No money is NOT on the worst list by any means!
Roddenberry's Worst Ideas
- Thread starter ZapBrannigan
- Start date
^ It's on mine.
I personally interpreted it as Kirk's career precluded a relationship with Janice, he choose it over her.
But it could be seen another way, just as it sounds coming out of Janice's mouth. Science fiction often depicts societies in the future that are different than our own. It might be that at that particular time in history Human females actually could not be assigned to the posting of Captain, that there was a "glass ceiling" in place, there had been one for some years, and would be for another twenty odd years in the Trek universe.
There no requirement that the mid 23rd century be a exact analog of the early 21st century. Even today among the western nations, it quite rare for a female officer to be given command of a combatant naval vessel.
Step out of the "in-universe" for a moment, and look at it from a story telling point of view. Having money in the story, with all the things that come with that, adds a level of complexity to the life's of the characters that otherwise would be absent.
Having no money would be simplistic and easy. It'd be like having a planet with one climate (desert, forest, ice). One race. One culture. One religion. One style of dress. "In-universe," (out of range of the cameras) the worlds visited likely aren't the same everywhere, they're complex and diverse
So "in-universe" the bolt of cloth did come out of Beverly's pay, and the poker games did have monetary gambling, the O'Brien's wedding gift from the replicator was deducted from Worf's account. And when you get food and drink in Ten Forward, you do pay for it.
Tell you what, let us cut this down to a basic fact of the show ... WE SEE AND HEAR THEM USING MONEY.
Take for example the house we see Kirk in (Generations). Kirk clearly states that he owned the house, and he sold the house at some point. While there is some debate, the usual interpretation is that the time period where Kirk is cooking the eggs is between TMP and TWOK. So prior to the events of TVH, Kirk owned a piece of real estate, that he would sell.
Scotty bought a boat, Uhura tried to buy a tribble.
This is one of the quotes I usually add to debates on this subject. The writers of the show lived in a society with a market economy, this is why (despite Roddenberry's wish) money and monetary reference keep making their way into the episodes. It's how for instants a Federation member got a major bank. And Quark was able to sell his shuttle in Earth's system for scrap. And a corporation within the Federation was able to own entire planets.
The difference there of course is Jake actual did received monetary value for the sell of the land. It was made clear in the example of the book that Jake (as he said himself) was indeed employing a figure of speech.
What is in the least "self-contradictory" about any of that?
I don't think you're using that correctly.
Plus, what Gary Seven did as told by Greg Cox in the novels he wrote just caused said nuclear holocaust to happen anyway.
Methinks that on the last one, Roddenberry was becoming senile and out of it as far as TV writing was concerned, and he should have been kicked upstairs just like he was when the movies with the original cast were being made.
One of Roddenberry's ideas that bugs me is the attitude to death in TNG. In 'The Bonding' we see that children are expected to repress their own feelings concerning the death of someone close to them and mourning someone is considered 'backward'.
No money or credit makes no logical sense. If you create such a society you should explain how it works. Before money was created people would barter or use weights of silver and gold as an early money. So in Roddenberry's universe you can go into a bar and order as many drinks as you like?
No, because we've seen our heroes pay for things at many a bar, including one on Space Station K-7 which was run by a human.
Look, people can try to rationalize this all they want. The simple fact is that despite what Picard may want Lily to believe, we have seen on-screen evidence time and time and time again that Federation citizens do use money of some sort. From Scotty buying a boat to Crusher buying a bolt of fabric to Sisko buying real estate. There are tons of examples. Way too many to hand wave away.
It was in the episode Neutral Zone that Crusher (iirc) said something to the effect of "people in the 20th century feared death."
She said it in a way as to suggest that people in the 24th century naturally didn't.
Thing there is we've seen people struggle to save the live's of others, rush friends to sickbay, and even duck behind rocks when fired upon. Are these the actions of individuals in a society that possessed no fear of death?
Also I believe in one of the last TNG episodes, Riker is talking to Quark and trying to get him to give up some information. Riker - I'm paraphrasing here - cashes in all the Federation credit vouchers he's accumulated at Quark's. So basically Riker gives Quark a specific sum of money (Federation credits) in exchange for information.
Especially since the concept and fear of "death" is considered by many to be what fuels all aspects of humanities endeavors from religion to the sciences to everything in between and beyond.
Anyone who doesn't fear death, IS dead. 
T'Girl is on her game.
I'd say Picard's FIRST CONTACT line about "the economics of the 24th century" was the writer handing us a simplistic fairy tale of future socialist utopia. It was doubly insulting to our intelligence because there was no economic thought behind it and no respect for past continuity.
Kirk's ST4 line, "These people are still using money," was probably intended as a statement of the same lefty Hollywood fairy tale, and similarly insulting in its vacuity, but it can be set aside as a reference to physical currency as others have said. Picard's line is unworkable and inexcusable.
And just a few episodes before, hadn't Crusher admitted she was afraid of death to Armus the skin of evil when he was toying with the away team? (haven't seen the episode in a good few years, so can't give exact quote).
That a good way of looking at it.
Another way would be this, in a early TNG episode, Riker says "WE" no longer enslave animals for food, suggesting that incredible progressive and enlightened people in the Federation are all veggies. But later we learn that more than a few people in the future do in fact eat the flesh of the beast. Even Riker himself is seen to eat a mouth full of scrabbled eggs (although some people don't consider eggs to be "meat").
So when Riker said "WE" he didn't mean everyone in the Federation, or even all of Humanity, but (possibly) instead the "WE" mean myself and a selections of others within my society who believe as I do.
And this could be the case with Picard and his no money quote. There could be a select few within Humanity/The Federation who have renounced money and the pursuit of material possessions. Obviously from many examples, the majority of the people featured on the show do not share this philosophical believe system. But some do.
Picard makes as little use of the pay he receives from Starfleet as he possibly can, it mostly just sits in his account. And Picard has very few personal belongings. Not to say he has none, just few.
Except:
"Credit systems, tabs, even expense accounts, all existed long before cash. These things are as old as civilization itself." David Graeber - Debt: The First 5,000 Years. page 18.
Doesn't necessarily mean Kirk was going to use money to cover for Uhura's drink.
"Non-excludability and non-rivalry." Young Spock (Star Trek 2009), Anyone else catch that line?
Well then you must also include warp drive, transporters, phasers, and photon torpedoes as well, as they are only explainable in a fanboy's wet dreams, but no...we like our toys...but alas, this concept of the future being a semi utopic, generally moneyless system is part of the equation as well. Star Trek is not a universe where the future is our current capitalism, which is a hopeful thing. It's inderstandable that a lot of people don't like that, but it is part of the essential brilliance of Star Trek.
Without Star Trek's humanitarian edge, what have you got? Star Wars with awkward ships and no Jedi?
Without Star Trek's humanitarian edge, what have you got? Star Wars with awkward ships and no Jedi?
Yes, it does mean he was going to use money. But no, didn't mean he was going to use cash. Money can be in the form of a record, and not just a object. Kirk informed the bartender that he would provide value, in exchange for two shot of Jack Daniels without water.
McCoy (Star Trek Eleven): "The ex-wife took the whole damn planet in the divorce. All I've got left is my bones."
The inference is that the people in the future personally possess items of value, property and money. Which can be removed from them through a legal proceeding, or a pre-existing binding agreement.
Come on TheGoodNews, twist it, twist it hard.
Money, a medium of exchange as opposed to mediums of distribution; ie vouchers, tickets, coupons, ration cards, tokens, or even tabs. Not to mention gift economies and honor systems. There's a decided historic difference between the underlying ways mediums of exchange work vis-a-vis mediums of distribution.
McCoy was just griping after getting his butt whupped in court. You don't think he really owned a whole planet? And even if he did, then he should be quite self-sufficient from any external economy, though maybe not from a local legal system in his sector. Oh, and you can still have material possessions in a moneyless society as I've already indicated.
"...and that despite endless economic textbooks to the contrary, there has never been an economy based on barter: that actually-existing societies which do not employ money have instead been gift economies in which the distinctions we now make between interest and altruism, person and property, freedom and obligation, simply did not exist." David Graeber - Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (.17).
Kirk was just making a generous gesture to Uhura.
McCoy was just griping after getting his butt whupped in court. You don't think he really owned a whole planet? And even if he did, then he should be quite self-sufficient from any external economy, though maybe not from a local legal system in his sector. Oh, and you can still have material possessions in a moneyless society as I've already indicated.
"...and that despite endless economic textbooks to the contrary, there has never been an economy based on barter: that actually-existing societies which do not employ money have instead been gift economies in which the distinctions we now make between interest and altruism, person and property, freedom and obligation, simply did not exist." David Graeber - Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (.17).
Kirk was just making a generous gesture to Uhura.
Similar threads
