History of Star Trek having no "money"
- Thread starter Tallguy
- Start date
- Status
In TOS, Khan was the product of eugenics, not genetic-engineering. I'm not sure everything he seemed capable of could have been accomplished through selective breeding alone in another 30 years, especially given, as mentioned, he was likely already born by the time the episode aired. That's another of those things in TOS I just roll with...
2. Was it trader or merchant? Either way, neither necessarily use money, and, as mentioned, he could, like Vash, been an expat.
The real world future will be very different from Trek. Not only from the Horatio Hornblower ships and trappings, but economics too. I'd rather Trek try to keep relevant than precious. Basic Incomes may be a thing in many countries by the end of this century, as machines take over blue collar jobs and AI's white collar. By the 23rd or 24th? Who knows.
Unclear.
1. In TOS, before the idea of no money came about.
2. Was it trader or merchant? Either way, neither necessarily use money, and, as mentioned, he could, like Vash, been an expat.
All the more reason against.
Did that matter? Roddenberry didn't come up with everything. (Love Gene Coon, Michael Piller, others too BTW) And he evolved over time like anyone. Moore & Co. didn't get into specifics (i.e. tech manual) but also weren't proactive for or to explore the cause. Maybe he and they should have tried.
The real world future will be very different from Trek. Not only from the Horatio Hornblower ships and trappings, but economics too. I'd rather Trek try to keep relevant than precious. Basic Incomes may be a thing in many countries by the end of this century, as machines take over blue collar jobs and AI's white collar. By the 23rd or 24th? Who knows.
Last edited:
In "The Gift" (VOY), it's said that the Vulcan who sold Tuvok his lamp doubled the price when he realized that his customer was a Starfleet officer.
Fair points, although "Errand of Mercy" did imply that merchant was a very common profession for Vulcans.
I'd have to watch the episode gain, but he could, like Vash, been an unusual character.
Doesn't negate points. Why wouldn't lots of Vulcans like trading goods? I'd love to travel the worlds of heaven to bring back home all sorts of amazing finds.
Maybe, although Janeway's recollection makes it sound it it wasn't an unusual instance.
Fair enough.
See, I can understand where you can try and smooth out 22nd / 23rd / 29th century to be an agreeable 23rd. Vulcanian can be discarded for the later Vulcan.
But if there is NEVER an instance of TOS saying that there is no money, why would you jump through logical hoops to say that Spock being a Vulcan trader doesn't mean that he's a Vulcan trader?
As for keeping Star Trek "relevant" there is no-where on Earth that is moving to a post-monetary system. Is there? There are capitalist, socialist, communist organizations on the planet. Probably other systems I know nothing about. None of them are trying to abolish currency. You can argue that Discovery (for example) should be a reflection of what 2017 humanity is striving for rather than 1966. But saying that TOS didn't have money (when it clearly did) doesn't do that.
But if there is NEVER an instance of TOS saying that there is no money, why would you jump through logical hoops to say that Spock being a Vulcan trader doesn't mean that he's a Vulcan trader?
Mudd's Women and Devil in the Dark are both based on people performing life threatening jobs in pursuit of getting rich. And with no money then Mudd doesn't make sense. For that matter neither does Jones or Okona.
As for keeping Star Trek "relevant" there is no-where on Earth that is moving to a post-monetary system. Is there? There are capitalist, socialist, communist organizations on the planet. Probably other systems I know nothing about. None of them are trying to abolish currency. You can argue that Discovery (for example) should be a reflection of what 2017 humanity is striving for rather than 1966. But saying that TOS didn't have money (when it clearly did) doesn't do that.
I didn't say that (in fact, I was actually suggesting that Vulcan does still use money).
They could be outside United Earth's economy. After all, on TNG/DS9, the human character Vash used her profession to earn money, and, while considered backwards, it wasn't viewed as illegal.[/QUOTE]
See? That's the hoop. They COULD be. But why would they be?
But still inside the Federation's.
Mudd could be from a Eath colony where more "typical" economic practices are in place. Nothing says any of Earth's colonies observe a no money philosophy.
The Devil in the Dark planet could a Human corporation owned planet (we know the Federation has these), and the miners were employees of said corporation working for wages and the dream of a large profit sharing bonus.
The three miners in Mudd's Women could themselves own the planetoid they were mining, the way Flint owned his planet.
As did Kasidy Yates.
Again, I have no problem viewing TOS as having money (original), and viewing it as not having money (retcon). Our next step may be a Basic Incomes; a couple centuries later, no money.
Merchant: a person or company involved in wholesale trade, especially one dealing with foreign countries or supplying merchandise to a particular trade.
A merchant is a middle-man trader. In our economies they're out for dollars or euros or yuan or all of the above. In the Federation's they may be trading hoverbeeds for asteroids, credits or talons or GPL not necessary.
Vash did it for the same reason people do MMA or alligator wrangling or space diving = the thrills. Mudd the same, or because he was from a non-Federation colony. Wasn't Ezri?
Merchant: a person or company involved in wholesale trade, especially one dealing with foreign countries or supplying merchandise to a particular trade.
A merchant is a middle-man trader. In our economies they're out for dollars or euros or yuan or all of the above. In the Federation's they may be trading hoverbeeds for asteroids, credits or talons or GPL not necessary.
Vash did it for the same reason people do MMA or alligator wrangling or space diving = the thrills. Mudd the same, or because he was from a non-Federation colony. Wasn't Ezri?
This topic does open up a broader interesting discussion about Retcons in general. The "money, then no money" thing was certainly a retcon. In Gene Roddenberry's version of Star Trek there may never have been an intention on humans using money, but unfortunately he never established that as fact during his time on TOS, and Gene Coon came in with rather more conventional ideas. 
The prevailing wisdom has always been that later information overwrites earlier information, hence retconning it from existence. But I can also see the alternative viewpoint, that earlier information ("The Federation uses money in TOS") has got more right to exist than later information ("The Federation was and is a post-scarcity economy, even in TOS and before"), simply by merit that the earlier information was established 'first'. But then again, it means something like Vulcan being 'conquered' by humans has to be taken into account as something more than just McCoy being McCoy, and that would just be silly. 
Again I think where "Discovery" has got a bit of a golden opportunity is to address something like the 23rd century economy question, perhaps show us a society still in transition towards abandoning money, or some other more interesting explanation we haven't thought of, and that way we'll all be able to put it to bed. Admittedly that still leaves the occasional mentions of it in the TNG/DS9/VOY era to be addressed, but maybe that can be the job of future scriptwriters. Or else we can all reconvene here to keep discussing it ad infinitum.
The prevailing wisdom has always been that later information overwrites earlier information, hence retconning it from existence. But I can also see the alternative viewpoint, that earlier information ("The Federation uses money in TOS") has got more right to exist than later information ("The Federation was and is a post-scarcity economy, even in TOS and before"), simply by merit that the earlier information was established 'first'. But then again, it means something like Vulcan being 'conquered' by humans has to be taken into account as something more than just McCoy being McCoy, and that would just be silly. Again I think where "Discovery" has got a bit of a golden opportunity is to address something like the 23rd century economy question, perhaps show us a society still in transition towards abandoning money, or some other more interesting explanation we haven't thought of, and that way we'll all be able to put it to bed. Admittedly that still leaves the occasional mentions of it in the TNG/DS9/VOY era to be addressed, but maybe that can be the job of future scriptwriters. Or else we can all reconvene here to keep discussing it ad infinitum.
First doesn't mean better. See Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. McCoy didn't tell the old lady let the Spanish Inquisition doctors treat you; he gave her two space-pills and a new kidney. Do we really need to bring up "Turnabout Intruder"?
And I say this with the idiocy of DS9's retconning genetic-engineering when TNG had it in "Unnatural Selection" and it coming in the real world very much in my mind.
And I say this with the idiocy of DS9's retconning genetic-engineering when TNG had it in "Unnatural Selection" and it coming in the real world very much in my mind.
"Eugenics" just means improving the breed, so it could include genetic engineering.
In "Conscience of the King," McCoy makes an offhand remark about the Vulcans being conquered. He doesn't say by whom.But then again, it means something like Vulcan being 'conquered' by humans has to be taken into account as something more than just McCoy being McCoy, and that would just be silly.
Which doesn't jibe with Spock's firm statement in "The Immunity Syndrome" (TOS) that Vulcan has never been conquered, and he would know better than McCoy if that's true or not.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
