Another take on "there's no money in the 24th century"

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Right, but just to chime in a little bit, that point reminds me that there's a bit of room between the two. Current food justice movements seek to address the increasing inaccessibility to proper food (i.e. why low-income neighborhoods don't have grocery stores but dozens of fast food restaurants; why salads cost more than burgers despite the availability of lettuce; how food can be sold and distributed more evenly to benefit both farmers and communities). So it does something about reducing people who are starving or getting bad food education in the here and now, even though we're far, far off from a utopia.

Of course. And all of those things you mentioned can be remedied, I should think, and still not have a 'utopia' (which, and I may be reaching a bit here, seems like a rather sinister term). That was the only point I was trying to make. You don't have to have a utopia in order to have a society where people don't starve.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Yeah, because in your mind, it's much better NOT to live in utopia and have people starve by the millions like we have today?

We must choose our battles, IE we can't win them all, I choose a society where people don't starve and live comfortable lives and you prefer one where people are not inconvenienced when they buy a collector's item from an alien.To each his own.

Who said that? Who wouldn't want a future where poverty is eliminated and everyone has all their basic needs full-filled?

I've always been for it.

I've just noticed that with Trek, there was always a tendency to make a lot of Utopian type claims, to the point where Trek either contradicts itself, writes itself into a corner, or seems either weird.

One episode says humans have no needs or wants, in the next one we see a greedy humans who'll break almost every law for money.

There is a big Trek controversy over LGTB, because even though oppression and prejudice is supposed to be long gone in the 24th century, there is no real demonstration of it. Hence some people say future human society is at at least mildly homophobic.

But to relate all this to the money and hunger issue I'll explain further below.

The essential being that the Bajorans ARE poverty stricken and the humans from Earth AREN'T.

I have yet to meet someone who would trade their easy life for the life of someone constantly on the brink of starvation.

It's so much easier to bitch and complain when one's belly is full, isn't it?

Who's complaining? Really, I'm not. You'd have to be a psychotic to turn down what Trek offers for the future.

I'm just either curious about or questioning the rationale of some of the claims we hear from Trek.

But I definitely understand where you are coming from.

I work in the retail, so I know how much people take food for granted. Some people tend to think stores and markets are -on demand dispensers just for their petty cravings.

And I'm talking complaining, disappointment, mad faces and when something that they want is simply "out of stock".

But to relate this to the money example I'll give an example in the bottom reply.

Right, but just to chime in a little bit, that point reminds me that there's a bit of room between the two. Current food justice movements seek to address the increasing inaccessibility to proper food (i.e. why low-income neighborhoods don't have grocery stores but dozens of fast food restaurants; why salads cost more than burgers despite the availability of lettuce; how food can be sold and distributed more evenly to benefit both farmers and communities). So it does something about reducing people who are starving or getting bad food education in the here and now, even though we're far, far off from a utopia.

Of course. And all of those things you mentioned can be remedied, I should think, and still not have a 'utopia' (which, and I may be reaching a bit here, seems like a rather sinister term). That was the only point I was trying to make. You don't have to have a utopia in order to have a society where people don't starve.

We know that from what we've seen in varous Trek epiosdes, replicators can easily feed and clothe a large number of people easily.

In DS9 they mentioned post-occupation Bajorans starving, usually because of a drought, famine or something to do with farming.

I've seen this question a few different times-- Why would they need to starve when replicators can easily provide for all their needs--why depends so much on farming?

I know, I know, the answer is that it's not so simple, but people are going to notice and ask that.

So, when Trek wants promote how far advanced humans and technology are, do they go overboard with it, and when they want to create an interesting plot, do they create some type of artificial scarcity (special medicine/metals etc) so we modern humans can still relate to the characters?

 

[T'Girl]

Being necessary to achieve a certain goal is not the same as being "a necessity."

I disagree with your position on this matter.

True, and this flies in the face of what Picard said back in "The Neutral Zone" about there being no want or need among humans.

Which is an absurdity of course, no matter how much 'lack of scarcity" you shower on people, they will still have needs, food protection safety knowledge. The need to know that we are more than animals with big brains.

Yeah, because in your mind, it's much better NOT to live in utopia and have people starve by the millions like we have today?

Utopia means different thing to different people. And what we have today is getting better, not all at once, but the improvement worldwide is on-going.

I have yet to meet someone who would trade their easy life for the life of someone constantly on the brink of starvation.

But go to these same starving people after they are no longer hungry, and haven't been for months and years, and ask them if they will surrender their freedom and their liberty in exchange with being provided with a meal, and see what they say then.

Desperate people will admittedly make poor decisions.

No one should never be put in the position of trading their "easy life" in exchange for another person simply eating. This is a absolutely ridiculous choice.

It's so much easier to bitch and complain when one's belly is full, isn't it?

Yet isn't this exactly what you yourself is doing? Let's be completely honest, you're complaining, and (an assumption) you're not hungry.

So that's not it.

The essential being that the Bajorans ARE poverty stricken and the humans from Earth AREN'T.

No, the Bajorians were in poverty, they then engaged in a on-going possess of not being in poverty.

If (big if) the people of earth have to be provided with housing and food and clothing and replicators and so many other thing, this is a indication that the people of Earth are themselves living in poverty.

Because if the people of Earth aren't in poverty, they would not need to be provided for.

Lack of utopia != people starving.

Of course not, not having (through deliberate choice perhaps?) "Utopia" does not automatically result in starvation, one does not equate the other.

why salads cost more than burgers despite the availability of lettuce

Because lettuce has a limited "shelf life" after being separated from it's root system. While meat can be frozen for half a year and even bread lasts longed that lettuce?

 

[Xerxes1979]

The Bajorans were not in a position to buy replicators from any third party since they had nothing to trade with perhaps the exception of sex or religious mumble jumbo.

The Federation would not have given advanced technology to a non-member world as it would have been illegal.

Since Terok Nor is/was Bajoran property we can only assume the Cardassian level technology was not capable of creating self-replicating replacators at the time of its abandonment and that it is unlikely that Cardassian military grade equipment was below that of civilian equivalents on the open market.

What else explains their backwards love of farming? They can't ALL be traditionalists.

There was a mention of the Bajoran government obtaining industrial replicators sometime during the later part of the series but the details escape me at the moment. Maybe the Federation gifted them after an official request for membership.

 

[poloronbeam]

This "no money" mess was created in Star Trek IV, and just grew from there. Prior to that, Federation citizens possessing both MONEY and/or credits were being presented.

In the immediate proceeding movie ("The Search For Spock"), McCoy clearly tells his "Backwards Friend" that he had MONEY to buy passage into the Mutara Sector. He explicitly tells him "Money I got":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_bFnHTSg0A


So, was money somehow outlawed in the Federation between STIII and STIV?

 

[T'Girl]

The Bajorans were not in a position to buy replicators from any third party since they had nothing to trade ...

They could have employed the method of modern day Panama (with their canal) and charged a fee to travel through the wormhole.

The Federation would not have given advanced technology to a non-member world as it would have been illegal.

The Federation gave replicators to the Cardassians.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Being necessary to achieve a certain goal is not the same as being "a necessity."

I disagree with your position on this matter.

Jake is absolutely correct that he doesn't need money, in the unqualified sense of the word. All his basic necessities are met. He will not die because of a lack of money, full stop.

Where he's ironically wrong, perhaps because he's too inexperienced to have really questioned the Terran philosophy regarding money, is that he does sometimes need it, in the qualified sense, for example when he wants to buy luxuries as presents for people close to him that aren't available otherwise.

It's the need in one sense but not in the other sense that's the context for the episode's humor, such as in the post-teaser scene.

 

[Stoo]

While no one can claim that no one at all lives without scarcity on Earth today, there are large populations on this planet that effectively do, they are still using money.

I'm still paying for running water, even though it pours out of the sky here.

Huh, wait, what large populations are in a post-scarcity existence today?

Water has a cost in being treated and processed, as would any resource, but costs like that would basically disappear to the average federation citizen. It would fall within a generous personal resource allocation, or something like that. Unless someone wants a million gallons for their personal lake, in which case they get a puzzled phone call from their local government, because water is not literally infinite, just so plentiful that the average person never needs to worry. (I mean, a state with large reservoirs could conceivably provide free water to all its citizens today. Maybe some do, I dunno).

 

[Cyke101]

why salads cost more than burgers despite the availability of lettuce

Because lettuce has a limited "shelf life" after being separated from it's root system. While meat can be frozen for half a year and even bread lasts longed that lettuce?

We've had beef shortages, and will have it in the future. Last year we had record beef prices. Indeed, it takes less time and resources to grow lettuce than to grow a cow suitable for consumption.

I say this as someone who very, very much appreciates a fine steak or a good juicy burger. But while buying beef at a grocery store will be more expensive than creating a salad, a burger at a fast food joint is cheaper than both, and in many poorer neighborhoods fast food restaurants outnumber grocery stores by a considerable margin.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

Maybe it's because their "beef" contains other things than beef.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ That's an urban legend. Doesn't actually exist.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

^ That's an urban legend. Doesn't actually exist.

If you say so.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Hey, don't take my word for it...

 

[Cyke101]

^ Hey, don't take my word for it...

Healthwise, I'd be less concerned about the beef (much of it is salt and fat anyway) and more concerned about the other things in there like the salty pickles and the cheese. But then again, you know what you're getting into when you order from McDonald's, in that very little of it is good for you anyway but is dependably consistent in taste.

And, looking at your signature, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Bogart -- can't I have both?

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

^ Hey, don't take my word for it...

Yeah, as if there was a way to be positive about that sort of thing. Like when the cigarette makers lied for decades about the true impact of nicotine on addiction, or that they purposely upped the percentages of it.

 

[T'Girl]

a burger at a fast food joint is cheaper than both

Volume sales perhaps?

, and in many poorer neighborhoods fast food restaurants outnumber grocery stores by a considerable margin.

At the Safeway where I do some of my food shopping, there are 5 fast food, 2 pizza, 3 sit down restaurants, all sharing the same parking lot. This is a lower middle/middle middle class residential area. So it isn't just poor neighborhoods, this is pretty much the standard.

 

[Shawnster]

I think you two are arguing apples and oranges... which is nothing new here.

Being necessary to achieve a certain goal is not the same as being "a necessity."

I disagree with your position on this matter.

Jake is absolutely correct that he doesn't need money, in the unqualified sense of the word. All his basic necessities are met. He will not die because of a lack of money, full stop.

Where he's ironically wrong, perhaps because he's too inexperienced to have really questioned the Terran philosophy regarding money, is that he does sometimes need it, in the qualified sense, for example when he wants to buy luxuries as presents for people close to him that aren't available otherwise.

It's the need in one sense but not in the other sense that's the context for the episode's humor, such as in the post-teaser scene.

English... it's a difficult concept. We have this word, "need," that has varying definitions that, while similar, aren't the same. The result is what we have here. Semantics.

need
nēd/Submit
verb
1.
require (something) because it is essential or very important.
"I need help now"
synonyms: require, be in need of, have need of, want; More
not want to be subjected to something.
"I don't need your sarcasm"
2.
expressing necessity or obligation.
"need I say more?"
synonyms: have to, be obliged to, be compelled to
"you needn't come"
3.
archaic
be necessary.
"lest you, even more than needs, embitter our parting"
noun
noun: need; plural noun: needs
1.
circumstances in which something is necessary, or that require some course of action; necessity.
"the basic human need for food"
synonyms: necessity, obligation, requirement, call, demand
"there's no need to apologize"
2.
a thing that is wanted or required.
"his day-to-day needs"
synonyms: requirement, essential, necessity, want, requisite, prerequisite, demand, desideratum
"basic human needs"

Love is a need. Food, clothing and shelter are needs. It seems that this is what the Corporal is meaning when he says that Jake's "needs" were taken care of and that he didn't need money because he didn't need the baseball card. It was a want. In contrast, T'Girl seems to be using "need" in the sense of being a requirement in order to achieve another result.

You're not using "need" in the same way, therefore you keep going in circles.

This reminds me of a quote I read years ago:

Materialism Versus Wisdom
Back in 1956, a news columnist wrote: “It is estimated that a century ago the average man had 72 wants, of which 16 were regarded as necessities. Today, the average man is estimated to have 474 wants, 94 of which are regarded as necessities. A century ago, 200 articles were urged upon the average man by salesmanship—but today there are 32,000 articles which require sales resistance. Man’s necessities are few—his wants, infinite.” Today, people are bombarded with the idea that material wealth and possessions are the principal thing in life. Thus, many come to ignore the wise advice of Ecclesiastes 7:12: “Wisdom is for a protection the same as money is for a protection; but the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom itself preserves alive its owners.”

Clearly what people think of as "wants vs. needs" is fluid and changes over time, perhaps as a result of scarcity and affluence.

So, maybe for sake of argument we should say money was not a requirement for Jake's existence, but Jake required money in order to procure the baseball card.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

As for the idea that people have replicator privileges, that seems inadequate to me.

I don't agree.

I am trying to put this as delicately as I can. The reason I don't believe in a society that doesn't have money, and that I interpret Trek's situation to mean that it does have it, has nothing to do with greed, or a LOVE of money. I don't want anyone to be poor, I think everyone should be able to make a decent life for themselves, and I think that rich people should use their money wisely.

The problem I see is, even in a so-called "post-scarcity" society like the Federation, I can only see it being possible with a massive government bureaucracy - and with that, a resulting loss of freedom. Some of my learned colleagues...they know who they are ... believe in a sort of "democratic socialism," and furthermore believe that the Federation is an example of that. That is their right, of course. I won't insult them for believing that.

My response is simply this: I don't believe in democratic socialism. Socialism, IMHO, is anathema to the concept of freedom and democracy. It requires government control and ownership of everything...and how can you have freedom with that?

Like I said though, this is not to say that I think our current system is perfect (far from it, actually), or that rich people should hoard everything they have. Quite the opposite, really. I simply think that people should already WANT to share what they have, and help people out, without the government stepping in and essentially making them do it.

If human nature has already changed enough, by Trek's time, to allow for this, and people really do work to help themselves and others...then that's totally fine with me. But the use of an all-encompassing, government-controlled "command economy" to force them to do so, would not be. If the Federation government has such total control of the economy, I fully would expect them to view replicator privileges as something to be given, or taken away, as they believe necessary. Anything like this that has such potential, can also be abused.

Again, if I've offended anyone by saying what I just said, I do apologize, it's not my intention to troll or to piss anyone off. But other people in this thread have spoken their minds, I'm just taking my turn.

Mr. Laser Beam, in a real world context I agree with some of your points.

But I think we have to assume that in the fictional world of Trek that some sort of socialism had been made to work in ways that we can't even imagine, much like they have tech that is purely fantasy based.

I think you are a bit trapped into interpreting the Trek economy and political system through a real life modern day perspective. No historical precedent is needed because they have things and can do things that we can't do.

And btw I don't mean any offense in that. I enjoyed your post.

 

[Nightdiamond]

The Bajorans were not in a position to buy replicators from any third party since they had nothing to trade with perhaps the exception of sex or religious mumble jumbo.

The Federation would not have given advanced technology to a non-member world as it would have been illegal.

Since Terok Nor is/was Bajoran property we can only assume the Cardassian level technology was not capable of creating self-replicating replacators at the time of its abandonment and that it is unlikely that Cardassian military grade equipment was below that of civilian equivalents on the open market.

What else explains their backwards love of farming? They can't ALL be traditionalists.

In one TNG episode, Picard gave a needy couple (who didn't want to leave their colony) a small replicator that he said would take care of all their needs. Food, water and clothing. And it was pretty small and self contained.

Now, we know a single replicator won't solve the hunger issue, but does any Bajoran need to starve on Bajor, when a small replicator can probably provide for 20 people for who knows--a decade or so?

Those issues with droughts and hunger implied that those Bajorans exclusively relied on farming for food, even though they know what replicators are and what they can do.


22nd century humans were able to solve their scarcity problems to the point of getting rid of money.

Bajorans live in the 24th century with replicators and weather modification nets and still suffer from the effects droughts and famines--it seems a little odd.

This may be stretching, but even if there were famine and droughts, would Bajorans still need to go hungry with 24th century tech like this?

They could have employed the method of modern day Panama (with their canal) and charged a fee to travel through the wormhole.

I always assumed the Bajorans were charging ships a fee that stop there.

I hope that they were. It would be really strange that they let ships dock there and repair them free of charge, and then just send them on their way.

Some episodes seem to imply that they don't charge for docking and repairs and things.

I always thought the whole point of DS9 and the wormhole being considered valuable was that it would create commerce. Sure, the merchants on the station charge for their services, but is that enough to help Bajoran economy?

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

I don't expect ST to be coherent, not entirely at any rate, it's got to have plot holes and contradictions all over, especially if you start quibbling over the smaller details. I think we should seek large scale, big picture coherence. And that, most of the time, we do have. One thing is certain, Earth's economy is not in any way capitalistic, so for those of you who need to think otherwise, well you'll just have to get used to it or live in a parallel universe.