Trying to figure out the Federation Economy

[SpyOne]

True, but apparently Earth-based human families tend to be single-child, for the most part.

a good analysis, but a somewhat skewed statistical sample.

I mean, look at the crew in TNG and see what it suggests about the adult mortality rate:
Picard: both parents dead
Riker: one parent dead
Crusher: both parents dead
Troi: one parent dead
LaForge: one parent went missing, presumed dead
Yar: both parents dead
Worf: both parents dead
Wesley: one parent dead
Weren't Ro's parents both dead?

Many of the single child couples you noted also had one parent die or leave while the child was quite young: they may have been planning more children, but didn't get the chance. And single parents in the 24th century seem to have the same problems dating that single parents in the 21st century face: few we have seen marry again until their child is grown if at all.

I think what we have identified here is is simply this pattern: central characters tend overwhelmingly to have little or no surviving family.

 

[neozeks]

This only follows if the replicators make stuff out of energy.

Lots of people think they do, just as lots of people think the transporters turn people into energy and then back. Both views are partly contradicted on-screen, and thoroughly contradicted in quasi-canon sources like the Technical Manuals.
Replicators can change the form of matter, reassembling it in new shapes and such, but they need matter to start with.
Replicators are capable of making some changes, probably including making new molecules out of their component atoms (by "beaming" the atoms into the right place in the molecule), but several chemicals have been defined as "too complex to replicate".
It is unclear whether replicators are capable of alchemy (say, making oxygen by merging enough hydrogen atoms together). They obviously can make some changes to the matter between de-materialization and re-materialization, but the limit of the changes they can make are not defined.

This.
So even if energy was unlimited (which it isn't, though it's abundant), raw matter isn't. Sure, replicators are probably the most effective recycling system ever, but you still need new matter from time to time.That's why extensive mining/resource gathering is a must (and why we often see mining is still important in Trekverse, aside from just the non-replicable stuff). And a way to distribute the raw matter to the replicators as well. Maybe you're paid a visit by your friendly local raw matter delivery guy every month? Or there are 'pipes' connecting to the central storage.

(2) Using the replicator to make things is specifically defined as expensive.
Our view of replicator use in the Federation is skewed because most of the people we see live on space stations and starships, where the benefits of the replicator outweigh its costs. The average Federation citizen probably uses a replicator far less than the average Starfleet officer, just as the average American citizen does not get most of their vitamin C from Tang.

I'd still say basic replicators (ie. capable of making small, simple, 'lighter' - as in made of lighter elements - things: food, clothes etc.) are widespread. Picards's brother, a civilian, was presented as unusual for not having a replicator, for example.

But for any larger, more complex things, you have to go to your local replicator-supermarket. And it will take more energy, probably more than what your 'basic standard' guaranted by the government covers. So you'll have to work to get more energy credits (or something) or save up.

[And to point one more thing: ENT showed that hunger and poverty were eradicted already in the 22th century, at a time when replicators were still in the distant future. So obviously, replicators aren't the key thing in the better future of humanity Trek shows us.]

Now, I personally don't think there will be any shame in staying on this basic standard or BLS. It won't be perfect, no - the replicators you get 'freely' will always be of lower quality than what you could get if you worked and your basic energy allowance will only allow you to replicate things of lesser quality than the real thing (because, the more precise you get with matching the real thing, the more energy it will take). But many people will be happy with that. They'll still seek work, though. I guess I do believe human nature will change somewhat. Many people will honestly work to 'improve themselves and humanity'. Many will work simply because they are bored. A lot of people will work for free. That's how I explain the 'no money' part. A large part of the population won't ever really conciously use money. Their basic needs will be covered by the system, with financial transactions taking place automatically, in the background.

There will still, of course, be many that do want more than the basic stuff. Once they are secure that they'll be able to survive no matter what, a lot of people will start to expand their needs. Some will want to travel regularly. Some will want unique hand-made stuff. Some people will want a personal yacht. And these people will work for money and use it.

 

[Pavonis]

a good analysis, but a somewhat skewed statistical sample.

I mean, look at the crew in TNG and see what it suggests about the adult mortality rate:
Picard: both parents dead
Riker: one parent dead
Crusher: both parents dead
Troi: one parent dead
LaForge: one parent went missing, presumed dead
Yar: both parents dead
Worf: both parents dead
Wesley: one parent dead
Weren't Ro's parents both dead?

Many of the single child couples you noted also had one parent die or leave while the child was quite young: they may have been planning more children, but didn't get the chance. And single parents in the 24th century seem to have the same problems dating that single parents in the 21st century face: few we have seen marry again until their child is grown if at all.

I think what we have identified here is is simply this pattern: central characters tend overwhelmingly to have little or no surviving family.

I acknowledge that our sampling is probably skewed, but the main characters are the only samples we have. I want to be more thorough this time, so please excuse some repetition on my part. My point is that in the 24th century, the characters with dead parents were not on Earth, but had either one parent serving in Starfleet, known to be hazardous, or living off Earth on a colony world where problems that don't arise on Earth are more common. And two of your points - Worf and Ro - aren't from the UFP and their situations cannot be used as sampling for a typical UFP family.

Let's begin -

22nd Century

Archer: The only child of Sally and Henry Archer, born and raised on Earth. Henry Archer's premature death from a disease may have prevented the birth of any other children. Nevertheless, the Archer family had only one child, who was raised on Earth.

Tucker: Trip had one sister, and according to Memory Alpha, a brother. So Charles Tucker, Jr. and his wife had at least three children, all raised on Earth.

Reed: Malcolm had a sister, raised on Earth.

Mayweather: The Mayweathers were a Boomer family, so they did not raise their son Travis and his two siblings on Earth.

Sato: Hoshi had two siblings, and was born and raised on Earth.

T'Pol and Phlox aren't human, so their families would tell us nothing about 22nd Century Earth-based families.

In the 22nd century then, of the 5 human characters, only 1 was a single child, 1 had one sibling, and 3 had 2 or more siblings. But one of those multiple children families was not based on Earth. So out of 4 Earth-based families, 2 had two or more children, and 2 had two or fewer children. The Human population growth rate on Earth may have been flat or positive.

23rd Century

Kirk: Known to have one brother, George Samuel, in the prime universe. James considered himself to be "from Iowa" (he only worked in outer space), so he at least lived on Earth long enough to associate himself with Iowa. He may been raised in Iowa, but he also spent time off-planet at Tarsus IV as an adolescent.

Spock: An only child, but only half-Human and not raised on Earth.

McCoy: No known siblings, but fanon says he had a daughter, Joanna, with his ex-wife.

Scott: Scotty may have had a sibling, but I'm not clear on whether Midshipman Peter Preston was his nephew or not. The lines referring to their relationship were cut from the theatrical release of TWoK, but included in the TV broadcast. Which version of the story is canonical? At any rate, Scott may have had a sister, but no indications of other siblings, and he may actually have been an only child, born and raised on Earth.

Sulu: No known siblings, but his family life was not discussed or mentioned canonically. We know he was born in San Francisco, and had at least one daugther with an unknown spouse or significant other.

Chekov: Known to be an only child, born and raised on Earth in Russia, the source of all things cultural (according to him).

Uhura: No known siblings, but like Sulu, no discussion of her family canonically. Probably born and raised on Earth, but no canon information on that either.

In the 23rd century, we have 6.5 human characters, but 0.5 of them were not raised on Earth. Of those 6 families, 2 of them (the McCoys and the Chekovs) had only one child, 1 (the Kirks) had two children, and 3 of them (the Scotts, the Sulus and the Uhuras) are of unknown size. Again, population growth may be flat, and possibly negative in the 23rd century on Earth.

24th Century

Picard: The second son of Maurice and Yvette Picard, younger brother of Robert. Born and raised on Earth, in a two-parent home with his sibling, and apparently his parents were dead by 2364, but how long before we don't know. They may have died recently before the start of TNG, and of old age, which wouldn't be unnatural even in the 24th century. Nothing unusual about an adult having lost both parents to old age.

The second generation of Picards, Robert married to Marie, had only one child, Rene. Tragically, Rene and Robert were killed in a fire in an unknown location.

Riker: The only child of Kyle and Betty Riker. Presumbably Betty died prematurely, and so there may have been the prospects of future younger Rikers, but the fact remains that Will Riker ended up an only child. (As an aside, according to canon Kyle abandoned his 15-year-old son; did young Will Riker end up in an orphanage or a foster home, or is a 15-year-old able to care for himself without assistance or state support on Earth in the 24th century?)

Crusher: Another only child, but, yes, both parents died, so more children may have been in the works. But they were working away from Earth at the time, and Beverly was raised by her grandmother off-world.

Wesley Crusher: The only child of Beverly and Jack Crusher. The premature death of Jack, a Starfleet officer, may have prevented any further children from being conceived. Was Wesley born or raised on Earth at all?

Troi: The younger child of Lwaxana and Ian Andrew, but she was not born or raised on Earth but Betazed, and Ian Andrew was a Starfleet officer, a hazardous line of work.

LaForge: Geordi was the child of two Starfleet officers, and had a sister. Both parents survived to see their children become adults, despite the hazards of Starfleet duty. Yes, Silva LaForge did die, or at least is MIA, but Geordi was raised with two parents to maturity. How much time did he spend on Earth? Did the LaForge family often live on Earth? Probably not. Geordi spoke of moving often as a child.

Yar: Had a sister, both born and "raised" on a colony world, so their life stories tells us nothing about Earth family demographics.

Worf: Both biological parents dead, one biological brother, but they were Klingons living on a Klingon colony world, which, again, tells us nothing about typical UFP families. His adopted parents, the Rozhenkos, did live into Worf's adulthood, despite Sergei being a Starfleet officer. We know the Rozhenkos had only one biological child, Nikolai, but they did not live on Earth exclusively.

Ro: A Bajoran, not born or raised on Earth, so not a sample of a typical UFP family.

Sisko, Bashir, O'Brien: see my post above, #38. I note that Miles lost his mother in 2368, after he was an adult, and that his father remarried within a year.

Dax, Kira, Odo, Quark: not human, not born or raised on Earth, so not useful samples.

Janeway: The child or a Starfleet officer, killed in the line of duty, but whose mother lived into the 2370s at least. Kathryn had a sister. Did the premature death of her father, a Starfleet officer, prevent the conception of more little Janeways? Who knows, but the fact remains that the Janeway parents had only two children.

Chakotay: Again, not born or raised on Earth, so gives us no data on Earth-based family sizes.

Tuvok: Not human, not born or raised on Earth.

Torres: Half-human, but not born or raised on Earth, rather on Kessik IV, a colony world.

Kim: Known to be an only child, both parents still alive into the 2370s, neither parent a Starfleet officer.

Paris: I was wrong about this earlier (sometimes Memory Alpha pages aren't as helpful as they seem). MA says Owen Paris had at least two children, based on dialogue, so Tom may have had a sibling. Apparently Tom was born and raised on Earth.

7 of 9: Annika Hansen was born off Earth on a colony world, raised (such as she was) on a ship, then by the Borg. Another question of whether premature "death" (assimilated parents) prevented the conception of further children. Either way, the Hansens were not living on Earth and only had one child.

Neelix and Kes: Not human, not born or raised anywhere near the Alpha Quadrant, much less Earth.

We have many more 24th century characters to study - 25 of them, though not all are human, and not even all the humans lived on Earth.

The 6 Earth-based families are the Picards, the Rikers, the Siskos, the O'Briens, the Bashirs, and the Kims.

We have 5 Starfleet families - The Janeway family, the LaForge family, the Paris family, the Troi family, and the Crusher family. May not have lived on Earth often or at all. The Troi family definitely did not live on Earth.

Of the 6 Earth-based families, the Picards had 2 children, and the Rikers, the Kims, and the Bashirs had only 1 each. The Sisko family is a hybrid, since Joseph Sisko had only one child with each of his wives. Only the O'Brien clan had more than 2 children. In this group, only the Rikers and the Siskos lost a parent on Earth when they were children. Miles O'Brien lost his mother after he was an adult, and his father remarried. Harry Kim and Julian Bashir had both parents still alive. Jean-Luc Picard had lost both parents by 2364, but probably to old age rather than accidents.

Of the 5 Starfleet families, 4 of them had only two children, and only one had 1 child (the Crushers). Four of those families lost the Starfleet parent in the line of duty; only the Paris family had the Starfleet parent live to see the child to adulthood.

My conclusion is that the Earth human population growth is probably negative in the 24th century, since in our samples there are more 1 child families than multiple children families.

Galaxy-wide, though, the human population may be, and probably is, growing, as there are many more colony worlds where prolific families may be common.

...And a way to distribute the raw matter to the replicators as well. Maybe you're paid a visit by your friendly local raw matter delivery guy every month? Or there are 'pipes' connecting to the central storage.

What about direct transport, rather than plumbing or old-fashioned "milkman" type delivery? Either transporting the raw material directly from a central reservoir to a local household reservoir, or direct transport from a central reservoir to the household replicator on demand?

 

[Penta]

Re pop growth on Earth: I can see how you'd get negative pop growth. Nice overview, Pavonis.

But here's the thing. Zero population growth is one thing. It might be a good thing, might be a bad thing, there's room for disagreement.

Negative population growth, on the other hand...actual population declines...Sociologically, economically, and for a bunch of other reasons, societies generally want to avoid that. Really badly.

Why? For one thing, because it is very, very hard to get out of, and it skews society horribly. We're seeing a number of cases IRL where population declines through a lack of procreation can have bad impacts. Japan is a great example here: Much of the social safety net is going to have issues, because the population profile in Japan is slowly but inexorably going to become a reverse pyramid, with a lot of old folks being supported by an unsustainably low number of young folks.

Immigration can slow/prevent many of the effects, but it has its own problems. (And in Trek, we see little evidence for the kind of mass population flows between planets that would be necessary; nor do we see much evidence of statistically significant populations of, say, non-humans on Earth.)

 

[T'Girl]

What would be the effect of a steady stinking population? It might be that the population is reducing because of a collective decision on the part of society, a on going effort to reduce the Earths population through voluntary action on the part of Earths residents. Chemical fertility control would be certainly be available, sterilization after the first child might be quite common. Probably reversible too. Short public service announcements on the entertainment nets tell the folks of the advantages of a single child (or none), similar to, but opposite of the ones in Russia today , where they ask people to stay home and screw.

In America today there continues to be tax breaks for each child born, the 24th century Earth government might provide tax incentive for single child families and child-less families, no law against multiple children but your taxes would be without deductions.

A multi-generational target of One Billion (round number) would be achievable. Cities wouldn't just reduce in size, they might be entirely physically removed from the Earth's landscape. Small communal villages becoming the norm, with people living a more pastoral (home) life. Like Picard's birth village. At the same time a small number of mega-cities would grow to thousands of square kilometers, some Humans still preferring the diversity of that life.
----
A reducing population isn't all a row of pluses, there are economic advantages to a endlessly growing populace. New markets and consumers (even if it free, people still consume) constantly appear. And there is the question of how large a work force a 24th century Earth society requires. Earth is the Federation capital. Earth is also the capital of United Earth with still, perhaps, hundreds of colonies. Earth, by frequent quotes, is a industrial and scientific powerhouse. Multiple major starship shipyards orbit this world.

Like it or not Humans, not all from Earth, provide the bulk of Starfleet personnel. If there are one million Humans (out of one billion) in Starfleet, that would be same as the ratio of the American population in the US Navy.

Would a smaller pop be better?

.

 

[Pavonis]

Re pop growth on Earth: I can see how you'd get negative pop growth. Nice overview, Pavonis.

But here's the thing. Zero population growth is one thing. It might be a good thing, might be a bad thing, there's room for disagreement.

Negative population growth, on the other hand...actual population declines...Sociologically, economically, and for a bunch of other reasons, societies generally want to avoid that. Really badly.

Why? For one thing, because it is very, very hard to get out of, and it skews society horribly. We're seeing a number of cases IRL where population declines through a lack of procreation can have bad impacts. Japan is a great example here: Much of the social safety net is going to have issues, because the population profile in Japan is slowly but inexorably going to become a reverse pyramid, with a lot of old folks being supported by an unsustainably low number of young folks.

Immigration can slow/prevent many of the effects, but it has its own problems. (And in Trek, we see little evidence for the kind of mass population flows between planets that would be necessary; nor do we see much evidence of statistically significant populations of, say, non-humans on Earth.)

I concluded there may be negative growth of the human population on Earth, not Federation-wide negative population growth. Earth is as isolated from the UFP as New York is isolated from the rest of the U.S. Local population trends don't tell us anything about the rest of UFP.

For instance, we've seen two Vulcans as main characters, Spock and Tuvok. Spock had a half-sibling, and Tuvok had no siblings mentioned in canon. But Tuvok had four children with his wife. The Vulcan characters Taurik and Vorik (both played by Alexander Enberg), may have been twins. Vulcan families, then, can have multiple children. We know little about Vulcan demographics, but it's possible their population continues to grow in the 24th century.

AFAIK, we know nothing else about population trends in the rest of the UFP member species. But there's no reason to think the population of the entire UFP is shrinking.

Is this thread mainly about the UFP, or Earth specifically? I know I've been thinking about both, and perhaps interchangeably when they aren't and shouldn't be considered that way.

 

[Penta]

I originally figured it was the UFP, but then we got distracted.

 

[Pavonis]

To keep the thread on the topic of economics in an interstellar civilization with access to replicators and multiple powerful energy sources, lets think about what the citizens would labor at. What kind of jobs would people do?

What jobs have we seen on screen? Starfleet is over-represented in the Trekverse, but the service is an option.

Scientists, engineers, and physicians are still around.

Art is still popular. Music, sculpture, plays, stories, and holographic entertainment are still created by people.

Despite the existence of the replicator, at least two families, the Picards and the Siskos, continue to produce wine and food. Do they do this as a means of supporting themselves? Or do they continue the traditions out of an appreciation of the art of making food and wine? I think Robert Picard and Joseph Sisko did what they did only because they enjoyed it, and didn't exchange their products for money or energy credits. If they had any other reason besides enjoying the work, they may have been competing with others with similar hobbies to see who makes the best wine, or the best Cajun food.

What else would people do in the 24th century? What jobs would be out there?

 

[T'Girl]

In the cases of Robert Picard and Joseph Sisko their motivations could be very different. Joseph Sisko I can see running his restaurant simply for the joy of it. Although credits are changing hands, that isn't his prime aim, he loves to cook and most likely loves his customers. From my observations he lives upstairs.

Robert Picard is more of a conventional businessman. He lives in a fairly large house, possesses a big block of property, given his views on replicators I can see Robert insisting that his grapes be hand harvested, no machines. So at harvest time he would have several or dozens of employees on the payroll. Producing a luxury item for profit, by 24th century Earth's standard, Robert Picard is probably a wealthy man.

Given their adversarial relationship, Robert might be Jean-Luc's source for "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. ...We work to better ourselves." Robert Picard most likely sports the exact opposite view point to Jean-Luc Picard's.

Since I believe people still prefer to consume natural food there are farmers, dairymen, ranchers and fishermen. Joseph Sisko very obviously serves real shellfish in his restaurant, so probably also real craw-dads, fish, pork, etc.

 

[Pavonis]

Since I believe people still prefer to consume natural food there are farmers, dairymen, ranchers and fishermen. Joseph Sisko very obviously serves real shellfish in his restaurant, so probably also real craw-dads, fish, pork, etc.

How do you fit in Riker's claim in "Lonely Among Us" that humans no longer "enslave animals for food", but use the replicator to produce meat inorganically? On the face of it, that would seem to eliminate the ranching, dairy and possibly even fishing industries entirely!

It's easy to wave our hands and say Picard is merely an idealist, that what he said to Lily about bettering humanity is not accurate, or that Riker may be exaggerating about animal "enslavement", but why shouldn't we take the characters' statements at face value? They say they don't use money, they say they don't enslave animals.

I mean, even in DS9, where the producers did their best to show the less idealistic side of the UFP, they still acknowledged that humans at least didn't use money. If there was ever an opportunity to both develop and retcon the economics of the UFP, DS9 was it, and they still stuck by the statement.

I know there are canon references to money, currency, trade, pay, salaries, etc, in Trek, but we need to separate references to money by era. We also need to allow for the possible existence of old sayings and turns of phrases that aren't literal. In the 23rd century there were many more references to "credits" and "pay" than in the 24th century. "You earned your pay", "credits to navy beans", and other sayings aren't necessarily literally meant.

There may be a shift in the economics of the UFP over time, with scarcity-driven economic activity itself becoming scarce as time moved on and technology improved.

I'm not Cheapjack, thinking 20th/21st century capitalistic economics is "evil" (how's that for putting words in a poster's mouth?). But given a replicator and a cheap, reliable energy source to power it, I ask again - what would be scarce? The means of production would rest in the hands of individuals. Any individual anywhere could open a coffee shop, or brewery, or a clothing boutique, or what have you. The market would be flooded with products, products of all kinds, so numerous that the prices of everything would rapidly drop to values so small that it might well be worthless to bother keeping track of the exchanges! What then?

 

[T'Girl]

How do you fit in Riker's claim in "Lonely Among Us" that humans no longer "enslave animals for food", but use the replicator to produce meat inorganically? On the face of it, that would seem to eliminate the ranching, dairy and possibly even fishing industries entirely!

Fair enough question sir.

Towards the end of one of the episodes (forget the name) Ben Sisko has left DS9, maybe for good. In the very last scene Ben is sitting in the alley behind his father's restaurant and he's cleaning a bucket of shellfish. Now if you don't scrub the filth off of the outside of shellfish before you put them in the cook water, the filth will get on the meat when the shells open. While it might be possible, why would anyone replicate artificial shellfish with filth on the outside of the shells? Filth that then would have to be scrubbed off?

This single scene is the reason I believe Joseph Sisko serves real meat (I consider seafood "meat").

I can't reconcile this with Riker's statement, unless Riker was specifically referring to the food aboard the Enterprise.

 

[Penta]

I always took Riker's claim to mean that all animals were, I dunno, free range.

 

[Cheapjack]

I think that they've found in Germany that the population steadys as the country fills up. People excercise restraint.
I think that they have such a high standard of living in the 24thC, that people know they are not under threat and feel that their genes will be continued, as well as their 'memes', will be represented in the future populace. They don't feel the need to have loads of kids as much.

I watched 'Little Green Men' last night, and Quark said that they can make food and clothes with their replicators. He tried to sell the technolgy to the 20thC peopleI also looked at the TNG manual, and it said that the replicators can make virtually anything relatively cheaply. They don't make matter out of energy, they make matter out of matter, even rock or water, which is abundant and cheap. This, combined with cheap fusion, power their economy, which may be different to ours.

The Laughing Vulcan came up with a good idea. Perhaps he could repost it.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

The Laughing Vulcan came up with a good idea. Perhaps he could repost it.

Stanley: You know, Ollie, I been thinkin'!
Oliver: What about?
Stanley: Well, if we caught our own fish, then we wouldn't have to pay for it and whoever we sold it to, it would be clear profit.
Oliver: Tell me that again!
Stanley: Well, if we caught our own fish, then the people we sold it to wouldn't have to pay for it, the profit would go to the fish...
Oliver: That's a pretty smart thought!

Lightning never strikes twice in my brain... sorry.

 

[neozeks]

...And a way to distribute the raw matter to the replicators as well. Maybe you're paid a visit by your friendly local raw matter delivery guy every month? Or there are 'pipes' connecting to the central storage.

What about direct transport, rather than plumbing or old-fashioned "milkman" type delivery? Either transporting the raw material directly from a central reservoir to a local household reservoir, or direct transport from a central reservoir to the household replicator on demand?

I think transport would be a bit of overkill. Imagine the power requirements of beaming stuff to practically every household on Earth. High-tech 'plumbing' like the waveguide conduits used on the Enterprise according to the TM seems more reasonable. Or the systems could be combined.

. But given a replicator and a cheap, reliable energy source to power it, I ask again - what would be scarce? The means of production would rest in the hands of individuals. Any individual anywhere could open a coffee shop, or brewery, or a clothing boutique, or what have you. The market would be flooded with products, products of all kinds, so numerous that the prices of everything would rapidly drop to values so small that it might well be worthless to bother keeping track of the exchanges! What then?

With the widespread use of replicators, buying a replicated product that could just as well be replicated at your own household replicator would be pretty useless, yes. I don't think there would exist a market for stuff like that. Well, unless it's something like drinks at a caffe, where you have the added social and entertainment element.

So the only products that would actually be made/bought/sold the old-fashioned way would be hand-made things, unique things, non-replicable stuff or stuff that's not as cheap to replicate, land, travel, things that by their very nature would not be numerous.
Money probably still exists in the sense of a measure of the value of other things (cause that's just practical) but obvious transactions are rare to most people, and even when they are obvious, most of the time they are hardly very important.

...and porn stars will rank higher than lawyers.

As a possible future lawyer, sir, I resent that!

 

[Pavonis]

Fair enough question sir.

Towards the end of one of the episodes (forget the name) Ben Sisko has left DS9, maybe for good. In the very last scene Ben is sitting in the alley behind his father's restaurant and he's cleaning a bucket of shellfish. Now if you don't scrub the filth off of the outside of shellfish before you put them in the cook water, the filth will get on the meat when the shells open. While it might be possible, why would anyone replicate artificial shellfish with filth on the outside of the shells? Filth that then would have to be scrubbed off?

This single scene is the reason I believe Joseph Sisko serves real meat (I consider seafood "meat").

I can't reconcile this with Riker's statement, unless Riker was specifically referring to the food aboard the Enterprise.

I'm familiar with that scene. It was "Image in the Sand", the season 7 premiere episode. I agree with you; no one would replicate filthy clams just to scrub them. That means Ben was scrubbing real clams caught in the wild.

However, even today many people don't consider fish and shellfish "meat". Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays, but fish somehow is not considered meat. I don't understand why the distinction is made, but it exists.

At any rate, from "Image in the Sand", all we know is that natural, wild clams are consumed. I don't think we should extrapolate that to all animal flesh. I don't recall any mentions of beef, pork, or chicken being served at Sisko's restaurant, anyway.

I think transport would be a bit of overkill. Imagine the power requirements of beaming stuff to practically every household on Earth. High-tech 'plumbing' like the waveguide conduits used on the Enterprise according to the TM seems more reasonable. Or the systems could be combined.

Why would the power requirements be an issue? I don't understand why power limitations are used as an excuse. What indications are there in canon that would hint that transporters are prohibitively expensive in power?

 

[neozeks]

I think transport would be a bit of overkill. Imagine the power requirements of beaming stuff to practically every household on Earth. High-tech 'plumbing' like the waveguide conduits used on the Enterprise according to the TM seems more reasonable. Or the systems could be combined.

Why would the power requirements be an issue? I don't understand why power limitations are used as an excuse. What indications are there in canon that would hint that transporters are prohibitively expensive in power?

Well, maybe I should have phrased it better. It's not so much that it's prohibitively expensive, it's just that I assume it's more expensive than the alternative. However abundant energy is, it's still limited and using an available cheaper solution is never a bad idea.

 

[T'Girl]

I'm familiar with that scene. It was "Image in the Sand", the season 7 premiere episode. I agree with you; no one would replicate filthy clams just to scrub them. That means Ben was scrubbing real clams caught in the wild.

However, even today many people don't consider fish and shellfish "meat". Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays, but fish somehow is not considered meat. I don't understand why the distinction is made, but it exists.

Flesh of the beast.

I'll freely admit I was extrapolating one fresh food item to mean all of Joseph Sisko's food was non-artificial. Sometimes Star trek doesn't give you much to work with. Ask yourself, in the 24th century why would you go to a restaurant at all? Service and atmosphere are a factor just like now, but there is also getting what you can't get at home. If most homes contain a replicator slot in the wall (still don't believe it), then the food that comes out of Joseph's slit is the same as the food that comes out of your slit. Joseph just carries it over to the table for you. On the other hand if you were to walk back to Joseph's kitchen (I'm sure he'd let you) someone is probably carving up a fresh killed alligator, there's a big pot of dirty rice on the boil and the smell of home grown cajun spices in the air, I 'm not suggesting that Joseph doesn't necessarily have a slit in the wall, it would come in handy to replace a broken plate, I just think that there would be a intrinsic difference between real and artificial food, even if you can't taste it. And with Joseph's cooking, you would taste it.

People on a starship eat artificial food out of a replicator because, from a certain point of view, they have no choice in the matter. Even in that environment when Riker cooks real eggs for his friends it's a treat, not a savage barbarous act. I also consider eggs to be "meat." Perhaps Penta nailed it when he posted in the future they just don't keep the animals penned up. It would make collecting those eggs interesting.

I don't think the future will necessarily be short on power, but I don't think they will necessarily have a "over-abundance" either, the power will be produced, and power generation constructed, in anticipation of projected need. The impression I too recieved from the various series's is the the transporters and to a lesser extent the replicator do consume a large amount of energy. Voyager's first few seasons did seem to spell this out. Let's face it, growing food is cheap, we know how to do it. Grow it. Harvest it. Move it. Sell it. Eat it. As inexpensive as power is, it still less expensive to use less power. There are most likely lesser machines than replicators, that use less power. They process the food, make the clothing, build the vehicles.

In spite of the fact the people of the Federation have transporters, they still wall, use stairs, ride turbo-lifts. With all this "freepower" why not just beam everywhere? On the couch? Beam to the john.

----
We are talking about a economy here, the title of the thread is "Trying to figure out the Federation Economy," If everything is basically free, if all your needs are satisfies by a hole in the wall, if a replicator can make anything out of base materials, then the Federation doesn't really have an economy.

----
Stepping out-universe for a moment, a actual Utopian universe would be very difficult place to set a story in, much of the Star Trek world is driven by conflict and adversity.

 

[Pavonis]

I'll freely admit I was extrapolating one fresh food item to mean all of Joseph Sisko's food was non-artificial. Sometimes Star trek doesn't give you much to work with. Ask yourself, in the 24th century why would you go to a restaurant at all? Service and atmosphere are a factor just like now, but there is also getting what you can't get at home. If most homes contain a replicator slot in the wall (still don't believe it), then the food that comes out of Joseph's slit is the same as the food that comes out of your slit. Joseph just carries it over to the table for you.

Meal times have always been a social experience for humans, and dining out with friends and family is important. The opportunity to try authentic Cajun cooking, prepared by hand by an artisan, would be quite the draw for people who, yes, would otherwise stay at home and consume meals produced from the replicator. But that would get boring after a while, and a variety of stimuli would be a factor in getting out of the house at all.

On the other hand if you were to walk back to Joseph's kitchen (I'm sure he'd let you) someone is probably carving up a fresh killed alligator, there's a big pot of dirty rice on the boil and the smell of home grown cajun spices in the air,

Joseph may not serve any real meats other than fish, shrimp and clams. If for some reason he did serve alligator (?!) why could he not simply replicate the raw meat, then prepare it? Killing a wild alligator just doesn't strike me as an activity that would occur on 24th century Earth.

I do concede that, at the very least, fishing is still practiced, at an individual level if not industrial. I recall a photograph being shown depicting young Will Riker with a fish on a hook in "The Icarus Factor". Was this a case of catch-and-release, or did they consume the fish after photographing it? I don't recall if that was even discussed, only that Will complained that Kyle took the rod from him to complete the catch.

I'm not suggesting that Joseph doesn't necessarily have a slit in the wall, it would come in handy to replace a broken plate, I just think that there would be a intrinsic difference between real and artificial food, even if you can't taste it. And with Joseph's cooking, you would taste it.

That may be merely a matter of opinion and/or perception. The quality of replicated versus prepared foods may not be detectable at all, with some people preferring "real" foods only because, in their opinion, it's "better" or "more nutritious". I believe O'Brien's mother held that opinion.

People on a starship eat artificial food out of a replicator because, from a certain point of view, they have no choice in the matter. Even in that environment when Riker cooks real eggs for his friends it's a treat, not a savage barbarous act. I also consider eggs to be "meat." Perhaps Penta nailed it when he posted in the future they just don't keep the animals penned up. It would make collecting those eggs interesting.

I concede that Penta may be right, and that animals may not be corralled or housed on farms in the 24th century. But has hunting ever been mentioned or discussed, or even implied, anywhere in canon? If animals aren't penned in or corralled, then if non-replicated animal flesh is to be consumed, those animals must be hunted. Do you suppose they'd use a phaser, or an old-fashioned chemical propelled projectile weapon, like the TR-116?

I don't think the future will necessarily be short on power, but I don't think they will necessarily have a "over-abundance" either, the power will be produced, and power generation constructed, in anticipation of projected need.

What's an "overabundance"? If humans living on Earth decided that everyone should have a replicator in their house, then the power generation infrastructure to support that lifestyle would be built and maintained. We of the 21st century might call it an "overabundance", but the people of the 24th century may simply call it "sufficient".

The impression I too recieved from the various series's is the the transporters and to a lesser extent the replicator do consume a large amount of energy. Voyager's first few seasons did seem to spell this out.

I never understood the VOY idea that the replicator power needed to be rationed. If anything, the replicator should be used exclusively. Whether it uses raw energy or a raw matter feedstock, the replicator is the ultimate recycling program, and on a starship, recycling everything should be very important. To Voyager's isolated crew, it should be even more critical than to a starship in the Alpha Quadrant, which at least would have access to starbase facilities.

Let's face it, growing food is cheap, we know how to do it. Grow it. Harvest it. Move it. Sell it. Eat it.

But growing food is not cheap. It takes a great deal of energy and time to grow food from seed to harvest. Months of time, and lots of sunshine. Still, I guess farming may be feasible if only to give people something to do. Another case of practicing an activity that would otherwise be a lost art.

In spite of the fact the people of the Federation have transporters, they still wall, use stairs, ride turbo-lifts. With all this "freepower" why not just beam everywhere? On the couch? Beam to the john.

Perhaps a great deal of couch potatoes do just that - beam everywhere, from room to room in their own house or to their friends' homes. As for beaming to the john, there's always the old joke that the humans in Trek just have the waste beamed right out of their bladders and colons.

We are talking about a economy here, the title of the thread is "Trying to figure out the Federation Economy," If everything is basically free, if all your needs are satisfies by a hole in the wall, if a replicator can make anything out of base materials, then the Federation doesn't really have an economy.

Well, it's always been said that the "economics of the future are somewhat different".

They may well have a gift economy, or a market economy based on the scarcity of time. After all, at least until the 26th century in Trek (when time travel is first perfected), time is still a scarce and nonrenewable resource.

Anything that requires human time to produce might require some kind of exchange. Anything that doesn't require human time or oversight would be free. And social status would determine how much your time is worth. A couch potato's time would be worthless, as they may not have any useful skills but have time in abundance. A starship captain's time could be very valuable, though, because they are skilled and need to be compensated for their time and attention.

Stepping out-universe for a moment, a actual Utopian universe would be very difficult place to set a story in, much of the Star Trek world is driven by conflict and adversity.

Absolutely true. Probably why most of Trek does not take place on Earth.

 

[DevilEyes]

How do you fit in Riker's claim in "Lonely Among Us" that humans no longer "enslave animals for food", but use the replicator to produce meat inorganically? On the face of it, that would seem to eliminate the ranching, dairy and possibly even fishing industries entirely!

Fair enough question sir.

Towards the end of one of the episodes (forget the name) Ben Sisko has left DS9, maybe for good. In the very last scene Ben is sitting in the alley behind his father's restaurant and he's cleaning a bucket of shellfish. Now if you don't scrub the filth off of the outside of shellfish before you put them in the cook water, the filth will get on the meat when the shells open. While it might be possible, why would anyone replicate artificial shellfish with filth on the outside of the shells? Filth that then would have to be scrubbed off?

This single scene is the reason I believe Joseph Sisko serves real meat (I consider seafood "meat").

I can't reconcile this with Riker's statement, unless Riker was specifically referring to the food aboard the Enterprise.

Technically, this is not incompatible with Riker's statement... He said that humans don't "enslave animals for meat"? He never said they didn't hunt and kill wild animals (which includes fish and other sea animals) for meat, did he?

When I saw that episode I thought it meant that killing animals for food has been made illegal in the Federation, but no such luck, as Joseph's restaurant proves. I certainly never thought that humans have stopped eating organic food altogether, which would be a really unbelievable. There's no way that everyone would prefer to have replicated food rather than organic food. There are lots of people now who prefer 'natural', 'healthy' food to industrially-grown food. And the situation with replicators is even more extreme, it's not just additives or even genetically modified food, it's food whose origin is completely artificial, it is made by a machine that restructures molecules! Even if it could get the taste right, which is doubtful, I am sure that they would be lots of people who would say "I only eat the real food - I want none of that stuff that the machine made out of shit!" (which would quite often by literally true, as confirmed in ENT. How else do they recycle shit on starships...)

As for transporters - I'm not sure that everyone would be so eager to beam everywhere instead of walking, even if they had enough energy to waste, which I doubt. Let's not forget what transporters actually do - they take you apart and put your molecules back again - and that there is a risk - statistically very small, but still existing - that a horrible accident might happen... Walking to the john seems like a better idea.