The economy of Star Trek: Why I believe we are creating it now.

[trek_futurist]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

In star trek the economy is based on utilitarian participation in some kind of common place work force, where we all 'work together for the betterment of humanity'.

I have spoken with people who say this will never happen because of the 'inherent greed of the human race'.

I don't think we are all inherently greedy. I think the level of greed we see today is a learned trait, based on my psychological education. But that is another conversation entirely.

The way I see it, we are incrementally evolving toward an economy where more and more things will become 'free'. Already look at how much cost has gone down for basic mediums of entertainment.

Once upon a time you had no choice but to pay 70$ a month for overpriced, limited cable broadcasting. Now you pay 10$ a month and can watch almost anything you want, whenever you want, as many times as you want, on netflix.

You use to have to pay 50$ a month for local phone service. Now you can pay 20$ a year for digital phone service (magic jack) and there are also free alternatives. Plus cell phone service plans are going down (see virgin mobile).

Music is another thing that is easily acquired for next to nothing, and you can get it at your own pace, song by song. Consuming it as you see fit, rather than what some corporate sponsored radiostation sees fit.

You once had to spend hundreds of dollars for a decent vitamin/supplement regimen. Now you can log into swanson or vitacost and get months worth of the same supplments for way less than a hundred dollars.

The reason I am mentioning all this is because the reason price is going down is that demand is either dropping because of widespread availability of many of these commodities or luxuries or a lot of these companies cannot compete with free sources, so they try their best to present them in such a way that it appeals to a prospective buyer.

What is this all leading to? An economy where everything is free, as long as you participate in the economy?

Well, one might exclaim. 'that would never work because given the option people would rather lay around and have everything handed to them'.

^^^ So by the above logic, money is the only worthy incentive?

I have to heartily disagree with this sentiment.

Basically it is illogical. It presupposes that 1-People would have nothing to 'work for' if currency were removed from the equation and 2-That there are no other viable incentives.

I disagree 1000% with people who think this way.

If people slave 40, 50, 60 hours a week just for basic necessities, food, shelter, living costs etc, to barely be able to make ends meet, what do you think they would do if the incentive was the betterment not only of humankind, but, consequently, their own lives?

I think at first people would see the selfish aspect of this approach, but soon, in a matter of two or three generations, they would realize the big picture, as it were.

That is, that the betterment of the human race is the primary goal, because no one lives in a vacuum and therefor, we cannot better ourselves fully without bettering our species and vice versa! A feedback loop of mutual necessity!

After all, is that not what the current economy is based on, albeit in a very lop sided fashion that favors consumerism and impersonal deterministic forces (being controlled by what other's want, instead of what thy self wants)?

Also, I do not buy the notion that 'competition' is solely responsible for innovation, especially where advances in physics or biology are concerned. On the contrary a concerted effort is what usually gets the job done (think the human genome project, for example)!

And after all, if humans can invent so much fighting against one another, imagine how much they can invent working with one another!

So, what does everyone else think? I am pretty convinced that notions of eternal greed are just way out of proportion and generally the domain of cynics who, because they are so ingrained in todays economics, they cannot see past their own noses on this matter!

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Too tired to concentrate on the whole long post, but I do like this:

And after all, if humans can invent so much fighting against one another, imagine how much they can invent working with one another!

 

[sojourner]

Somehow I suspect the OP has never read a single thing on economics.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The cornerstone of the Star Trek economy, as it were, and as it has been discussed on the board and elsewhere, is technology. One of the most important elements of this technology is replicator technology, which provides at infinitesimal cost per transaction all the basic necessities of living: food, shelter, clothing, and so forth.

A corollary of this point is that, as long as technology improves, we are moving towards the imaginary technology that supports the Star Trek economy. This is true even if we never invent actual magic items such as replicators, for even if we never do, these imaginary devices still occupy limit points in the domain of conceivable machines, to the degree that replicators have certain well-defined functional properties in our imaginations. If we never achieve replicator technology, it will simply be that these limit points always remain out of reach. But even in that case, the efficiency of our machines that we use in manufacturing will still move towards those limit points, that is, as long as technology continually improves.

In other words, I agree: we are necessarily moving towards an economy with free basic necessities, as long as technology continues to improve. That really follows by definition, but it is still an exciting truth. It's one of the reasons I find Star Trek, and science fiction in general, so fascinating.

 

[BillJ]

Your price quotes for phone and entertainment are really misleading.

First you have to have a broadband connection which will cost you between fifty and sixty dollars a month. Then you have to buy the equiptment for your Netflix to run on which can run anywhere from fifty to three hundred dollars and you need either a PC or laptop and a wireless router to make the whole shebang work.

The cost really hasn't went away... the dollars are simply allocated differently.

 

[horatio83]

Also, I do not buy the notion that 'competition' is solely responsible for innovation, especially where advances in physics or biology are concerned. On the contrary a concerted effort is what usually gets the job done (think the human genome project, for example)!

People often mistake economic competition, i.e. a lack of market power, for what you could call biological competition, testosterone in the air and so on.
So yeah, I totally agree that cooperation is more important than competition.

 

[Kelthaz]

So, what does everyone else think?

I think you need to get some new hobbies.

 

[trek_futurist]

The cornerstone of the Star Trek economy, as it were, and as it has been discussed on the board and elsewhere, is technology. One of the most important elements of this technology is replicator technology, which provides at infinitesimal cost per transaction all the basic necessities of living: food, shelter, clothing, and so forth.

A corollary of this point is that, as long as technology improves, we are moving towards the imaginary technology that supports the Star Trek economy. This is true even if we never invent actual magic items such as replicators, for even if we never do, these imaginary devices still occupy limit points in the domain of conceivable machines, to the degree that replicators have certain well-defined functional properties in our imaginations. If we never achieve replicator technology, it will simply be that these limit points always remain out of reach. But even in that case, the efficiency of our machines that we use in manufacturing will still move towards those limit points, that is, as long as technology continually improves.

In other words, I agree: we are necessarily moving towards an economy with free basic necessities, as long as technology continues to improve. That really follows by definition, but it is still an exciting truth. It's one of the reasons I find Star Trek, and science fiction in general, so fascinating.

I concur on the points as they relate to replicator technology, or in short, dealing with the problems of 'demand' and 'limited quantity'. We are seeing a very nice example of this in the entertainment industry, where, as pointed out in my original post, the cost of everything has gone down considerably since the invention of home media. When I was a little kid VHS tapes, which were already on their way out in favor of disc media, costed an average of 15-20$ per tape. Now, in the space of about 15 years you have netflix to replace that model with, and it costs you a mere 10$ a month, and going down. We are witnessing greater access at lower cost, which seems like a very natural evolution toward a relatively 'free' system. We just have to find ways to translate this over to food items through some advanced manufacturing process (perhaps 3D printers will yield some as yet unknown variable here).

 

[Gary7]

There is one major fallacy in your theory that we are heading toward creating the economy of Star Trek. You know what it is? Star Trek is purely fiction, the imagination of the creator and writers that followed. Gene Roddenberry thought that money would become obsolete in the future. He was half-correct. Money in it's tangible physical form will probably disappear one day. All monetary transactions will happen electronically. What about pure cash? It will vanish. What doesn't get traded electronically will be bartered with physical exchange, just like the old days before money existed. But, the idea of "credits" or "money in your account" will not vanish.

Things will eventually be free? Well, you focus on a downward cost trend in one specific area. A reduction of cost, but not elimination. Is fuel free? Ummmm... no, it has gone up considerably. Electricity costs have gone up and down, but in a general sense they are on the rise again. It is all relative to the economic conditions of the time.


The real problem at hand is that human beings have not evolved much beyond what they were 2,000 years ago (I use that time frame as a common milestone of larger scale civilizations, knowing that we probably aren't much different than our ancestors of 10,000 years ago). We are still run by primal instincts. Greed is one of them, as it is a survival instinct. The issue is that we being the inventor species have grown beyond our "natural" state. We are more attuned to living in small tribes, where everyone is known and accounted for, thus there is accountability inherent in being a tribal member. In the large scale civilization, being anonymous is the major form of participation. As such, being accountable and respectful to people you do not know is something that has to be LEARNED. Societies of the recent past were determined to instill high degrees of moral fiber, but by doing it with brute force. There was also the issue of abuse of power... whereby kids would be improperly reprimanded for minor offenses. So, over time, the system has relaxed on a lot of this.

When you see people in positions of high station (political, corporate, etc) who are far wealthier than a majority of the populace but take illegal and unconscionable steps to secure more for themselves at the expense of others, it makes you wonder where we have gone wrong. It's the lack of moral fiber. The ability for one to see beyond themselves and those in their immediate clan. To look beyond the current generation and know that it's important to do the right thing, because the future of humanity is heavily influenced by it. We have SO FEW PEOPLE "in charge" who see things this way. And until we do, we're doomed to ride this wave of technological advancement into the ground. Our global community is at tremendous risk of decay and collapse, more so than 30 years ago.

So... I not only believe that we are not headed into the bright and rosy illusion of the Star Trek economy, I feel we are at risk of losing what we presently have. Most people are too myopic to see it.

 

[trek_futurist]

Your price quotes for phone and entertainment are really misleading.

First you have to have a broadband connection which will cost you between fifty and sixty dollars a month. Then you have to buy the equiptment for your Netflix to run on which can run anywhere from fifty to three hundred dollars and you need either a PC or laptop and a wireless router to make the whole shebang work.

The cost really hasn't went away... the dollars are simply allocated differently.

Do you really want to use home computers as a cornerstone of your argument of 'cost' here?

Let's look at the average price of home computers over the past 30 years and how they have gone WAY DOWN, not way up. Why? More widespread circulation of the technology. This model of widespread availability has allowed us access to more advanced technology at fairly low launch prices. The only exceptions to this rule are apple products really, which are still much less expensive than they once were.

 

[Kelthaz]

Gene Roddenberry thought that money would become obsolete in the future.

I wouldn't even go that far. He just decided to go with no money because it seemed like a good idea for the show. Gene Roddenberry was just some random dude who created a TV series; he was no Gandhi.

 

[trek_futurist]

Also, I do not buy the notion that 'competition' is solely responsible for innovation, especially where advances in physics or biology are concerned. On the contrary a concerted effort is what usually gets the job done (think the human genome project, for example)!

People often mistake economic competition, i.e. a lack of market power, for what you could call biological competition, testosterone in the air and so on.
So yeah, I totally agree that cooperation is more important than competition.

What is an economy? And the question we must ask ourselves is, how much of it must be based on the circulation of currency or credit, and how much of it really has to do with activity that is beyond this relatively meaningless act, provided another incentive were to take its place? An incentive like, say, technology?

 

[sojourner]

Good work today Bob, here's a bonus for you, 2 crisp technologies.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Gene Roddenberry thought that money would become obsolete in the future.

I wouldn't even go that far. He just decided to go with no money because it seemed like a good idea for the show. Gene Roddenberry was just some random dude who created a TV series; he was no Gandhi.

Stop filling this thread with truths!

 

[trek_futurist]

Gene Roddenberry thought that money would become obsolete in the future.

I wouldn't even go that far. He just decided to go with no money because it seemed like a good idea for the show. Gene Roddenberry was just some random dude who created a TV series; he was no Gandhi.

Stop filling this thread with truths!

Rather, stop intentionally trying to undermine the conversation with non-points that contribute nothing to the discussion, and only seek to end it.

 

[Amaris]

We will always find value in something, and will work to acquire it. Supposing that money as a currency would be phased out, then if nothing else, information and knowledge would become our currency. We would work and barter for that, and the advantages that come with that. It is human nature to seek the greatest advantage.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

Good work today Bob, here's a bonus for you, 2 crisp technologies.

Back in my day, two technologies would buy you a night at the Cyberplex and a hot meal of reconstituted soylent mauve afterward. Nowadays, you're lucky if two technologies can get you a 2d holonovel.

Inflation.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I wouldn't even go that far. He just decided to go with no money because it seemed like a good idea for the show. Gene Roddenberry was just some random dude who created a TV series; he was no Gandhi.

Stop filling this thread with truths!

Rather, stop intentionally trying to undermine the conversation with non-points that contribute nothing to the discussion, and only seek to end it.

Somebody needs a friend...

 

[trek_futurist]

Stop filling this thread with truths!

Rather, stop intentionally trying to undermine the conversation with non-points that contribute nothing to the discussion, and only seek to end it.

Somebody needs a friend...

I'll put the analogy to you this way, it's like if someone presented a mathematical problem to you and wanted to discuss the implications of this problem on a specific theoretical physics outcome and how it applies to it, and someone came along and said something like 'math doesn't matter, someone just made it up randomly some day cause they were bored'.

Do you see how it would seem as if this person was there just to discourage discussion of the above outcome? Why else would they state such absurdities?

 

[trek_futurist]

We will always find value in something, and will work to acquire it. Supposing that money as a currency would be phased out, then if nothing else, information and knowledge would become our currency. We would work and barter for that, and the advantages that come with that. It is human nature to seek the greatest advantage.

That's precisely what i am saying when I speak of alternate incentives other than currency.

In star trek the main commodity of the economy seems to be the human commodity of willful participation, which would portray the economics of trek as the most humanitarian one yet.

Now I know there are people who have a very cynical view about willful participation in such an economy, assuming that such an economy would negate willful participation by default. But why?

If people willfully work 60 hours a week for the transmission of credit or currency now, why wouldn't they work for much better incentives, such as space travel, contributing to the whole of humanity, the betterment of the species through technology, advanced medicine and an endless assortment of leisurely pursuits? It's a heck of a lot more than we have now.