The Federation not having any money

[C.E. Evans]

I'm not sure where it came from. As I understand it, with synthehol you do still get both buzzed and eventual drunk. But you can (somehow) will yourself back to complete sobriety with a mental effort.

Normally, you'd never get drunk off synthehol--it has the smell and taste of alcohol, but not the intoxicating effects. The only way you can get drunk off synthehol, though, is if your body can't process it--like how some people can't process dairy foods and have a bad reaction to them. IIRC, Seven of Nine couldn't process synthehol due to being part Borg and could get drunk off it quite easily.

Did the writers that made that up seriously think that people drink because they like the TASTE of alcohol?

Some people actually do like the TASTE more than they do passing out in their own vomit, but I think the writers presented synthehol as a non-incapacitating alternative to alcohol. Otherwise, we know that Guinan kept a special bottle of "something green" in Ten-Forward that was real alcohol and the Picard family was making real wine in their vineyard, so it was never like alcoholic beverages had ceased to exist.

 

[T'Girl]

Perhaps the replicator can't manufacture the chemical compound ethanol for some reason (it's not really that complex).

 

[iguana_tonante]

How does warp drive work?

See, that's part of the problem, while they made a effort to describe the warp drive (technobabble sure), absolutely no dialog makes even a passing attempt at the no money economy thing.

Yeah they did - you just called it lying. It's telling how this is one of the most controversial ideas in Trek.

The "technobabble" for the warp drive is just a collection of meaningless buzzwords for anybody who knows a little about physics, but since they sound science-y, some people think it's somehow more "believable".

As I said before and I will say again: people accept warp drives and transporters because they don't understand physics, but they can't accept a post-scarcity money-less economy because they think they understand economics.

 

[Cyke101]

Normally, you'd never get drunk off synthehol--it has the smell and taste of alcohol, but not the intoxicating effects. The only way you can get drunk off synthehol, though, is if your body can't process it--like how some people can't process dairy foods and have a bad reaction to them. IIRC, Seven of Nine couldn't process synthehol due to being part Borg and could get drunk off it quite easily.

Did the writers that made that up seriously think that people drink because they like the TASTE of alcohol?

Some people actually do like the TASTE more than they do passing out in their own vomit, but I think the writers presented synthehol as a non-incapacitating alternative to alcohol. Otherwise, we know that Guinan kept a special bottle of "something green" in Ten-Forward that was real alcohol and the Picard family was making real wine in their vineyard, so it was never like alcoholic beverages had ceased to exist.

I'm not a heavy drinking (contrary to popular belief! ), but I've always wanted to try Guinan's "green" stuff.

 

[tighr]

Perhaps the replicator can't manufacture the chemical compound ethanol for some reason (it's not really that complex).

The replicators were perfectly capable of making alcoholic beverages, and in fact did so on numerous occasions. However, synthehol was still available for drinks while on duty or for those who don't want to get impaired.

Also, Robert Picard's theory was that nothing replicated can compare to the real thing. Which I can certainly understand to be true. The bottle that Scotty borrowed from 10 Forward (which Picard says he gave to Guinan in the first place) was very likely an aged ale, something which would be difficult to replicate accurately.

 

[Destructor]

Perhaps the replicator can't manufacture the chemical compound ethanol for some reason (it's not really that complex).

The replicators were perfectly capable of making alcoholic beverages, and in fact did so on numerous occasions. However, synthehol was still available for drinks while on duty or for those who don't want to get impaired.

Also, Robert Picard's theory was that nothing replicated can compare to the real thing. Which I can certainly understand to be true. The bottle that Scotty borrowed from 10 Forward (which Picard says he gave to Guinan in the first place) was very likely an aged ale, something which would be difficult to replicate accurately.

Yes I think the idea was the the replicator would always make precisely the same thing, down to the last molecule. So a lot of the 'personality' that defines certain meals, wines, and other things that take preparation and creativity would be lost. Even wines that are made from the same harvest of grapes can vary in taste, so there'd be something 'special' about an ACTUAL bottle of wine, something that couldn't be replicated. This would give the wine 'value', but to automatically assign that value a monetary amount is something that is clearly and repeatedly stated in Trek as something humanity no longer does. It's fun to argue about the hows and whys, but the people who say: "Nah, can't be true, humans would never go for it." are, frankly, unimaginative and boring. Why don't you just say: "Nah, humans will never make it off Earth, Star Trek is ridiculous." and then leave us fans alone with our show so we don't have to put up with how boring and pedestrian your claims to what incredibly poor imaginations you have are?

 

[Cyke101]

Perhaps the replicator can't manufacture the chemical compound ethanol for some reason (it's not really that complex).

The replicators were perfectly capable of making alcoholic beverages, and in fact did so on numerous occasions. However, synthehol was still available for drinks while on duty or for those who don't want to get impaired.

Also, Robert Picard's theory was that nothing replicated can compare to the real thing. Which I can certainly understand to be true. The bottle that Scotty borrowed from 10 Forward (which Picard says he gave to Guinan in the first place) was very likely an aged ale, something which would be difficult to replicate accurately.

Yes I think the idea was the the replicator would always make precisely the same thing, down to the last molecule. So a lot of the 'personality' that defines certain meals, wines, and other things that take preparation and creativity would be lost. Even wines that are made from the same harvest of grapes can vary in taste, so there'd be something 'special' about an ACTUAL bottle of wine, something that couldn't be replicated. This would give the wine 'value', but to automatically assign that value a monetary amount is something that is clearly and repeatedly stated in Trek as something humanity no longer does. It's fun to argue about the hows and whys, but the people who say: "Nah, can't be true, humans would never go for it." are, frankly, unimaginative and boring. Why don't you just say: "Nah, humans will never make it off Earth, Star Trek is ridiculous." and then leave us fans alone with our show so we don't have to put up with how boring and pedestrian your claims to what incredibly poor imaginations you have are?

I think on the same token, it's just as unimaginative to settle on an easy, seemingly apparent answer that the writers map out. If anything, that doesn't really encourage one to discuss or dwell on what the writers create. And one of the greatest pleasures of the writer is if their work gets discussed up and down.

Case in point, when people talk about how money and exchange works in Trek or how warp drive works, granted some of that is a cynical inability to believe in fantasy and conjecture. But I'd like to think that others in this thread talk about both advances to try and grasp how they can be attained in a brighter, more optimistic future. I know that's how I'm trying to see this thread; I can't say for sure how successful I am in trying to navigate those who believe in futuristic capital and those who believe it really is moneyless, but in both approaches I see people who want to think that whatever system Trek has is far preferable to the system we have now. They disagree on what that system is, but it's better than the present.

 

[Paradon]

I don't think smart and resourceful people would stick around, or wouldn't even consider joining SF, if it's not worth the emotional and physical stress. Work drains your energy...it stresses people out. Money does make it better and worthwhile as a motivation.

People think money is the root of all evil, but if everybody has money and enough to eat, there would a lot less unrest in the world. Look at Japan... Back in WW II...and before that...the country was ruled by warlords and shoguns. It was a brutal culture...but now they switched to democracy and their people are richer and have enough to eat, it isn't such a bad country anymore. It's actually a very pleasant country to be. Back when in the old days...the Middle EAst wasn't like this. Their culture back then actually prospered and they were very tolerant people. Now...poverty, disease and hopelessness have turned their people bloodthirsty...that and the U.S. [chuckle] It wouldn't have been that bad if they U.S. hadn't intervened in their countries' affairs.

 

[Cyke101]

I don't think smart and resourceful people would stick around, or wouldn't even consider joining SF, if it's not worth the emotional and physical stress. Work drains your energy...it stresses people out. Money does make it better and worthwhile as a motivation.

People think money is the root of all evil, but if everybody has money and enough to eat, there would a lot less unrest in the world. Look at Japan... Back in WW II...and before that...the country was ruled by warlords and shoguns. It was a brutal culture...but now they switched to democracy and their people are richer and have enough to eat, it isn't such a bad country anymore. It's actually a very pleasant country to be. Back when in the old days...the Middle EAst wasn't like this. Their culture back then actually prospered and they were very tolerant people. Now...poverty, disease and hopelessness have turned their people bloodthirsty...that and the U.S. [chuckle] It wouldn't have been that bad if they U.S. hadn't intervened in their countries' affairs.

You're combining democracy with capitalism (and you're also assuming everyone lives the Starfleet way in Trek, when people like Joseph Sisko and Robert Picard clearly don't. It only seems like that because every show is always set *as* Starfleet.). But in this day and age, there's even more bloodshed and upheaval than before because of the lack of regulation in expanding capital: last year's string of revolutions in the Middle East, the riots and rebellions in London and Spain earlier this year, and the Occupy Wall Street movement are all proof that people are dissatisfied with the financial status quo.

With that said, no modern country is really immune to the crimes of the past. You bring up Japan's pre-democracy shoguns and warlords, but I would counter by bringing up, say, the US's slave industry, land grabs from Native Americans, and the Civil War (one of the bloodiest wars in all of history -- even by 23rd century standards) and that's all during democracy, and largely approved by people at the time. They were all also very much driven by finance in some form or way. But I mention that not as a response to your point about the US and the Middle East, but rather as examples of how democracy and capitalism are two distinct animals. If anything, Star Trek seems to do a pretty good job of dividing the two (arguably speaking, of course).

Rather, I won't support or refute anyone that says Money is the Root of All Evil, but I'm much more concerned about how money is distributed, how it's gained, and how it's manipulated.

 

[Paradon]

One word..."recession". That's the mess we are in right now. Because of government rules and regulations...like forced monopoly (coorperatism)...and over spending is what got the U.S. into debt. How do government knows how to run your own business better you do? That doesn't make any sense. Do the government know everything and wiser than everyone else?

 

[tighr]

I think on the same token, it's just as unimaginative to settle on an easy, seemingly apparent answer that the writers map out. If anything, that doesn't really encourage one to discuss or dwell on what the writers create. And one of the greatest pleasures of the writer is if their work gets discussed up and down.

Its one thing to discuss the episodes and their impact, feasibility, and concreteness. It's another to ignore what was said and seen on screen.

I could say that its more feasible that replicators really had short order cooks on the other side of the wall who pushed food through them, but that's not what we see on screen. What we see is a fantastic futuristic device that creates food out of thin air. That's the facts, and that's not debatable.

We are told the Federation doesn't use money. Its more fun to figure out ways of still bartering with other civilizations, putting a bid on a wormhole, and paying for food at Quarks while still meeting those requirements than to just dismiss the whole practice entirely.

 

[Cyke101]

One word..."recession". That's the mess we are in right now. Because of government rules and regulations...like forced monopoly (coorperatism)...and over spending is what got the U.S. into debt. How do government knows how to run your own business better you do? That doesn't make any sense. Do the government know everything and wiser than everyone else?

It's a myth to blame it all on the recession, since there were events that lead to the recession. It was the catalyst for sure, but we're talking about decades of influence, movement, and control here; for that matter, one major obstacle that all these movements face is that they're addressing entire institutions (for one, as pointed out earlier, the global stock market is a couple centuries old already), which requires massive amounts of change. Not to get all political here, but name a US president and you can easily link their financial policies to each other regardless of party affiliation, because of continuity and the rules of finance that they're forced to abide by. Add on to that influence the nature of multinational corporations, global exchange, forced labor, diaspora, etc etc and we're talking about massive inequality that would still be in operation even if the recession didn't happen, as a lot of these practices have been around since at *least* the 70s.

 

[Cyke101]

I think on the same token, it's just as unimaginative to settle on an easy, seemingly apparent answer that the writers map out. If anything, that doesn't really encourage one to discuss or dwell on what the writers create. And one of the greatest pleasures of the writer is if their work gets discussed up and down.

Its one thing to discuss the episodes and their impact, feasibility, and concreteness. It's another to ignore what was said and seen on screen.

I could say that its more feasible that replicators really had short order cooks on the other side of the wall who pushed food through them, but that's not what we see on screen. What we see is a fantastic futuristic device that creates food out of thin air. That's the facts, and that's not debatable.

Let me clarify: that's not really what my post sought to address -- I think what the replicator does to satisfy the taste buds is fairly trivial compared to the bigger issue: what kind of an effect do things like replicators have on, say, economy, reproduction, and capital? *That's* the conversation that I'm interested in because the hypothetical and the conjectural is so much more fluid than simply saying "it replicates food." I'm willing to bet that which ever writer invented the replicator didn't really think about the social ramifications about such a device. But I'm also willing to bet that that same writer would be pleased that we're exploring the possibilities through this thread. Thus, that it makes food is a fact that's not debatable -- what it would do to, say, a third world country *is* debatable, and far from being a fact.

Of course, take the above and replace the word "replicator" with subspace communication or transporters or warp speed or terraforming or whatever else and I think we'd still be in the same conversation about economy -- because that all has to play a hand in developing that economy in the first place.

We are told the Federation doesn't use money. Its more fun to figure out ways of still bartering with other civilizations, putting a bid on a wormhole, and paying for food at Quarks while still meeting those requirements than to just dismiss the whole practice entirely.

Which is precisely my point. The writers say the Federation doesn't use money, but that's separate from saying exchange doesn't happen. That we dwell on it and discuss what it really amounts to -- even if we disagree on what that is -- is what I'm defending; that is, I'm defending our ability to even have this thread in the first place, contrary to Destructor saying we should just accept something at face value -- especially something whose effects aren't truly explored. For example, phasers are weapons first and foremost, I get that as a fact, but the writers have only scratched the surface of what phasers can be attuned to do, whether it's to ignite specific gasses or assist in sensor readings or carving out excavation digs, etc. etc. In some other thread that would be fun to speculate about.

 

[Timo]

...On the other hand, and as a possibly noteworthy aside, not all things live up to their full potential. It would be easy to e.g. argue that mobile phones would lead to totalitarianism or complete anarchy, take your pick, thanks to their combination of "obvious features with obvious consequences" and "incentive for everybody to have one". But there's social inertia against the exploitation of some of the features (say, a location-tracking functionality), and there are preexisting, mundane and almost unnoticeable mechanisms for dealing with some of the consequences even if the consequences themselves are technologically unpredictable.

The opposite is also true in the real world. Money could have been "abolished" in terminology because it is considered thoroughly evil, but may still stay in use under a different name. Similarly, concentration camps and eugenics are extremely practical things we continue to have, but there's a need to camouflage their existence, not in the physical "hide-it-all-in-a-jungle-and-hope-John-Rambo-doesn't-pay-a-visit" sense, but in the more subtle "sleight-of-tongue" sense. We need the features and the consequences, by virtue of social inertia, even if we cannot admit to their retention.

This all in mind, it's quite okay to say "yes, in Trek, they have no money, which could have consequences A, B and C if we think it through - but by a quirk of social inertia, they don't have the beneficial consequence B and they refuse to have the catastrophic consequence C". It's really that simple: we don't need to understand an underlying mechanism that removes B and C, because it can all be due to sheer human stubbornness, the inability to see reason, and the unwillingness to optimize beyond a certain point.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

I've always wanted to try Guinan's "green" stuff.

Drinking a Samarian sunset in the traditional style sounds interesting, and what if you drank it while it was changing colors?

 

[Cyke101]

...On the other hand, and as a possibly noteworthy aside, not all things live up to their full potential. It would be easy to e.g. argue that mobile phones would lead to totalitarianism or complete anarchy, take your pick, thanks to their combination of "obvious features with obvious consequences" and "incentive for everybody to have one". But there's social inertia against the exploitation of some of the features (say, a location-tracking functionality), and there are preexisting, mundane and almost unnoticeable mechanisms for dealing with some of the consequences even if the consequences themselves are technologically unpredictable.

I would largely agree, but I would also say that just because things don't live up to their full potential doesn't mean it's not worth discussing, either. To take this out of the realm of money and into something we're more familiar with, name Treknobabble as an example, it kind of goes with how our heroes would come across any number of technological wonders but would rarely allow the viewers to revisit and expand upon those wonders (the Dyson Sphere, the Doomsday Killer, transphasic torpedoes, etc). Along those lines, yeah, full potential isn't even pondered, never mind reached.

The opposite is also true in the real world. Money could have been "abolished" in terminology because it is considered thoroughly evil, but may still stay in use under a different name. Similarly, concentration camps and eugenics are extremely practical things we continue to have, but there's a need to camouflage their existence, not in the physical "hide-it-all-in-a-jungle-and-hope-John-Rambo-doesn't-pay-a-visit" sense, but in the more subtle "sleight-of-tongue" sense. We need the features and the consequences, by virtue of social inertia, even if we cannot admit to their retention.

That's pretty much how I feel about the OP in general, to be honest. If it's not "money" as we know it, it's still something under a different name, but that's partly because we do see some of those features -- that is, how things are exchanged, and the social inertia that yeah, sometimes they're coded as wants and sometimes as needs, but also perhaps a growing need to reject certain aspects of money as we know it.

Again, not to make this political (cuz lord knows it's a tricky subject, and I don't want to stir shit), but in a lot of the current discourse about the influence of money, I could see how some concerns raised in modern protests could eventually turn into some of Trek's economic philosophies, ie a reduced materialism or less emphasis on competition.

This all in mind, it's quite okay to say "yes, in Trek, they have no money, which could have consequences A, B and C if we think it through - but by a quirk of social inertia, they don't have the beneficial consequence B and they refuse to have the catastrophic consequence C". It's really that simple: we don't need to understand an underlying mechanism that removes B and C, because it can all be due to sheer human stubbornness, the inability to see reason, and the unwillingness to optimize beyond a certain point.

Timo Saloniemi

I'm on the fence about this one, but I suppose that's largely because I'm still dwelling on the point (pardon me if I come up with a better response in, like, two days to this fine point). Yes, ultimately it's point A that matters. But I'd be delighted if some kind of media really did show B and C, simply because it would give us more insight into how the Federation works. Of course, I recognize that the odds of that ever happening are pretty slim, and on top of that, such writing could be pretty self-indulgent anyway (lest we repeat the mistakes of the Star Wars prequels), but it'd be social or soft sci-fi in the sense that it not only posits a certain future, but explains the consequences of these societal changes and compares them to current day.

But yes, I'm going to think about some of your points for a bit.

 

[T'Girl]

The bottle that Scotty borrowed from 10 Forward ... was very likely an aged ale

I alway thought that it was a type of whiskey. Ale (beer) as I understand it isn't meant to be "aged."

I think the idea was the the replicator would always make precisely the same thing, down to the last molecule.

I think what the replicator produces is a "facsimile," so if you order a fried chicken leg, what the replicator delivered to you would not be a piece of bird muscle tissue wrapped around a actual segment of bone. Nutritionally it's all going to be there, or they wouldn't put them (replicators) in the ships in the first place. Down to the last molecule is another matter, we know that there are things that the replicator can't produce with accuracy, certain pharmaceuticals. It also can not produce organs that can be transplanted into a person's body that will function (hearts or lungs).

So, if you order liver, it might look, chew and even taste like liver, but in reality it's not a biological liver.

If you order a potato, cut it into quarters and put it in soil, you won't get potato plants. Because what the replicator gave you only appears to be a potato.

unimaginative and boring

It like having a "desert world," or "water world," or all members of the Federation have the same political system, or the people on any given planet having just one culture.

You know, perhaps Picard and others (like Jake Sisko) have renounced personal possessions and as a philosophical concept seek to "better themselves and all Humanity."

Great, good for them, but how unimaginative is it to then go, oh well two people in the future have voiced this philosophy ... that meant the vast majority of people in the Federation automatically embrace this too. Sure, admittedly it's simplistic to have one social system, but we can now move on to other matters of discourse.

Even here on Earth today, with just one dominate intelligent species, we have a wide diverse variety of political, social, cultural, and economic systems, and we're just one planet.

Okay, here comes the big confession, I want the Star Trek universe to be incredibly complex. A overlapping, sometime competing, thousand planet (members and colonies) Federation economic system would be what I would prefer. Instead of omni-replicators that can produce anything, I want to see enormous commerce between the Federations worlds, tens of millions of cargo ships and freighters warping through the void. A vast network of suppliers, demanders and consumers. I want every day in the Federation council to look like the episode Journey To Babel, I don't want the members to "get along" with each other.

A post-scarcity (never actual mentioned on the show) environment wouldn't exactly fit my description. How would a Earth where there are no achievements, no challenges, no competition, no risks and no failures be a "paradise?"

 

[Paradon]

That's a very good idea, Dracula's Castle! I always thought ST has potential that way, but somehow they never pursued it. DS9 kindda mentioned these things but still could have been better.

 

[Cyke101]

A post-scarcity (never actual mentioned on the show) environment wouldn't exactly fit my description. How would a Earth where there are no achievements, no challenges, no competition, no risks and no failures be a "paradise?"

It could very well be that, if things like money and finance are redefined, concepts like competition and risk would be as well. But the only evidence we have of that is, say, two rivals who actively dislike each other but by the end of the episode amend their differences for the greater cause. If there's one thing virtually all our heroes have, it's a sense of going after the challenge, like the difference between Capt. Picard and Lt. Picard in Tapestry.

 

[tighr]

It like having a "desert world," or "water world," or all members of the Federation have the same political system, or the people on any given planet having just one culture.

Even here on Earth today, with just one dominate intelligent species, we have a wide diverse variety of political, social, cultural, and economic systems, and we're just one planet.

I think its been pretty firmly established that the Federation only accepts members that have a unified global government. We may have multiple political systems TODAY, but in order to join the future Federation its clear that we are ultimately going to have a World Government.

That's not to say things like culture go away. You can go to different parts of something as small as a city and see different cultures. Obviously, a world of billions is not going to be aligned. But with the advent of advanced technology and the erosion of the need for money, everyone will be on equal footing and our world won't feel so big and alien anymore.

Trek takes place 500 years in the future; ask someone from 500 years in our past if they thought it would ever be possible to travel anywhere in the world in less than a day, and they would say it was crazy. Ask them if they ever thought it would be possible to know current events in real time from halfway across the planet, and they would say it was crazy. Why is it so difficult to imagine things being completely different in the future?