If Money is not a driving force for the federation, what would actually work to replace this....
- Thread starter Maccyj571086
- Start date
Like poverty in capitalist societies.
Has anyone read Trekonomics? Pertinent to this thread: https://books.google.com/books/abou...n&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Regardless of what you’d rather do, this forum is not for real world politics. This has been a consistent policy in the Trek fora.
We have fora dedicated to that stuff. Go there.
This is the last time I will address this with you.
Move on.
Well, sort of.
People in TOS didn't seem to be very different or "better as people" than people now. The protagonists were, of course, just like the protagonists of just about every drama on TV at the time. They lived in a better world, from our POV, with many current problems solved - but then, so do we as measured against the world of 1850, and as a species we haven't evolved one whit.
We saw an awful lot of regrettable human behavior in the original version of Star Trek, which stood alone for a couple of decades. So there's plenty to discuss about the franchise without giving in to the "evolved humanity" bullshit.
If humans - and other Federation citizens - are "more evolved" than we are today, that's only because their circumstances allow them to behave that way and they choose to strive towards higher ideals. But, as Kirk said, "We can admit that we’re killers . . . but we’re not going to kill today." Star Trek is aspirational, but it takes work to get to a better world - to be better. It's easier to aspire to those "higher ideals" in the future world of Star Trek, because all material needs are met on Earth. It's easy to be a saint in paradise.
The benefit of Star Trek, I think, is that it suggests we can and should strive to be better. Human society is more evolved in Star Trek, but not human beings. We shouldn't assume that the hard work it takes to evolve our society will ever stop.
The benefit of Star Trek, I think, is that it suggests we can and should strive to be better. Human society is more evolved in Star Trek, but not human beings. We shouldn't assume that the hard work it takes to evolve our society will ever stop.
OK note the words - no money, Federation, replacement system
Discuss this and this only.
Discuss this and this only.
Compared to humans of 300 years ago we have improved in comparison because cultural values and systems change. As imperfect as we are, I prefer it to feudalism, so compared to feudalism and capitalism the society of Star Trek as presented is an improvement. But go back 300 years you would still recognise human behaviour in its cultural context, jump ahead 300 years we still recognise human behaviour in Trek's cultural context.
As far as I see in Trek, money might not be the driving force culturally as it is now, its just another tool used to get resources. If you want beachfront property it might require many credits, latinum or a highly impressive reputation.
All three are forms of currency use in different ways and at different times.
I think that's a better way to state it is that money is a tool and to my mind that is as it should be. It being completely discarded is odd but not being the driving force is something I can definitely see appealing to many humans
I completely agree that humanity has improved which is why current humanity is more encouraging that just going "We evolved" in Trek and just accepting that. If you want current humanity to do better than just being told it's possible is not as helpful as being shown these are the steps to do so. And I think trying to eliminate money is focusing on the wrong aspect of human behavior.
.
I wonder if you could handle all the mundane tasks in a way that is like with jury selection. A citizen is merrily engaged in a life of improving oneself when that random selection notification to clean the local park shows up. Probably too simplistic but a jumping off point for building a non-competitive system that emphasizes civic duty.
The 'no money in the future' thing has always been stupid and is just another byproduct of the cult of personality of Gene and his vision.
Even if all the superfluous noise is stripped away, it just doesn't make any sense logistically - especially within a society [potentially] consisting of trillions.
But the currently running Star Trek plot shows the universe was never really post-scarcity, only making the whole discussion moot.
Even if all the superfluous noise is stripped away, it just doesn't make any sense logistically - especially within a society [potentially] consisting of trillions.
But the currently running Star Trek plot shows the universe was never really post-scarcity, only making the whole discussion moot.
As far as what is shown, the basic necessities for a decent life in the UFP are not scarce - housing, access to education, health care and food.
You can either live in a nice trailer like Raffi, or live in your inherited vineyard like Picard, one middle class, one upper middle class, both probably had a great free state education and access to a great medical system. Plus I am sure if Raffi wanted to live in a nice apartment in town she would not be put on a long waiting list. If she wants to live in a 10 bedroom mansion, she will need a lot of Federation credits, gold pressed latinum or inherited wealth (hello Picard)
You can either live in a nice trailer like Raffi, or live in your inherited vineyard like Picard, one middle class, one upper middle class, both probably had a great free state education and access to a great medical system. Plus I am sure if Raffi wanted to live in a nice apartment in town she would not be put on a long waiting list. If she wants to live in a 10 bedroom mansion, she will need a lot of Federation credits, gold pressed latinum or inherited wealth (hello Picard)
Last edited:
Exactly.
One thing to consider is that it would have been very difficult for people 8000 years ago to imagine a capitalist society; for us today, it's difficult to imagine what a post-capitalist society might look like. So, if the Federation is indeed post-capitalist, it's hard to imagine what might replace money in Trek.
That's why Trek is so interesting. I don't think it is post-capitalist in the strictest sense, since, as Nyotarules points out, there are still means of exchange. I do think it is more, for want of a better term, humanistic, placing value on a person just by being a person an not automatically in a production capacity.
I am trying to recall the bar scene in the Star Trek 2009 movie, now Kirk wanted to buy Uhura a drink, if money does not exist the drinks would be free, why would a male use one of the oldest pick up actions i.e offering to buy someone (a female) a drink, if the drinks are free? 
I concur, I think the aspect of money in society is quite different. Every thing is cheaper due to a different form of monetary system.I am trying to recall the bar scene in the Star Trek 2009 movie, now Kirk wanted to buy Uhura a drink, if money does not exist the drinks would be free, why would a male use one of the oldest pick up actions i.e offering to buy someone (a female) a drink, if the drinks are free?
Lots of regulation, regulations to prevent SnowBall effects from the monetary system. Limits on how much more you can charge over the BoM costs. Build on demand / contract only. No excess manufacturing / replication.
Similar threads
