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

[Kobayshi Maru]

I think the no money status means that everything essential to life (in the 24th), IE replicators (food, clothes, medication, knick knacks, parts...) , is in unlimited quantities. People don't need to pay for them because there are enough of them for everyone.

Art, restaurant food and other luxuries are limited and you probably get them, based on merits or through friends.

But it really doesn't matter because people don't need them to live a comfortable life. And if you can stand talking to an asshole for half an hour, maybe Picard's brother will give you a bottle of his wine.

 

[Cyke101]

How many "likes" did one earn today?

Not nearly enough! Get me more clickbait!

 

[TheGoodNews]

I think the no money status means that everything essential to life (in the 24th), IE replicators (food, clothes, medication, knick knacks, parts...) , is in unlimited quantities. People don't need to pay for them because there are enough of them for everyone.

Art, restaurant food and other luxuries are limited and you probably get them, based on merits or through friends.

Again, social capital and self-realization.

But it really doesn't matter because people don't need them to live a comfortable life. And if you can stand talking to an asshole for half an hour, maybe Picard's brother will give you a bottle of his wine.

And it doesn't hurt that greediness and acquisitiveness are no longer a factor.

 

[T'Girl]

And it doesn't hurt that greediness and acquisitiveness are no longer a factor.

For all the Human Picard's in the galaxy, there are likely a equal number of Human Vash's.

(and nice to have you back TheGoodNews)

 

[TheGoodNews]

And it doesn't hurt that greediness and acquisitiveness are no longer a factor.

For all the Human Picard's in the galaxy, there are likely a equal number of Human Vash's.

(and nice to have you back TheGoodNews)

Thanx. But, er, I never went away.

 

[CoveTom]

Given all that, it's really hard to see how the no-money idea is less plausible than any of the iconic pieces of fantasy technology like the warp drive and transporter.

It seems less plausible, I think, because it's harder for us to fathom. Throughout all of human history, we have constantly made technological leaps that would seem like fantasy to earlier generations. Imagine someone from 1,000 years ago seeing the automobile, let alone the jet or the rocket. So we can imagine something like warp drive or transporters being invented, even if we have no idea how they might work.

But throughout all of human history, there has never been a lack of scarcity, nor the type of societal cooperation you mention, nor a society that functioned without some form of "money". At least not one of any scale. There's no historical precedent for that type of development, while technological leaps forward have many precedents.

 

[Sci]

Given all that, it's really hard to see how the no-money idea is less plausible than any of the iconic pieces of fantasy technology like the warp drive and transporter.

It seems less plausible, I think, because it's harder for us to fathom. Throughout all of human history, we have constantly made technological leaps that would seem like fantasy to earlier generations. Imagine someone from 1,000 years ago seeing the automobile, let alone the jet or the rocket. So we can imagine something like warp drive or transporters being invented, even if we have no idea how they might work.

But throughout all of human history, there has never been a lack of scarcity, nor the type of societal cooperation you mention, nor a society that functioned without some form of "money". At least not one of any scale. There's no historical precedent for that type of development, while technological leaps forward have many precedents.

Science fiction and fantasy author Ursula K. LeGuin:

"We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art. Very often in our art, the art of words."

 

[SPCTRE]

A big part of this discussion comes down to semantics. A lot of points of reference of valuation are not, technically speaking, "money", but are still viewed/treated/used as such.

 

[Nightdiamond]

True, it's a matter of semantics and word-play. Based on the way credits are referred to, it seems just like money to me.

Trek was kind of on track when they showed Crusher charging something to her account, because it suggested that while they have replicators to make things for them, they still use a form of money called credits to do certain things.

But as I said before, once at least 3 different humans said there is no money in the 24th century, you've now got a weird situation to explain.

And they don't show examples or even talk about it.

So, Joseph Sisko gets up really, really early (he look like the type) scrubs clams, cuts fresh vegetables, etc. and opens up his restaurant.

People come in, some grouchy and rude, orders seconds, there's screaming children, some kid pukes on the floor, Sisko or one of the (unpaid?) waiters cleans it up and... afterwards the customers get up and leave and that is that?

Because that is what you're going to ask Jake or Joseph when they tell you there is no money in the 24th century.

And when you ask them, just like Lily did Picard, "so you don't get paid?", and they respond with wealth no longer being a motivation, that would be suggesting that they don't and don't expect to.

They talk more about not using money than they do about using it.

How would being a waiter who cleans up puke, or a maid who cleans up after someone else too lazy to do it themselves, an 'improvement to humanity' and oneself?

Data is an android who doesn't even need a maid--and yet he had one--that maid could be called a status symbol in a certain context.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

As Nomad would say, the spin-off productions (and Star Trek IV) are "a mass of conflicting impulses."

Their underlying anti-money idea is that, in the future, human nature will fundamentally change for the better. And I say good luck with that.

 

[Stoo]

I think plentiful energy and food, and a general rise in standards of living, could indeed change our nature.

There will still be outliers who don't fit in, because they want to amass wealth or some other reason, they're the ones like Vash having adventures out on the frontier.

 

[T'Girl]

But throughout all of human history, there has never been a lack of scarcity, nor the type of societal cooperation you mention, nor a society that functioned without some form of "money".

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.

But as I said before, once at least 3 different humans said there is no money in the 24th century, you've now got a weird situation to explain.

Especially when one of them mentions selling a piece of property at one point.

They talk more about not using money than they do about using it.

Just the opposite, there are far more mention of money and money related activities, than there are no mentions.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I think plentiful energy and food, and a general rise in standards of living, could indeed change our nature.

I'm not so sure about that.

There will still be outliers who don't fit in, because they want to amass wealth or some other reason, they're the ones like Vash having adventures out on the frontier.

As long as there still is a frontier, and there still ARE adventures to be had, I guess it's not so bad.

I mean, in a "perfect" society where everybody has everything they want, where's the challenge? Where do you go from there? Think about it.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

And it doesn't hurt that greediness and acquisitiveness are no longer a factor.

For all the Human Picard's in the galaxy, there are likely a equal number of Human Vash's.

(and nice to have you back TheGoodNews)

Thanx. But, er, I never went away.

Being missed even when you don't leave, if that's not love then I don't know what is.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

A big part of this discussion comes down to semantics. A lot of points of reference of valuation are not, technically speaking, "money", but are still viewed/treated/used as such.

Not really. There's no need to pay for something that is in unlimited supply. You don't pay for the air you breathe, do you?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ No, but there are very few things in life (even with replicators) that are truly unlimited.

Sisko's restaurant, for example. The people who work there aren't unlimited. They can't provide an unlimited supply of food. (Don't even try to tell me that Joseph Sisko would ever allow a replicator in Sisko's Creole Kitchen. ) And also: What happens when the replicators break down? Or when the State revokes your replicator privileges?

And what about those who simply don't use replicators, like Picard's family?

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

^ No, but there are very few things in life (even with replicators) that are truly unlimited.

Sisko's restaurant, for example. The people who work there aren't unlimited. They can't provide an unlimited supply of food. (Don't even try to tell me that Joseph Sisko would ever allow a replicator in Sisko's Creole Kitchen. ) And also: What happens when the replicators break down? Or when the State revokes your replicator privileges?

And what about those who simply don't use replicators, like Picard's family?

I've already answered that. If the essentials (IE food, clothing, medication, non artistic objects..etc) are free, then it doesn't matter if some luxury items are acquired through privileges. People still get to live a decent, comfortable life without them.

The point is that no one has to die of starvation or because a lack of proper medication and that's light years away from our world today.


As for the idea that people have replicator privileges, that seems inadequate to me. The replicators are made of parts that are themselves replicated. It would be insane to make their use a privilege as they cost nothing. They would be like the air you breathe.

 

[Cyke101]

A big part of this discussion comes down to semantics. A lot of points of reference of valuation are not, technically speaking, "money", but are still viewed/treated/used as such.

Not really. There's no need to pay for something that is in unlimited supply. You don't pay for the air you breathe, do you?

I kinda feel like we'll be heading there eventually.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

@Kobayashi: Why would you assume that replicators cost nothing? They require maintenance, energy, bulk matter to operate.

 

[Nightdiamond]

But as I said before, once at least 3 different humans said there is no money in the 24th century, you've now got a weird situation to explain.

Especially when one of them mentions selling a piece of property at one point.

They talk more about not using money than they do about using it.

Just the opposite, there are far more mention of money and money related activities, than there are no mentions.

But the problem is, whenever they mention humans not using money they are more specific than usual.

Jake says humans don't use money. Nog follows that up with humans gave up currency based economics.

Picard flat out says there is no money in his century. Lily asks if that means people don't get paid, he doesn't deny it--he only says that humans aren't motivated by accumulating wealth anymore.

Jake tells Quark he sold a book. But the publisher didn't pay him anything--and Jake didn't expect them to.

But he wrote, sorted and submitted a book to what should be a huge publisher. Why didn't they give him anything for it?

Tom Paris flat out says money has been extinct since the 22nd century.

That's what so ironic, Trek doesn't usually go into details with certain subjects, but with the concept of there being no money in the 24th century, they say very direct things.