Wish List for Star Trek: 2017

[Rahul]

Well, 'post-scarcity' doesn't mean 'socialism'.

It doesn't mean "no ownership" either. It means "everyone owns SO MUCH that ownership becomes meaningless".

As for Jake: That was a silly attempt. As I described, outside of the 'post-scarcity-zone' of the Federation a currency is needed, that's why even TOS already had "Federation credits" in place.

As you can see, this is one of the more intriguing aspects of Star Trek. People actually can figure out how it works (just look at Dek' s thoughts on the idea). But then episodes would become a lecture on future economics. And that's frankly not very exciting. If it were in a book, I would like a bit more explanation (if you read a bit of sf literature, you can actually find some interesting visions of moneyless-futures). But for a hour-long adventure show that's asked a bit too much. SOme writers often times seem to stumble on the prime directive , them explaining a moneyless-society leads to stupid episodes like the one with Jake, where they really weren't taking the concept seriously and mocking it.

So yeah, a bit of explanation would be nice. But Kirk and Picard have already plentyfull done that, enough that people can write whole essays about it. Everything more, and it stops becoming a "story, set in the future" and more "my personal politically biased prediction of the future".

You know, Star Trek also has racial equality. Something that still seems to baffle a lot of people nowadays, and I don't really see racism dissapear soon. And I especially don't see how religion could vanish in the near future. Star Trek did both of those things too. Explain that!

 

[Amaris]

<snip - C~.>

You know, Star Trek also has racial equality. Something that still seems to baffle a lot of people nowadays, and I don't really see racism dissapear soon. And I especially don't see how religion could vanish in the near future. Star Trek did both of those things too. Explain that!

Temporal Anomaly.

 

[Tellarites4Ever]

The only thing I would really like to see (other than a continuation in some form of the Prime Timeline) is a Tellarite crewmember who's a series regular.

 

[Longinus]

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

You obviously can't have it. You can however have a similar house with a holowindows with an identical view.

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.

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. The person who has the current licence is the effective owner, they decide who can stay.

So just the one death isn't a major concern?

I assumed that no one died, because, really... is it even possible to make wine so bad that it kills people? Sure, you can get alcohol poisoning, but that's your own fault.

That doesn't seem to be a very sensible policy for a government sanctioned business (which makes no money yet gets government approval).

Of course there are health and safety regulations, just like there are now. And if you blatantly break them, you're out of business, just like now.

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?

He doesn't get your land, he gets the land of some person who produces terrible wine no one likes. But only if there is a shortage of land, which there won't be. There is for example no need to farm land for food, so there's plenty of land for everyone's vineyards and hobby farms. So really the only person who ends up losing his wine yard is the bloke who by some miracle manages to produce wine so bad that it kills people.

 

[hux]

You obviously can't have it. You can however have a similar house with a holowindows with an identical view.

No. Want your house. Its perfect and my wife insists. Get out now!

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. The person who has the current licence is the effective owner, they decide who can stay.

I don't express myself in anything other than right angles. So a licence is basically just a short term way of saying... ownership.

Of course there are health and safety regulations, just like there are now. And if you blatantly break them, you're out of business, just like now.

Why would there be health and safety regulations for something I'm not selling? You want the wine. You also want to asphyxiate yourself while you're drinking it. Entirely your business. Not mine. Not the states.

He doesn't get your land, he gets the land of some person who produces terrible wine no one likes. But only if there is a shortage of land, which there won't be. There is for example no need to farm land for food, so there's plenty of land for everyone's wine yards and hobby farms. So really the only person who ends up losing his wine yard is the bloke who by some miracle manages to produce wine so bad that it kills people.

So I'm making my wine (purely for my own enjoyment) but then one day the government come along and say I have to leave because it's not a popular wine. They drag me from this premises while I scream out... "but I'm bettering myself."

 

[Longinus]

No. Want your house. Its perfect and my wife insists. Get out now!

Then join the waiting list, you get it if I ever decide to move out (assuming you're the first one on the list.) How you think I got it in the first place?

I don't express myself in anything other than right angles. So a licence is basically just a short term way of saying... ownership.

No, because you cannot sell it.

Why would there be health and safety regulations for something I'm not selling? You want the wine. You also want to asphyxiate yourself while you're drinking it. Entirely your business. Not mine. Not the states.

Because once you start giving the wine to people it becomes public health and safety issue.

So I'm making my wine (purely for my own enjoyment) but then one day the government come along and say I have to leave because it's not a popular wine. They drag me from this premises while I scream out... "but I'm bettering myself."

Assuming that you're not killing anyone with your shitty wine, it is virtually impossible for this to happen, as there's plenty of land for vineyards.

 

[Longinus]

The only thing I would really like to see (other than a continuation in some form of the Prime Timeline) is a Tellarite crewmember who's a series regular.

This would be cool. Tellarites are one of the founder species of the Federation, yet we know relatively little of them. In general I'd prefer them to use already established species when possible, unless they would have some totally groundbreaking new concept that would warrant creating a new species.

 

[hux]

Then join the waiting list, you get it if I ever decide to move out (assuming you're the first one on the list.) How you think I got it in the first place?

I think you knew an influential admiral. Why would I wait? I'll just build a house on top of yours that's identical (but with an even better view).

No, because you cannot sell it.

If you can't sell it then you can't buy it and if you can't buy it then how'd you get it? Why would there be a waiting list? There's a lot of people in the nippy highlands of Scotland who want that beach-front property in California. We're waiting but we're becoming impatatient. Some of us are thinking about revolution. We don't like the way your system works. We're very suspicious about all those admirals who have nice houses.

Because once you start giving the wine to people it becomes public health and safety issue.

I'm not giving anything. People are taking it for free. A friend asked me for some painkillers and then used them to try and kill himself. Am I responsible? Actually, I'm not giving it to anyone. I keep it in a cellar.

Assuming that you're not killing anyone with your shitty wine, it is virtually impossible for this to happen, as there's plenty of land for vineyards.

But you said people are waiting for land. Now there's plenty of it?

Fundamentally, this is where those trying to defend the system usually end up. Everyone is happy, there's plenty of everything and no-one causes any problems and we're all just happy and it all just works.

I'm not happy. Bilby isn't happy. The Maquis aren't happy. The miners on New Sidney aren't happy. The women hiding from rape gangs on Turkana IV aren't either.

Now gimme your fucking house!

 

[Longinus]

I'm not giving anything. People are taking it for free. A friend asked me for some painkillers and then used them to try and kill himself. Am I responsible?

No, because that's not the generally assumed use of the painkillers. But if you give them orange juice laced with cyanide (without informing them of the cyanide) then you're responsible.

Actually, I'm not giving it to anyone. I keep it in a cellar.

Then it probably doesn't matter.

But you said people are waiting for land. Now there's plenty of it?

There is plenty of land. The waiting list would only happen if you were irrationally fixated on getting a specific piece of land in a specific place.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Hey look! This conversation is going just as well as the last 350134985130948561489561039478561038974561089743 conversations on this topic! WOOO!

 

[hux]

No, because that's not the generally assumed use of the painkillers. But if you give them orange juice laced with cyanide (without informing them of the cyanide) then you're responsible.

The point is, in a society where you buy and sell, regulations make sense but in a society where you're not selling anything, those regulations become murky indeed. Why - when I'm not selling anything - would I agree to such regulations?

There is plenty of land. The waiting list would only happen if you were irrationally fixated on getting a specific piece of land in a specific place.

Also known as the good land. I want that damn beach house.

Hey look! This conversation is going just as well as the last 350134985130948561489561039478561038974561089743 conversations on this topic! WOOO!

But it is going very well. We're having top drawer fun.

 

[EnderAKH]

I think you knew an influential admiral. Why would I wait? I'll just build a house on top of yours that's identical (but with an even better view).

Because the Federation housing board, which approves all requests for new housing and allocates resources for building (assigns contractors, etc) says that you can't do that, it would in fact be silly.

 

[hux]

Because the Federation housing board, which approves all requests for new housing and allocates resources for building (assigns contractors, etc) says that you can't do that, it would in fact be silly.

Ah finally, someone who works for the Federation housing board. Now we can get some answers.

Then we go back to the problem of fairness. You've got a house on the beach, I don't.

How did you get that house?

 

[Longinus]

The point is, in a society where you buy and sell, regulations make sense but in a society where you're not selling anything, those regulations become murky indeed. Why - when I'm not selling anything - would I agree to such regulations?

You're not making even a least bit of sense anymore. Such regulations have nothing to do with capitalism or lack of it. You're not allowed to poison people in any remotely sane society.

Also known as the good land. I want that damn beach house.

I really don't think that most people would really give a damn. With instantaneous travel, environmental controls and local holo-houses that allow you to simulate any place, real or imagined, it becomes pretty irrelevant where you physically live.

 

[hux]

You're not making even a least bit of sense anymore. Such regulations have nothing to do with capitalism or lack of it. You're not allowed to poison people in any remotely sane society.

That was merely an aspect of the wider point which is... why agree to regulations at all? I make wine but I don't sell it yet I'm expected to agree to certain regulations, standards, procedures etc. Why?

I really don't think that most people would really give a damn. With instantaneous travel, environmental controls and local holo-houses that allow you to simulate any place, real or imagined, it becomes pretty irrelevant where you physically live.

We're back to the... everyone would just be happy OK so stop asking annoying questions... argument.

Some wouldn't and as we know, a revolution only needs ONE man with a vision.

I see a lack of fairness. The idea that it should be ignored because... well you've got loads of cool stuff so shut up is not a new argument. Ask a millionaire today about fairness and he'll tell you that the proles have TV, internet, hot and cold water, pizza delivery... they're happy. They don't mind the inherent unfairness because they've got chocolate and porn. Bread and circuses.

 

[Longinus]

That was merely an aspect of the wider point which is... why agree to regulations at all? I make wine but I don't sell it yet I'm expected to agree to certain regulations, standards, procedures etc. Why?

I don't know why you would. Why you agree to modern day regulations on how fast you can drive or how many people you can axe murder? Those have nothing to do with selling stuff either.

Some wouldn't and as we know, a revolution only needs ONE man with a vision.

No.

I see a lack of fairness. The idea that it should be ignored because... well you've got loads of cool stuff so shut up is not a new argument. Ask a millionaire today about fairness and he'll tell you that the proles have TV, internet, hot and cold water, pizza delivery... they're happy. They don't mind the inherent unfairness because they've got chocolate and porn. Bread and circuses.

Look, if you want your beach house and there's not enough of them, then you go on the waiting list. Janeway is there with you on the same list. She gets no priority. It is certainly way fairer than a system where Donald Trump can lord over plebs because of his wealth.

And of course if there indeed is a constant shortage of those bloody beach houses, then that's a message to the government to build more floating cities or raise some island chains.

 

[hux]

I don't know why you would. Why you agree to modern day regulations on how fast you can drive or how many people you can axe murder? Those have nothing to do with selling stuff either.

I would agree to those things because they are what I like to call... laws. There is no law regarding my making wine and not selling it so why would I have to meet government regulations and requirements before I have the right to make it? This sounds more and more like dystopia to me.

No.

KIRK: In every revolution, there's one man with a vision.

When TrekBBS posters fail to spot a reference, they are spanked by one of the mods.

Look, if you want your beach house and there's not enough of them, then you go on the waiting list. Janeway is there with you on the same list. She gets no priority. It is certainly way fairer than a system where Donald Trump can lord over plebs because of his wealth.

Sure, the Trek future looks better than our Trump society but equally, our Trump society looks better than 100 years ago. That doesn't mean it isn't still an unfair society though. I doubt me and the the admirals get the same treatment. If property isn't owned and there are a finite number of beach houses then somebody, somewhere is being shafted. Giving them holodecks to distract them from this truth might work for some but not for all.

 

[Longinus]

I would agree to those things because they are what I like to call... laws. There is no law regarding my making wine and not selling it so why would I have to meet government regulations and requirements before I have the right to make it? This sounds more and more like dystopia to me.

Because in the future there are such laws. And actually there such laws currently too. At least in Finland stores cannot give away for free stuff that is past its sell by date. It is illegal to give people food poisoning, whether you do it for profit or sport. This seems eminently sensible law to me.

KIRK: "In every revolution, there's one man with a vision."

By now it should be clear that I'm more of a Picard kinda guy.
"A lot has changed in the past 300 years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We have grown out of our infancy."

Sure, the Trek future looks better than our Trump society but equally, our Trump society looks better than 100 years ago. That doesn't mean it isn't still an unfair society though. I doubt me and the the admirals get the same treatment. If property isn't owned and there are a finite number of beach houses then somebody, somewhere is being shafted. Giving them holodecks to distract them from this truth might work for some but not for all.

But everyone gets the same treatment! (Things like health and family size of course being considered.) Where's the unfairness? Should I challenge you to come up with a capitalist system that perfectly avoids any unfairness?

 

[Kemaiku]

But for example, say I there is no such thing as money or proof of ownership, and I have 5 very big friends. How long is that beach house going to be yours? or your spine for that matter.

Police? nope, don't have that any more. Phaser? only in Starfleet.

Oh, dear.

 

[Longinus]

Of course they have police.