So if your reputation and perceived character were superior to mine, this would enable you to obtain things that I could not?
If Money is not a driving force for the federation, what would actually work to replace this....
- Thread starter Maccyj571086
- Start date
Like beachfront property, a ranch (Kirk), a boat (Scotty), Creole restaurants (Sisko), French vineyards (Picards) or vast estates on Vulcan (Spock's family)
In real life it's probably not realistic. But in a fictional universe it's not hard to imagine how it works.
First, the fact that replicators eliminate scarcity is a big deal. No shortage of food, the cost of giving everybody their basic needs is nearly zero, that alone eliminates poverty.
Second, universal education with the same principles creates a system of social pressure to contribute. Take away money, you create an economy of influence. You are trading in social capital by angling for the most influential appointments.
The Federation has an economy of influence. Your prestige and connections is your capital.
First, the fact that replicators eliminate scarcity is a big deal. No shortage of food, the cost of giving everybody their basic needs is nearly zero, that alone eliminates poverty.
Second, universal education with the same principles creates a system of social pressure to contribute. Take away money, you create an economy of influence. You are trading in social capital by angling for the most influential appointments.
The Federation has an economy of influence. Your prestige and connections is your capital.
In a world with replicators then economy as we know it doesn't exist. Numerous manufacturing industries don't exist, depleting natural resources is no longer a thing, people can get whatever they need/want whenever they want with a simple order to the computer. Trade with other races would be more along the lines of co-operation (for mutual defence, scientific inquiry, etc). Only materials that couldn't be safely replicated or have to be prefabs would be produced or constructed by hand (ie volatile chemicals or starships).
Someone with a better reputation would probably be able to garner more trust and willingness to deal with, so ultimately might be offered better deals. For example, you have two friends who ask to borrow your car for a day, one of them you're closer too but they are a terrible driver, have had a couple of accidents before and the last time they borrowed your car they put a dent in it, whilst the other friend has a spotless driving licence and is an excellent driver. You're not being offered monetary gain for the loan, who would you choose?
One thing that might help view a functioning no money community is that while the federation might be intended to be a vast sprawling civilization, from what we actual see on screen it comes off as more a relatively small village.
Or, someone with a better "reputation" gets better terms on their car loan.
It already works that way, just not as formal or centralized as they've shown in Sci-Fi.
The problem with an economy of influence -- of social capital -- is that it's impossible to objectively measure influence and parcel it out in trade.
I mean, I completely agree that economics would be totally transformed! That's a given. With that kind of technology, it would be possible to essentially provide the basic material needs of life to everybody free of charge. Food, housing, medical treatment, etc. There's no reason everybody in the 24th Century can't be living at minimum the equivalent of what we would today call middle-class comfort.
But, there are some things of value that will exist in a state of scarcity even in a replicator economy. There are only so many beaches to build houses along. There are questions of land ownership and land management. Personal skills such as cooking (it's been commonly established that replicated food doesn't taste as good as organic food) or art (I imagine an economy in which the basics are provided to everyone would see an explosion in artists of all kinds -- writers, actors, playwrights, etc). So while we're looking at an economy without poverty, we're not looking at an economy in which absolutely nothing exists in a state of scarcity. There would still need to be some form of commerce.
Karma's a bitch?
What we value and what they would are by no means compatible.
There are 150+ individual member worlds, plus hundreds if not thousands of colonies, as well as independent settlements, all spanning thousands of light-years, I'm fairly certain that everyone who would want a beachfront could have one, likewise for those people who wanted mountain or forest locations, or those that wanted orbital habitats. If lots of people wanted a certain beachfront on Earth then Stratos has shown that antigrav technology allows for floating residences, so which those on land may be taken already there is ample opportunity for floating homes along beaches.
Why would anyone own land? There is no need to raise livestock or grow plants, no one needs the rent from tenants, generations old claims would probably have come to an end during WW3 and the Eugenics Wars, millions of people dead then land rights may have disappeared, or executive orders from the united Earth government rescinded all claim and place the land either under the ownership of the state or law made it for communal occupation.
With no need to earn money, and no worries about not having a roof over their heads or not enough to eat, people are free to live their ideal lives, to go for job satisfaction over what the salary is (how many of use are doing jobs now for the pay cheque at the end of the month rather than the love of the job itself, yes it will have aspects that we take pride in and want to do well, but more often than not it'll be a trudge through the monotony and mundane), to pursue what would make them happy and content with their lives and earn the recognition and prestige of others by sharing it, whether through cooking meals for others of displaying their artwork for others to view and admire. It would be like the age of narcissism we're currently in, but instead of the goal of many "influencers" to gain sponsorships, the likes they get though social media would be the only payment.
There would be but in very different forms. Trek presents pretty much the idealistic communist/socialist society, one in which everyone shares in the wealth of the whole and each enjoys the level of resources they need to live comfortable, happy lives, which they dedicate to improving the whole by their happiness and fulfilment.
Because it has value to them. It improves their happiness and fulfillment to be out on their property and utilizing it to satisfy their needs.
True! But there will inevitably be at least some overlap. Mind you, I could easily imagine someone going their entire lives, living long, healthy, comfortable lives without needing to use money in the ST Universe. But I think there would still be some economic activity requiring some commerce, even if only at the periphery.
Yes. But PIC -- and DS9 and other shows before it -- made it pretty clear that even in the 24th Century, the vast majority of people do not choose to leave their home planets (the same way most people today do not choose to leave their home countries).
The Stratos thing is a very good point! But there again, "The Cloud Minders" made it very clear that their city-wide antigrav technology was a technology extremely resource-costly which could only be maintained through the existence of a caste system. If United Earth or other local Federation Member States aren't willing to establish a caste system to support such a housing project -- and I hope they aren't! -- then we don't yet know if the technology is sustainable.
To have control over a small part of their world that no one else can take from them.
Absolutely! But one of the consequences of that situation is that inevitably, there will be some level of competition amongst their customers for their services, because their services are non-replicatable and will exist in a state of scarcity. If you're the 24th Century Anthony Bourdain, you're not going to have enough hours in a day to provide your services to everyone who wants them, and at some point some of your customers will start competing with one-another to persuade you to serve them before someone else. And at a certain point, you're going to start wanting the thing that you use to determine who you serve first to be something that benefits you directly instead of just being like, "Oh, they, this dude and this dude both want me to cook for them, but this dude over here is a cooler guy than that dude over there."
And to be clear, a market where a celebrity chef or whatever can command economic competition for their services (probably with both a floor and a ceiling on how much wealth anybody gets to earn) but where absolutely nobody goes without their material needs being met, would be the best kind of market competition possible: one where everyone truly is competing as relative economic equals and built-in inequality doesn't enter the picture.
Sure! But that's not incompatible with the idea that there's some level of market-based commerce using some kind of currency. In fact, I would argue that an economic system in which every firm that employs more than, say, 50 people is legally required to operate as a worker-owned, democratically-managed co-operative that equitably distributes all profits to their worker-owners, would be a form of democratic market socialism that would also fulfill Star Trek's vision of a world without greed or poverty.
No, the episode did not make that clear at all. It said nothing whatsoever about what resources were needed to maintain the antigravity, or their amount, or whether it was costly, or extremely costly, etc.
The idea that was "extremely resource-costly" is one possible interpretation of what's depicted in the episode. Another interpretation based on what's said in the episode would be that the caste system exists primarily for the purposes of mining zenite and of farming ("They [the Troglytes] mine zenite for shipment, till the soil"), and that the zenite (the only thing that the Troglytes are said to mine) has nothing to do with the anti-gravity technology (Spock says zenite is used "wherever there is danger of plant bacteria").
If your interpretation is required by the episode, could you please indicate where, what dialog requires it?
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/74.htm
On Vulcan Spock's family owned land for generations, and Vulcan is a major part of the UFP
Kirk had a ranch, his family owned a farm
Scotty bought a boat (why would anyone own a boat?)
TOS Trek no, TAS Trek had a generous human millionaire, TNG Trek maybe
Land technically operates a bit differently than an object like a boat.
Land can't be "Owned" in the truest sense like you can with a Compact Disc or a Computer. It can be "Controlled" and "Control" of said land is Won/Loss by those who enforce those property rights. You can't physically shrink that piece of land, put it in your pocket, and steal it like other objects. But you can gain or lose "Control" of said land through various means.
I don’t understand the driving force question. Picard says the driving force is to better oneself and the rest of humanity. That really is sufficient. People who work, that is, who are engaged in life in one form or another are on the whole happier than those who in their own eyes feel they’re wasting theirs. That’s the same for the drug addict “chasing the dragon” as it is the duchess who never made a choice for herself. Why do people work? Because they want to feel emotionally healthy and be happy. Given the choice, honeslty given the choice, and seeing others thusly engaged in life and yet others wasting their lives away (whether at the replicator or alone in a holodeck or, conversely, overworking at the office) they choose to do something worth their while.
As to the mechanics of how that actually works I give Mike Okuda’s answer to how the transporter actually works: very well, thank you.
For the sake of imagining, I imagine it works similarly to a money economy but say everyone has a billion dollars but inflation doesn’t kick in. You go about trying to do something you enjoy and are improved by. Lots of people today are basically living this life. People from privileged wealthy families who go to fancy schools and pursue careers they enjoy, and who aren’t ignorant of money but don’t think about it nearly as much as most people do. Well, if you believe in progress, you can make this the norm for most. Or you can have everyone be half insane as they are today, working themselves to death and not knowing why and creating false gods of their success.
As to the mechanics of how that actually works I give Mike Okuda’s answer to how the transporter actually works: very well, thank you.
For the sake of imagining, I imagine it works similarly to a money economy but say everyone has a billion dollars but inflation doesn’t kick in. You go about trying to do something you enjoy and are improved by. Lots of people today are basically living this life. People from privileged wealthy families who go to fancy schools and pursue careers they enjoy, and who aren’t ignorant of money but don’t think about it nearly as much as most people do. Well, if you believe in progress, you can make this the norm for most. Or you can have everyone be half insane as they are today, working themselves to death and not knowing why and creating false gods of their success.
I've done a lot of thought about this. How do some people end up as servants and waiters when there is no economic reason for them to have to work at menial labor?
I put a bit into a sidebar in Star Trek Adventures about getting "credits" for socialist-like provisions by accepting assignments. The gist is that on Earth (and presumably all the major worlds) you can join Starfleet or take an apprenticeship from someone. The implication is that the waiters in Sisko's Cafe are apprentice chefs/restaurateurs, and that they're working until there is space available for them to get their own business.
You have the option to become a colonist, setting out to an underdeveloped world and working from scratch. In return for this you get an allotment of land, equipment, housing and provisions.
I admit, it still doesn't explain Data's elderly maid in All Good Things. Let's just say that she was a non-sentient hologram and Data was living some fantasy of being an old-timey gentleman.
I put a bit into a sidebar in Star Trek Adventures about getting "credits" for socialist-like provisions by accepting assignments. The gist is that on Earth (and presumably all the major worlds) you can join Starfleet or take an apprenticeship from someone. The implication is that the waiters in Sisko's Cafe are apprentice chefs/restaurateurs, and that they're working until there is space available for them to get their own business.
You have the option to become a colonist, setting out to an underdeveloped world and working from scratch. In return for this you get an allotment of land, equipment, housing and provisions.
I admit, it still doesn't explain Data's elderly maid in All Good Things. Let's just say that she was a non-sentient hologram and Data was living some fantasy of being an old-timey gentleman.
^There are people that are content to do such work. Sometimes simply because it's work on their level and it challenges them enough (no insult or discrimination intended), sometimes people that would be capable of much more, but for one or the other reason don't choose to, either temporary or permanently. They also exist in Trek, one example of those would be Mortimer Harren from Voyager, a theoretical cosmologist assigned to menial duty in the plasma relay room because it gave him time to think about his theories (ok, that's not a waiter or a servant, but probably it's similarly menial work).
Last edited:
Must never have met people who find intense value and pleasure in serving others.
Right, I forgot that category.
Also, I wouldn't be too surprised if that servant for Data isn't even something he chose for himself, but simply comes with the Lucasian Chair he holds as a symbol, sinds it also entitles him to live in the traditional residence where Newton also lived, which, perhaps, they don't want to outfit with too many modern conveniences because of its historic significance. (But that's just some wild speculation, we do see a communication panel after all).
Similar threads
