post-scarcity

They funny thing about any political or economic model is it tends to always work well on the micro level. And, if the only way humans can "be better" is when we find away to make all resources as infinite as we need them, then that doesn't really "say" a whole lot does it?

But you missed the point completely. Humans don't exist solely on their own small scale. Any economic model can work wonders if it's small and self-contained. I'm sure a venturous group of people could create their own perfect Ayn Randian paradise out in the middle of some Oklahoma field, should they choose to.

Like warp drive? Or beaming? That isn't precisely descirbed either. That's science fiction for you.

None of those things solicit a conceit or set forth an agenda. The how and why are ultimately irrelevant.

 

[Rahul]

Kirk told Scotty he'd earned his pay for the week in "The Doomsday Machine".

Pretty sure that episode predates any of this no money stuff. It has seniority.

The first mention that I can recall of there being no money in the future is in "The Voyage Home". And it was mostly a joke.

That's so called "early installment weirdness". Like how Marshall in how I met your mother never picks a fight. Except in the first season, when he clearly does. ANd yeah, Scotty probably got paid, in terms of spare time off duty, and in progression in his career. The "no money stuff" has appeared from the TOS movies onwards to all other incarnations of Trek. And hell, even during TOS it was mentioned that traditional things of wealth (like diamonds) have lost their meaning (the halloween episode of TOS, don't remember the name).

 

[Rahul]

Star Trek has no "core" ideals, principles, or political agenda.

...

None of those things solicit a conceit or set forth an agenda. The how and why are ultimately irrelevant.

How does "no money" set forth an agenda? It's a vision of the future (as much as "racism doesn't exist anymore"). HOW that works may be a personal agenda. But it itself is merely "science fiction" as much as "humans have longer life spans" , "we have no wars on Earth anymore", "no religion" and "flying cars".

And HELL YES does Star Trek have "core ideals". It's usually hailed as one of the most accessible examples of humanism. You won't believe it, but racial equality once was a hot debated topic (and, as a matter of fact, still is. Much like "religion", to which Star Trek has a stance as well).

And a 'post scarcity'-society is actually one of the most realistic predicions of Star Trek, compared to faster-than-light travel (physically impossible) and humanoid aliens (highly unlikely), and actually achievable.

"Space opera" simply is not actually hard-sf. But it usually has more of the outlandish (and sometimes therefore more "fun") concepts. Like hot green aliens. Like flying cities. And like perfectly working hippie utopias.

 

[LocutusCrusher]

That's so called "early installment weirdness". Like how Marshall in how I met your mother never picks a fight. Except in the first season, when he clearly does. ANd yeah, Scotty probably got paid, in terms of spare time off duty, and in progression in his career. The "no money stuff" has appeared from the TOS movies onwards to all other incarnations of Trek. And hell, even during TOS it was mentioned that traditional things of wealth (like diamonds) have lost their meaning (the halloween episode of TOS, don't remember the name).

Was it ever mentioned on ENT?

 

[Deks]

FTL travel was at least stated to be theoretically possible... as are transporters for example (on which we already developed progress by transporting information etc.) , along with quantum entanglement for communications, tractor beams, etc. (all of which are being done on small scales right now).
Obviously, these technologies might show up in real life further down the line differently than in Trek, but Trek did at least help somewhat inspire some research towards this area.

 

[Deks]

Was it ever mentioned on ENT?

I can only recall Archer saying to that Ferengi that monetary based economics almost ruined Humanity, and that they decided to do things differently.
I think already by the mid 22nd century, Humanity went into a moneyless type of direction, which was finally realized in the later half of 22nd century as Paris mentioned on Voyager in 'Dark Frontier'.

As for TOS and monetary references... namely: "Kirk told Scotty he'd earned his pay for the week in "The Doomsday Machine"...
Did it ever occur to anyone that Kirk could have easily meant this in jest or joking manner?
People have said the same thing to me when I did things for free for them... it was just an expression saying 'job well done'.
For TOS, it could be seen as nothing more than a throaway line that gave audiences something to connect with from real life.

 

[rahullak]

Science-fiction means that there has to be some attempt to explain the conceits of the narrative. If the audience is expected to believe that the setting has a "moneyless" economy, there has to be some attempt, maybe a single episode, maybe a stream of dialogue in a single episode, that explains how moneyless works.

Otherwise, it is just straight-up fantasy, where you get to do whatever you feel like without needing to explain anything. The technology-based conceits in Trek are explained to some extent; there is some attempt to connect it with science, even though when you get to a deeper level it's a fudge. I think it is not too much to ask for the same treatment for "moneyless" and "post-scarcity".

 

[Trekkin]

Well, DS9 did attempt to have Jake explain it.

Of course, the actual point of the scene was so that Nog could point out that if the Feds didn't need money, then Jake wouldn't be asking Nog for a loan.

 

[dbcooper]

Labour is still a scare resource in the Federation.

I've enjoyed Ilya Somin's writing on the topic.

http://volokh.com/posts/1190182117.shtml

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1241844798.shtml

 

[Deks]

At the time of its inception, I don't think Roddenberry had a good idea how a moneyless society would work.
He based his idea for it on Cybernation as it was known back in the 80-ies from Jacque Fresco, but he missed on the pertinent details.
Today, this information is accessible easily enough online by looking for The Venus Project - it would be a simple matter for the writers of new show to look it up and use it as a guideline.

As for DS9 using Jake to explain it... yeah, that was a rather inadequate attempt which only showcased the writers ignorance on the subject matter - they didn't know, so Jake stammered and simply said: 'Humans don't need money... because they don't'.
Jake could have given his father a replica, or something else.
The only reason Jake wanted the loan was because a market economy was used on Ds9 (primarily because the Bajorans used that system, with Starfleet getting some privileges apparently) and of course because the gift he wanted to give his father was in the hands of someone who used a market based system as well.

As for labour being scarce in the Federation - the writers apparently completely neglected/missed automation and tried explaining it away as that if you automate things, you've taken 'something' from the man (which doesn't hold ground because the purpose of automation in a society like the Federation would have been to liberate people a long time ago... though, this kind of work can still be done in a volunteering manner by individuals who are skilled on a rota basis a few days a month) - but then again, so do most people in real life. They don't understand how far it came and what it was capable of some time ago (due to limitations of cost efficiency and profits), let alone today. Similar mistakes would have been done by writers of Trek who wrote from the limited knowledge they had on the subject.

 

[dbcooper]

I think an important point about labour in Trek is that strong AI is extremely rare (e.g. Data). This means that even with automation there will still be "scarcity" of labour resources for product design, engineering decision making, sophisticated services, writing and producing entertainment etc.

 

[Trekkin]

The only reason Jake wanted the loan was because a market economy was used on Ds9 (primarily because the Bajorans used that system, with Starfleet getting some privileges apparently) and of course because the gift he wanted to give his father was in the hands of someone who used a market based system as well.

So in other words, Federation citizens need some form of money if they:
a) want to get their hands on specific things
b) want to coexist, trade and cooperate with different cultures and civilisations.

Well, it's a good thing those situations are so rare in the Star Trek setting. With the characters never wanting to get their hands on certain individual objects, and the show emphasising the value of everyone having one homogeneous culture.

I don't really give a crap about the 'no money' thing, but come on. Saying 'The Federation doesn't need or use any form of currency...until it does' isn't exactly a point in your favor!

 

[Longinus]

If your wine/product/restaurant isn't successful, why would the government care since we all have everything we want? And how long do you get to keep your unpopular restaurant before someone else gets a turn?

Remember what I said about nitpicking? I already explained this system better than I could explain how modern capitalism works with its stock markets, fiat currency and currency manipulation.

But the revocation of licence would only come up in the case that there would be more people wanting to have a restaurant than there were spaces for restaurants. This is in itself unlikely, considering that here in the modern world we have enough room to businesses, even though everyone actually needs a job. In post-scarcity future this is not a case, so there will be less restaurants as well. And assessing things once a year seems reasonable, does it really matter?

If we don't own our businesses, do we own our homes? What if someone could live in our home better than we could?

You don't really own your home either, but there's plenty of living space for everyone. Do you really think that there should be homeless people in Federation?

Can I wander around Sisko's restaurant and sleep on the sofa since it's a public property owned by no-one?

Can you sleep in a museum or library now? That was a silly question.

If i'm poisoned by Picard's piss-wine, is it his fault or the governments who sanctioned his business?

Oh, now I need to explain how 24th century legal system works as well? It may affects renewal of Picard's wine licence if the cases are serious and common enough, though that seems unlikely. But you'll be fine anyway, there's no chance in hell that wine poisoning could have any serious effects considering the 24th century (free) medicine.

Who determines whether his wine is as good as someone elses. maybe it sells well but someone else could sell even more if they were given the chance.

Only the absolutely worst wine makers would be in the risk of losing their licence, and that in the case that there were not enough space for vineyards which probably is not the case.

 

[Longinus]

FTL travel was at least stated to be theoretically possible...

No, FTL travel is not theoretically possible. Study the theory of relativity and you understand why.
(Well, it is theoretically possible, but not in the way that wouldn't break causality, and this obviously doesn't happen in Star Trek.)

 

[hux]

You don't really own your home either, but there's plenty of living space for everyone. Do you really think that there should be homeless people in Federation?

But your house is bigger than mine and has a prettier vista. I want your house now. Get out!

Can you sleep in a musem or library now? That was a silly question.

No, it really wasn't. It's a question based on zero ownership and a totally equal society. Museums/libraries today exist in a capitalist environment so there is an incentive for keeping people out. In the Trek future, no such concern exists. We're all docile, friendly people who love each other. I'm tired. I want to sleep. Your house is nearest so I'm sleeping in it. It belongs to all of us.

Oh, now I need to explain how 24th century legal system works as well?

If you're going to defend imaginary systems from criticism then um, yes you do need to explain how they work.

It may affects renewal of Picard's wine licence if the cases are serious and common enough, though that seems unlikely. But you'll be fine anyway, there's no chance in hell that wine poisoning could have any serious effects considering the 24th century (free) medicine.

So just the one death isn't a major concern? That doesn't seem to be a very sensible policy for a government sanctioned business (which makes no money yet gets government approval).

You're also confusing free healthcare with immortality.

Only the absolutely worst wine makers would be in the risk of losing their licence, and that in the case that there were not enough space for wine yards which probably is not the case.

But again, who determines what is good wine and what isn't? What if I produce lots of wine (for free) that is hugely popular but some guy comes along and says he could make even better wine if he had the land. Why doesn't he get the land?