In The 24th Century, How Did They Do It?

[T'Girl]

It's funny to see how the anarcho-capitalists try to give stuff like liberal tolerance or the Prime Directive a libertarian label.

Since libertarism avocates self determination and free will, it would key right into the prime directive. Libertarians may have been the ones in the federation that formed the policy that became the PD.

And if you can get around to it, dropping the "anarcho" would make sense, no one is suggesting anything like anarchy on a future Earth, certainly I wasn't. Libertarians are not anarchists, neither are capitalists.

 

[xortex]

The Federation is alot worse in TNG than in TOS what with section 31 and all. The Admirals are alot more evil at least. Trek lit tried to imply that section 31 existed during TOS. I'd like to think that it didn't and leave it at that. Anbody remember when we used to be space exploiters? The vast resources of space of course makes it possible for Earth to be a paradise though TOS even was not above pitting one planet against another to get rid of a threat just as America is currently. We are learning how to be insidious. America - the better and bigger bomb builders. BBB o A.
What we need now is for Vin Deisel or Harrison Ford to say 'What debt?' to China.

 

[Navaros]

they've never really explained exactly how they did it.

That is because they can't.

Star Trek writers write characters who are exactly like themselves, and do not let any characters who are not like themselves onto their fictional earth (unless those characters are villains who are going to be removed before the end of the episode/movie.) Then they call their earth "utopia."

In other words, the Star Trek version of utopia only "works" in the modern Trek shows/movies because those utopias exclude anyone who disagrees with the writers' viewpoints.

In real-life, the world is not and never will be like that. The only way a Trek-like utopia would ever become real is if everyone became mind-controlled to think exactly the same things as each other.

 

[horatio83]

---

 

[horatio83]

It's funny to see how the anarcho-capitalists try to give stuff like liberal tolerance or the Prime Directive a libertarian label.

Since libertarism avocates self determination and free will, it would key right into the prime directive. Libertarians may have been the ones in the federation that formed the policy that became the PD.

And if you can get around to it, dropping the "anarcho" would make sense, no one is suggesting anything like anarchy on a future Earth, certainly I wasn't. Libertarians are not anarchists, neither are capitalists.

Yes, they are. You anarcho-capitalists against dealing with the most serious negative externality in the history of humankind, climate change, you are against stabilizing recessions via fiscal or even monetary policy (some are even so dumb as to advocate a return to gold) and you are certainly against amending hunger.
Never read anything from any anarcho-capitalists about the need to forbid derivatives and futures on food after the recent prices hikes that lead to hunger and death. It's the equivalent to being fine with the absence of a law against murder ... and anarchy is a fairly mild term for such a disgusting political position. Not caring about the destruction of the biosphere or unnecessary hungers created by Goldman Sachs is irresponsible, criminal and morally utterly rotten.

I do agree though that the strongest voice for a non-interventionist foreign policy in the USA at the moment is Ron Paul. If you are afraid of a war with Iran voting Dem or Rep will not reduce these fears.

 

[xortex]

We all do think of the same things, money power, control, etc., world domination, LOL but mind control wars were mentioned in GR's TMP novelization so according to him, something like that did go on. The abscence of something good is not necessarily something bad. Too much control and governmental power could lead to tyrrany.

 

[Nightdiamond]

The Federation is alot worse in TNG than in TOS what with section 31 and all. The Admirals are alot more evil at least.

I think DS9 of all them has managed to portray humans as being more dysfunctional than 20th century humans.

You have a Starfleet captain poisoning an inhabited planet, an admiral trying to take over earth, the Maquis (fed citizens) poisoning planets, Starfleet tricking another power into going to war on their side.

It made "The Drumhead" look like "Spok's Brain" by comparison

You got so caught up in the action you forgot that these things didn't seem to make "them" any better than "us" .

 

[horatio83]

Not really. The key difference is that Satie was the exception whereas in our world we are perfectly fine with Satie-style rules for about ten years.
Section 31 was more complex, implying that every society, even the Federation, has a dark underside. I would basically agree with that, every society, even democratic ones, need a Praetorian Guard, a zero-level of violence that maintains the current order. It is not a nice thought but I fear it is true.

 

[T'Girl]

they've never really explained exactly how they did it.

That is because they can't.

It's difficult to explain something that you yourself don't understand.

Ronald Moore in a interview said: "So none of us could understand what that mean or how that society functioned. It all seemed very vague. None of the writers took it seriously. We all kind of laughed about it and joked about it."

The writers lived and worked in a commercial/capitalist society, so aspects of that society made their way into the Star Trek universe. Planets being owned by mining corporations, the Federation bidding on a wormhole, the Krieger wave generator to be sold to the highest bidder, Quark selling his shuttle in the Earth system, a Federation member having a major bank.

Jake stating in one episode he doesn't need money, but only a few episodes before he and Nog engage in a complex business deal that nets them five bars.

The writers live in a society with a prison system, so the utopian future has a penal system. It didn't occur to them not to make Joseph Sisko the owner of a restaurant. It was only natural for Beverly to charge a purchase to her account.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I think one question is, did Trek go too far with the claims? In order for this society to work, everyone has to display the same Utopian style behavior.

Uhura says no one cares about being called insulting names. Beverly says people aren't afraid of death. Picard says that the need for possession is non existent.

A peaceful exploration/scientific organization handles military duties, but it isn't called the military.

So it shows how non violent future humans are, and hey, you get to wear cool uniforms while at the same time avoid all the unpleasant bloodshed.

How can, let's say, 12 billion or so human beings ALL be open minded, tolerant, selfless, and just plain ol nice?

 

[horatio83]

When Simon Tarses' lie was discovered in The Drumhead he did not fear unemployment but the end of a job he loved.
In a world where the replicator provides all your basic needs and the holodeck provides all the entertainment you can want to you will sooner or later become bored, you will want to do something useful with your life.

Now there is of course a problem, not all jobs are great and every society needs some form of coercision to make people do the shitty jobs. Many people want to become captain but the majority ends up having to scrub plasma conduits. The only answer Trek provides is that they nonetheless love the job.
It's like with the contemporary military. I cannot imagine a more shitty job than manual labour in all kinds of climates with a serious risk of injury or death. Despite of that people yearn to serve their country and they are treated with respect by their fellow citizens for their duty.
Non-pecuniary incentives clearly matter. In the 24th century of Trek where money is less important as your basic needs are satisfied non-pecuniary incentives matter even more than that.

About non-economic stuff, when you are criminal you still end up in prison. It is no coincidence that we see everything through the eyes of a military organization. Without quite a lot of collective (oh, nasty word that will make the libertarians cringe ) discipline humankind did not make it to where it is in the 24th century.

 

[Arpy]

How did they do it? Trial and error. Planning and practicing. They/we tried and invented and refined many different political and economic systems that worked to certain degrees, and we kept working them more, evolving ever more sophisticated and simple systems that most efficiently get all people operating at optimal capacity for themselves and each other, ultimately leaving us with a dynamic society of good people who just want to live and contribute to exploring all the possibilities of life with each other.

 

[Sci]

We should probably all bear in mind that the fundamental difference between modern Liberalism and Conservatism -- the question of whether inequality necessarily is the same thing as loss of freedom, or whether some compromises on individual autonomy necessarily are the same thing as loss of freedom, and where the balance needs to be between social equality and individual autonomy -- is basically a question about resource distribution.

And that the 22nd Century United Earth, and the 24th Century Federation after is, is basically a society with infinite resources. Or resources so close to infinite that there's no reason to think that modern concepts like "poverty" exist in any meaningful sense anymore. Even if the Federation still has a monetary system of some sort -- and I suspect it does, even though I suspect the Federation cannot truly be called Capitalistic -- the basic questions that vex us today would simply not apply in many senses to a post-scarcity society.

After all, that's the essential premise of modern economics: That there is a scarcity of resources. Well, what do you do when scarcity of resources ceases? What do you do when society lives in a state of abundance?

 

[horatio83]

This is not totally true. Many goods are quite cheap but not costless and luxury goods or starships are certainly scarce. There is clearly a need to economize.
Given that we don't see any privately owned starships or luxury goods of any kind and given that nobody works out of fear of unemployment it is clear that the Federation is far more socialist than any contemporary society.
Not that the terms capitalism and socialism make much sense in out age where one of the last communists regimes on Earth has basically created the most ruthless form of capitalism.

I would say that there are two important changes, the technological change that increases supply enormously and a change of preferences, i.e. people do not demand stupid crap and luxury goods anymore but are satisfied once they reach a certain level of consumption. There are a few people who do wanna own the world but they are the Harry Mudds. If they have not committed any crime they are nonetheless treated as pariahs. This zero-leve of intolerance, one that every society has in some form, is necessary.

 

[Nightdiamond]

And that the 22nd Century United Earth, and the 24th Century Federation after is, is basically a society with infinite resources. Or resources so close to infinite that there's no reason to think that modern concepts like "poverty" exist in any meaningful sense anymore.

There are a few people who do wanna own the world but they are the Harry Mudds. If they have not committed any crime they are nonetheless treated as pariahs.

How do we explain people like Kassidy Yates and Vash. Kassidy, she works away as a freighter, complaining about keeping schedules, the stress, etc. She eventually risks her freedom, goes to prison helping the Maquis.

Why? she's human...she doesn't have to do all this. Humans have all the food, luxuries, clothes and necessities they need on earth. Or with a replicator anywhere else.

And Vash--she's greedy, breaks the law frequently, all in the name of profit, which in theory she doesn't need.

Many alien cultures know what a replicator is, they even have access to them. Yet they insist on a profit based economy, where, get this--people are STILL poor and needy even though their society has replicators!

And the crime aspect, here's something I can't understand.

Why should so many cultures have an "Orion Syndicate" (gansters) or crime rings for profit, when these same cultures have replicators???

 

[Sci]

This is not totally true. Many goods are quite cheap but not costless and luxury goods or starships are certainly scarce.

Saying that the economy exists in a post-scarcity state is not the same thing as saying that literally every single good and service exists in abundance. It means that the overall economy is abundant and that poverty no longer exists.

Given that we don't see any privately owned starships

?

We've seen plenty of privately-owned large warp-capable ships. The most prominent being the S.S. Raven.

 

[horatio83]

And that the 22nd Century United Earth, and the 24th Century Federation after is, is basically a society with infinite resources. Or resources so close to infinite that there's no reason to think that modern concepts like "poverty" exist in any meaningful sense anymore.

There are a few people who do wanna own the world but they are the Harry Mudds. If they have not committed any crime they are nonetheless treated as pariahs.

How do we explain people like Kassidy Yates and Vash. Kassidy, she works away as a freighter, complaining about keeping schedules, the stress, etc. She eventually risks her freedom, goes to prison helping the Maquis.

Why? she's human...she doesn't have to do all this. Humans have all the food, luxuries, clothes and necessities they need on earth. Or with a replicator anywhere else.

And Vash--she's greedy, breaks the law frequently, all in the name of profit, which in theory she doesn't need.

Many alien cultures know what a replicator is, they even have access to them. Yet they insist on a profit based economy, where, get this--people are STILL poor and needy even though their society has replicators!

And the crime aspect, here's something I can't understand.

Why should so many cultures have an "Orion Syndicate" (gansters) or crime rings for profit, when these same cultures have replicators???

Obviously because they are different cultures. Note that the Orion Syndicate is not some criminal excess, it is the equivalent of organized crime having taken over an entire culture.

Culture is the very opposite of nature so there is nothing natural about it. In culture virtually everything is possible. Nature is about necessities whereas culture is an entirely contingent way to regulate these necessities and come up with funky stuff in the process.
Think about the incest taboo, widespread in many cultures and pretty hardwired into us. When people came up with this they did not know anything about the dangers of inbreeding, they probably merely wanted to expand their families/clans which is not possible if the have sex inside the core family. Nowadays this powerful taboo regulates our sexual lives and we perceive it as totally natural. Something similar must have happened in Trek. Just like it is inconceivable for us to have sex with parents or siblings it is inconceivable for Picard and his fellows to dream about being rich. Anybody who violates any of these taboos faces some form of punishment, in a legal or an implicit, non-formalized fashion.
Same in the Orion Syndicate where you probably sign your death warrant if you say that you wanna play a different game.

This is not totally true. Many goods are quite cheap but not costless and luxury goods or starships are certainly scarce.

Saying that the economy exists in a post-scarcity state is not the same thing as saying that literally every single good and service exists in abundance. It means that the overall economy is abundant and that poverty no longer exists.

Given that we don't see any privately owned starships

?

We've seen plenty of privately-owned large warp-capable ships. The most prominent being the S.S. Raven.

Post-scarcity means post-scarcity and not "everything is pretty cheap while starships are still scarce".

Was the Raven the ship of Seven's parents? Last time I checked they have been Federation scientists until the end.

 

[T'Girl]

Many alien cultures know what a replicator is, they even have access to them. Yet they insist on a profit based economy ...

Klingons have replicators, and their money is called the darsek. According to the episode The House of Quark, the Klingons have a "normal" financial and economic system.

If the use of the replicator comes at a monitary cost, this would make sense.

The Federation's members engages in mining, meaning they are not replicating the materials being mined. In some way the mined materials are preferable over replicated materials. If the use of replicator carries more of a cost than mining operations, this would make sense.

This would imply that the use of the replicator isn't "free."

 

[Sci]

Saying that the economy exists in a post-scarcity state is not the same thing as saying that literally every single good and service exists in abundance. It means that the overall economy is abundant and that poverty no longer exists.

Given that we don't see any privately owned starships

?

We've seen plenty of privately-owned large warp-capable ships. The most prominent being the S.S. Raven.

Post-scarcity means post-scarcity and not "everything is pretty cheap while starships are still scarce".

Well, no, actually that's a good description of a practical vision of a post-scarcity economy. If resources exist in such abundance that the essential human needs -- nutrition, shelter, health care, employment -- can be universally met at all times, and if resources exist in such abundance that no only can these needs be met but they can be exceeded -- everyone on Earth seems to live in conditions that would be considered at least "middle class" by modern American standards -- then that's as good as any definition of a post-scarcity economy.

In essence, the process of living in the world of Star Trek seems to be free.

Was the Raven the ship of Seven's parents?

Yes, and they owned it.

Last time I checked they have been Federation scientists until the end.

They were scientists, and they were Federation citizens, but there's no indication they worked for the Federation government. In fact, Janeway's description of them as eccentric rogues means they were almost certainly the opposite.

 

[horatio83]

Technology alone doesn't do the trick, the change of preferences is at least as important.
The replicator only makes the production of food, clothes and other ordinary goods cheap. It doesn't solve land scarcity and it doesn't address any labour market issues.
Health care involves not merely drugs but also machines and doctors. If a doctor wants to become rich in order to buy his own starship one day he wants his patients to pay him so he discriminates so not everybody gets access to health care so the entire system doesn't work anymore.
It can only work if nobody or only very few people want a starship and work for the sake of working. Let's use the ugly word, 24th century humankind is a socialist society and such a society can only function if people do not demand luxury goods.

Incidentally the most socialist systems (relatively, they are of course mixed, social democratic and not socialist economies) in our world, the Scandinavian ones, do extremely well if you measure doing well by GDP, income equality or constructed indices that take into factors like health, crime, pollution and so on that are not or imperfectly measured by GDP.