United Earth? No Thanks.
- Thread starter ZapBrannigan
- Start date
I'm sure there are a lot of tedious, menial jobs left, but people would still be willing to do them if those jobs are steps toward the jobs they really want, or if some crappy responsibilities are a small part of a great job.
I doubt ANYONE in the 24th century is grueling away 40 hours a week at a job they hate, there simply isn't a need for it.
I doubt ANYONE in the 24th century is grueling away 40 hours a week at a job they hate, there simply isn't a need for it.
Who said anything about grueling 40hour a week? Its probably a case of 20 hour to cover the enegy costs of those little extra luxurys.
Rember enegy is not unlimited just in great abunance.
There was no evidence ever of rationing among civilians. There was certainly never any evidence of "souring their milk" in order to prod them to work.
No evidence the other way either. But it makes logical sense that one should not gey luxurys for free. Its unethical.
End of the day a waste extraction engineer will most likely get just as many benifits as a starfleet captain due to the unpopular yet important nature of said job. It wont be like now were a worthless socilite like paris hilton gets more than a mechanic,
I'd be wary of the Star Trek future in which the whole Earth falls under one government. It's apparently a prerequisite for us to found the Federation, in which every planet counts as one member (but we're the big dog and don't forget it). Even so, it has disadvantages.
A single government for the Earth would have so many citizens that it simply could not be responsive to them. We'd be ruled by distant elites who would not necessarily share our values and priorities (much like the European Union today, in the eyes of many of its people).
And those elites wouldn't need to be responsive. A government with six billion constituents would not have to answer to any of them. Assuming you even had an elected representative in the legislature, he would either be powerless because the legislature is so large, or he would have so many constituents that you would mean nothing to him.
Please do me one favor: turn off Fox News and go outside and talk to your neighbor. Yes, talk to them. Don't text, don't Facebook, don't Skype...meet them face to face and say "hello".
Take them out for a beer or a soda or something like that and get to know them. And then talk to other people at the restaurant...about their fears, their hopes,their dreams and then learn that this "negative" way of thinking is so untrue.
The human species is a wonderful species that has been given a bad rap just because of a bunch of idiots. Kinda like Pit Bulls, the breed has gotten a bad rap because of a few mean dogs.
And when you do talk to them you will realize that a united Earth is the best and the only way for our species to evolve. We need to take care of each other. All of us, everywhere, from every nation. Will it be difficult? Yes. Will there be disagreements? YES! But we need to do it. It is the only way we are going to survive, especially if we encounter an extraterrestrial race that is, shall we say, less than friendly???? And we will encounter one eventually.
Bottom line: We need to get out sh#t together before we have a planetary emergency.
And we need to trust each other, believe in each other, and behave like adults for the good of our planet.
See the world, man, and learn that a united planet would make things so much better than it is now. We must evolve.
The things we consider luxuries today aren't luxuries in the 24th century. But I agree with one thing, in Star Trek, no one on Earth wants for what we today would consider a high standard of living.
Unearned luxuries are only unethical because they exist in a state of scarcity, and it is therefore unfair for someone to receive a luxury without having in some way earned it -- since they are by definition taking the opportunity for that luxury away from someone else.
But in the world of Star Trek, most luxuries exist in a state of abundance; my having the newest iPod does not mean that there's one less iPod in the world for someone else. So there's nothing unethical about a free luxury, as you're not taking away from anyone else to have it.
You're disabling the incentive anyone has to do the jobs that aren't fun. Human nature doesn't really change over time: a great many people will always take the path of least resistance (meaning the most freebies).
Those who continue working hard will feel like fools for doing so. This includes young people doing school work.
A "post-scarcity" economy, which thankfully is a wild fantasy that humanity will never have to worry about, would turn too many people into useless children, with no skills and no work ethic. When the magic machines stop functioning, say after a devastating enemy attack on the Earth, this helpless version humanity would be done for.
Last edited:
I'm guessing you either really hate your job, or you have an extremely low view of humanity.
Sure, there will be people who want to sit on the couch and do nothing all day, let them. But most people need to be occupied, need to feel useful - THAT'S human nature. People like to learn, people like to know how the things around them work. We already live in a world where you can pick up the phone and have food delivered with practically no effort and yet people still garden, fish, and hunt.
If humans were as lazy as you seem to think we are, we'd have gone extinct millennia ago.
THIS, 100%.
Up until 2010 Toronto was free of the most pernicious influences of a 'good ol' boy' running the city and fucking it up, but all of that changed in October when this fat, (mostly) drunken ill-tempered POS became the mayor of the city that I live in. He has no idea how to govern, and little idea how to work or what to do other than to work a few hours, then go home. Most of the time, he's coaching (North American) football, making a fool of himself, and issuing fatuous bullshit pronouncements, as well as spewing racist shit on the radio. A world government might as well be better than this.
As well, all of the corporate bullshit and environmental degradation would most likely be destroyed by a world government that would bring the corporations to a heel and make it easier to clean up the planet.
So many people who, contrary to apparent evidences in the series, really want the Federation to be a capitalistic, opportunistic, corporate plutocracy. I always wonder why.
I find it interesting that fantasy advances in physical sciences that facilitate warp drives, transporters, and so forth are somehow easier to swallow than socioeconomic advancements that facilitate improvements of the human condition. Choices that people make are actually under our control, whereas whether something is physically impossible isn't. Why is there so much faith that people will be able to overcome physical limitations, but no faith that people will be able to better themselves?
Yeah, you gotta wonder whether people really regard a lack of strife as an improvement.
Nature's ruthless enough, no?
Yeah, you gotta wonder whether people really regard a lack of strife as an improvement.
Nature's ruthless enough, no?
Perhaps if you were to go ahead and also label the "socioeconomic advancements" as a complete fantasy, they would be easier for others to accept as is the technology.
Part of that might be coming from the fact that there are people here who don't see the socioeconomic future world you're advocating as "better."
I haven't seen anyone here saying that there shouldn't be some kind of low level minimal social safety net. But it's the going beyond that, and saying that people who contribute nothing to their own society should reap the exact same rewards as people who work and push and strive, that's where the disagreement seems to come in.
I just don't see this daycare future. Where grown adults live as children their entire lives.
According to the series,the presence of a replicator in a private home is about half and half. So they are in no way ubiquitous through-out Human society, nor are they the source of all things.
Jason Vico is someone in the future who is directly refer to as being not employed. Picard seem to be somewhat shocked to hear that Vico didn't have a job. Keiko O'Brien is seen to be occasionally unemployed. When it is directly mentioned, with a few exceptions people in the future have jobs, or are the spouses of people who do, or are children.
How would a world government do that? While there is a chance that a world government would be different that what we have now, most likely it would basically be more of the same, with the same kind of leaders and the same (if not more) bureaucracy. There is even the potential for it to be worse.
The individual who became the mayor of Toronto, could also be the individual who becomes leader of the world government.
"Let them," as in enable them? No.
And who said that they're getting a couch?
A world in which everyone is free to pursue their dreams, which is the Earth we were shown in DS9, isn't a daycare.
No I see a BALANCED system. You get what you put in but no one is ever going to go without. And people who do vital work will get what they deserve unlike now where the most vital peope in socity get treated like dirt.
Not everyone is going to be able to be a captain of a starship or be a doctor ect
Someone has got to do the REAL crapy jobs. I dont think anyone is going to enjoy scrubbing the poo tubes on a Fed starbase for example. But these jobs need doing so they will have to be some sort of reward system to act as incentives.
If I was born in the 23rd century but was unlucky enough to be born without the abilitys to become a starfleet officer or scientist and I had the choice, live in la la land and do nothing and have every luxury I want provided or work in waste extraction or become a red shirt I think I will pick the lazy low risk do nothing option!
Some people would rather have an oppressive hierarchy that serves all the whims of an idle, powerful 1% and redistributes all the wealth to that elite while punishing the working class; than in a future where resources are abundant, little if any such hierarchy is needed, and wealth is not redistributed from the working and middle classes to the 1%. These people believe in power, not freedom.
exactly. I don't know where this "no one will work once their needs are taken care of!" attitude comes from. It's NOT based on evidence or "human nature." If it were true, once someone saved up a few million dollars, they'd retire and sit on the couch. Yet we have rich athletes, entertainers, and businessmen who all continue to work long after they don't have to. And we have people who (gasp!) volunteer their time at various organizations or sites when there's no personal gain or money involved.
Similar threads
