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

[Sci]

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.

You say that like it's nothing. Now, obviously, there would be a cost to the replicators themselves -- but once you have working replicators, you essentially make all these other resources so cheap that they might as well be free. That's huge. It renders a predominently Capitalistic economy impossible.

It doesn't solve land scarcity and it doesn't address any labour market issues.

Well, it renders vast amounts of labor unnecessary, since it's suddenly no longer necessary to expend labor to obtain uncountable numbers of goods.

Let's use the ugly word, 24th century humankind is a socialist society

Well of course it is -- for the most part. But that doesn't mean some small private markets don't exist within the larger socialist system. For instance, it's pretty clear that everyone eats just fine, but I do suspect people pay to go to restaurants. If only because I have yet to see a restaurant where the waiters would be willing to do the work for no compensation.

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.

Yep!

 

[horatio83]

The costs are very small but not zero. You gotta produce the replicator, its output rate is limited and energy production is not totally costless either. Deuterium is limited and while solar engery, which might be used to synthesize antimatter, is not solar panels probably still are.
That's why I believe that there is still a need to economize. In a DS9 episode Ben Sisko mentioned e.g. that there are transporter credits, i.e. it is rationed. In ordinary markets rationing is a poor allocation mechanism put in this instance it makes perfect sense.

As you pointed out working to live becomes unnecessary so people will work for other purposes. The old patriarch who does not want to give up control of the family business to his son does not work for the sake of income and every workaholic I know does neither. Same with the thousands of people who produce open-source software, clearly something that only happens in a rich country where people have enough leisure to do this kind of stuff. Extrapolate this trend and we land in the 24th century. The basic income concepts which are sometimes discussed on the left also have similar vibes (I prefer Scandinavian-style high unemployment insurance plus Keynesian demand management to ensure that everybody has work/income but the idea is definitely not totally crazy from a cool economic point of view.).

So I think the idea that people in the 24th century work because they love it, be it Sisko the cook, Picard the vinemaker or Ensign Whatever the Starfleet officer, is not as lunatic and utopian as many people think it is. We well not end up like Wells' Eloi, we want to do something useful in our lives.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Ian Keldon, suppression of the advancement of science was a constant policy for christianity, islamism, etc.
And encouragement of scientific advancement was utterly lacking in any religion.

This generalization is factually wrong. While Christianity prevented scientific advances during the Middle Ages science flourished in the Islamic world around 1000.
I don't wanna imply anything by the way as the religion-science debates don't interest me, I merely wanna correct the facts.

And the fact is that that knowledge was brought back to Europe by Christian monks and the rebirth of learning that it touched off led to the invention of the university in it's modern form and the end of Augustinian detachment in favor of more science-based engagement with the real world.

The Church has always had an uneasy relationship with science, as the two have very disparate perviews that nonetheless impact on one another.

The simplistic "church bad/science good" narrative put forth by the anti-religious/secular crowd is an absolutely unwarranted broad-brush, as is the notion that religious faith has nothing to offer mankind in an age of science.

Science and technology have turned man into a force capable of either great benificence or great harm. In the face of that, religion is even MORE important as a check on the hubris of fallable, mortal man.

I am amazed at attitudes such as some of those expressed previously. For people who preach the Federation credo of tolerance and diversity, it seems a shame that there apparently is no room in their "diversity" for the divine.

 

[BillJ]

Now, in our own time, it would be considered immoral or wrong to just watch and let one nation conquer and brutalize another.

Only immoral if the weaker country has something of value that we need. All you have to do is look to Africa.

 

[Ian Keldon]

I have some questions.

What is Capitalism, exactly? Which variety of Capitalism are we talking about when we say it does or does not exist in the Federation?

What is Socialism, exactly? Which variety of Socialism are we talking about when we say it does or does not exist in the Federation?

Is there maybe a continuum, such that neither system in its most exact form can be said to exist, but perhaps both systems combine to create a mixed system in the Federation?

The problem with discussing "capitalism" in Trek is that by and large Trek deals with a universe that can best be described as "post scarcity" in nature. Within the context of the Federation (and before that, the United Earth), society had developed to the point that it was both technologically possible and socially/politically accepted that society as a whole provide a minimally sufficient standard of living for people. If you wanted more, you could avail yourself of opportunities created either by yourself or others, but no one would starve or go homeless, or lack health care because they "couldn't afford it".

The "free rider" problem seems to be handled not by the crude and cruel witholding of resources, but by social pressure and a generally enlightened perspective that encourages work along lines designed to promote personal growth and self-development.

You know what? The culture where I live is significantly different than the culture eight hundred miles from here in several directions, even though still in the same nation and sharing a more-or-less common language.

In some details, perhaps, but even our "diverse" culture has more in common between it's disparate elements than it does with other major cultures.

The idea that any "culture" monolithic enough to be generalized about in any meaningful way would exist over distances spanning hundreds of light years - even allowing for virtually instantaneous communication - is one of the many ways in which Star Trek is too conceptually naive to take seriously as a vision of the future or a mirror to our own time.

Hardly. Americans are still Americans, even if they live in Hong Kong or Botswanna or anywhere else. Same with any other cultural group.

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.

Actually, there ARE schools of libertarian and capitalist thought that advocate anarchy whether literal or just economic. Alan Greenspan was a big proponent of anarcho-capitalism in the late 90s, believing that the government did not even have a legitimate function in policing fraud in the markets (a position he has since recanted, thankfully).

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.

ANY organized society has the right (and indeed the obligation) to wield force in the name of the common good. It's where that line gets drawn that makes all the difference.

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?

While that is true (and I said similar above), it's not the totality of the story. They also evolved socially so that even if resources WERE finite, those resources would be shared on an egalitarian basis because humanity had collectively advanced it's culture to promote concern for all as a primary cultural value.

For citizens of the Federation (esp humans) it is generally inconceivable that society would just let some people fall away and go without. Witness the reaction of Sisko and Bashir to conditions in early 21st century America in Past Tense:

From part I:

Bashir: Causing people to suffer because you hate them is terrible, but causing people to suffer because you have forgotten how to care... that's really hard to understand.

From part 2:

Bashir: There is one thing I don't understand, how could they have let things get so bad?
Sisko: That's a good question, Doctor, I wish I had an answer.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I am amazed at attitudes such as some of those expressed previously. For people who preach the Federation credo of tolerance and diversity, it seems a shame that there apparently is no room in their "diversity" for the divine.

Technology has an advantage in that it can solve practical problems and therefore eliminate a negative (like greed, poverty)

Religion (in the right context) has an advantage in that it can influence large groups of people, to be selfless, kind, tolerant, polite, etc.

The question of whether religion contributed to the Trek paradise/utopia is the million dollar question.

For some of the characters, the answer seems to be no. Every time they speak of how our society transformed, they almost always omit any mention of religion.

Doesn't it seem like they go out of their way to avoid it? In one TOS episode, a Fed observer wanting to help a planet in trouble, gives them nazi ideology literature to solve their social problems!

Not the bible, not "How to improve your relationships and make friends in 3 hours", not Buddhist philosophy.

Ironically, the bible might have had a better impact.

That seems to be the writer's, and the character's position on the matter.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The costs are very small but not zero. You gotta produce the replicator, its output rate is limited and energy production is not totally costless either. Deuterium is limited and while solar engery, which might be used to synthesize antimatter, is not solar panels probably still are.

Actually, producing a replicator is equally cheap, you just program one replicator to produce another one, or at least all the parts for one that you can then snap together in its final configuration. That would mean that labor related jobs aren't involved, but you've still got to pay the engineers who design new replicator models and upgrades and develop the assembly programs that allow one replicator to build a new one.

On the other hand, replicators don't work on "pure energy" as is commonly believed, they require a source material to be re-patterned into the finished product. That source material still has to come from SOMEWHERE, and in food-producing replicators it probably has to be processed and worked over first from raw ingredients to get to a condition where the replicators can work with it. That wouldn't be a very huge industry, though; a few relatively small companies could probably take care of that all by themselves.

So I think the idea that people in the 24th century work because they love it, be it Sisko the cook, Picard the vinemaker or Ensign Whatever the Starfleet officer, is not as lunatic and utopian as many people think it is. We well not end up like Wells' Eloi, we want to do something useful in our lives.

Look at it in terms of Maslow's Hierarchy. Through replicator technology and an abundance of energy they can meet everyone's physiological needs on the cheap; comparatively speaking, it would cost each person a couple of cents a day to meet all their nutritional needs and needs of clothing, food and shelter. No scarcity there, everyone is secure. Next is the issue of safety; Earth has eliminated war and crime is apparently very rare, so safety isn't an issue either: Tier 2, everyone is secure. Above safety is love and belonging with friends and peers; arguably, the Federation is VERY concerned with this since they've even started including psychiatrists on the command staff of their exploration vessels. Mental health and relationship counseling is probably pretty big on Earth, so I think it's safe to say Tier 3 is secure.

So that just leaves esteem: confidence in yourself and high regard by others, personal honor and reputation. When you look back down the hierarchy, you see that only the first tier is a big employer of people under normal circumstances, while security (police officers, Starfleet) and belonging (counselors/psychiatrists) have their own niches. At the end of the day, though, when you don't need a huge labor force just to feed and clothe everyone, you can let people find work that lets them seek the approval and recognition of everyone around them, both for their own esteem and that of their colleagues. For a man who has everything else he could ever need, that would quickly become the most powerful driving force in his life, so much so that the recognition of his abilities and his hard work would of the utmost importance to him.

It's not doing what they "love" to do as much as doing what they think they will be good at and what they will receive recognition for doing. The driving force in their lives becomes the overall success in their careers in and of itself, not because success equals more money (it no longer does) but because it is the only psychological need they have yet to fulfill.

 

[JQP]

This thread is pretty hilarious. People arguing that utopian communism can work because "look how much better my TeeVee utopia is than your reality!" Holy shit.

 

[Sci]

This thread is pretty hilarious. People arguing that utopian communism can work because "look how much better my TeeVee utopia is than your reality!" Holy shit.

At the end of the day, the question of how to create a social system that's a significant improvement on what we have today and meets Trek's basic enumerated standards (world unity, equality, no war, no poverty, no disease, an end to racism, an end to sexism, an end to bigotry and prejudice) is a question about what you, as an individual, value, and what political, economic, and social systems you, as an individual, want to see.

 

[horatio83]

No, it is not, that's postmodern "every story is right" nonsense. Trek pretty clearly indicates that the society is neither pre-modern, fascist or anarcho-capitalist.

 

[Sci]

No, it is not, that's postmodern "every story is right" nonsense.

No, it's not. It's an acknowledgment that when you ask people how to build a great society, you're going to get a lot of different answers based on their values.

 

[horatio83]

Of course you will get different answers when you ask that question. But not all of these answers will match with Trek. Many will as Trek is sufficiently diffuse about the issue but not all will.

 

[The Castellan]

Ian Keldon, suppression of the advancement of science was a constant policy for christianity, islamism, etc.
And encouragement of scientific advancement was utterly lacking in any religion.

This generalization is factually wrong. While Christianity prevented scientific advances during the Middle Ages science flourished in the Islamic world around 1000.
I don't wanna imply anything by the way as the religion-science debates don't interest me, I merely wanna correct the facts.

And the fact is that that knowledge was brought back to Europe by Christian monks and the rebirth of learning that it touched off led to the invention of the university in it's modern form and the end of Augustinian detachment in favor of more science-based engagement with the real world.

The Church has always had an uneasy relationship with science, as the two have very disparate perviews that nonetheless impact on one another.

The simplistic "church bad/science good" narrative put forth by the anti-religious/secular crowd is an absolutely unwarranted broad-brush, as is the notion that religious faith has nothing to offer mankind in an age of science.

Science and technology have turned man into a force capable of either great benificence or great harm. In the face of that, religion is even MORE important as a check on the hubris of fallable, mortal man.

I am amazed at attitudes such as some of those expressed previously. For people who preach the Federation credo of tolerance and diversity, it seems a shame that there apparently is no room in their "diversity" for the divine.

Well, if it makes you feel better, the mainstream religious and scientific communities are both quite dogmatic. Both sides would rather bite off their own tongues and swallow it, rather than say they are wrong, or coexist.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

The islamic world preserved greek knowledge; it had original thinkers, but they were few.
It didn't even reach the heights attained by the greco-roman antiquity or by the chinese, for example.

And all the above pale by comparison to the renaissance, when the scientific method was invented - all previous versions of the scientific method (if one can call them that) were inferior (for example, the greeks used only logic, no experiments - and made mistakes).
Of course, there were other factors at work which gave birth to the scientific revolution and the enlightenment - but they're beyond the scope of this discussion.

If I remember correctly the algorithm so solve quadratic equations was invented by a fellow who lived during the Golden Age of Islam. I'd say this qualifies as original thinking. It's not like the old Greeks already figured out everything and there is a Western bias that makes us ignore Islamic scholars as we prefer the Eurocentric version of an unbroken thread straight from Ancient Greece to Rome to Europe and the Enlightenment.
Or think about English words. Everybody knows that sympathy has a Greek and compassion a Latin source but that alcohol has an Arabic source is fairly unknown.

horatio83, do you really want me to enumerate some of the most important renaissance inventions/discoveries and see how they compare (highly favorably, in both importance and number) with what the arabs discovered in hundreds of years (mainly in mathematics and optics)?

About the bias vs western civilisation:
The most important historical development of the last 500 years was the rise of western civilisation - in wealth and power, scientific acumen and liberty, beyond any other civilisation before it.
You can call it bias all you want - that's a clear historical fact, despite the politically correct trend these days to belittle these achievements of western civilisation - achievements which spilled over much of the rest of the world.

Yep, you'd have to list them to convince me that the Arabs achieved nothing. You'd also have to point out in what way the Arab rediscovering of Antiquity is inferior to the Christian rediscovering of it, usually labelled Renaissance. You'd also have to explain to me why we use words like algebra and algorithm.
And above all you would have to stop pretending that you are a victim of political correctness whenever somebody dares to point out to you that Europe has never been a fortress. Seriously, we talk about what how we could hypothetically make it from here towards the fictional future of Trek and you come with all this tribal BS.

First of all - you're using straw-men.
I said the arab's achievements pale by comparison to the renaissance's, NOT that they didn't exist.

Second - we use words such as algebra and algorithm because, among the relatively few arab advancements, most were in mathematics and optics.

Third - the fact that you refuse to acknowledge even the historically obvious fact that the renaissance and enlightenment achieved FAR more than the arab culture in a FAR shorter time proves you have the agenda of furthering your propaganda without caring for what actually happened.
The fact that your brand of propaganda is fashionable these days, the politically-correct standard, matters little - many propagandists before you thought their deformed truths or outright lies would bring a greater good; they were proven wrong.

BTW, the renaissance's discovery and further development of antiquity's knowledge is better than the arab preservation of it because:
In only ~300 years since the reanissance&enlightenment, you can sit here, typing on a computer (an ability beyond the dreams of previous generations), with a standard of living FAR HIGHER than in any past human civilization, with high longevity practically a birthright (another first), one of many who are taught to criticize your civilization (yet another first), or to throw a tantrum/be revolted over human rights abuse halfway around the world (you guessed it - a first), etc.

This generalization is factually wrong. While Christianity prevented scientific advances during the Middle Ages science flourished in the Islamic world around 1000.
I don't wanna imply anything by the way as the religion-science debates don't interest me, I merely wanna correct the facts.

And the fact is that that knowledge was brought back to Europe by Christian monks and the rebirth of learning that it touched off led to the invention of the university in it's modern form and the end of Augustinian detachment in favor of more science-based engagement with the real world.

"About the preservation of roman books - the church did that, yes, but not because it had a plan to revive the ancient material sciences; the church viewed all such earthly matters as irrelevant. The books just happened to be in their libraries.
Greek knowledge was reacquired via arab translations, not due to the church - at most, you can argue that a few of many translators were monks."

The renaissance (including the invention of the university, etc) happened in spite of the church, not because of it.

 

[horatio83]

Last time I checked Bill Gates had more to do with the computer than Leonardo da Vinci. Last time I checked plenty of people in the Arab world went onto the streets to topple their corrupt leaders.
That European guys came up with the Enlightenment is obvious but so what? Doesn't mean that that nobody before or after them used their brains ... and as much as I like enlightenment, it didn't merely bring us democracy and human rights but also the concentration camp and the Gulag. Anybody who thinks that one thing alone in this world can save us from our own wickedness is delusional.

I am an opponent of political correctness. So when somebody calls me politically correct it can only be a right-winger who uses anti PC to cloud his racism. Keep your Islamophobia where it belongs to, in that sick racist head of yours.

 

[Count Zero]

Let's get back to the original topic before it further derails into personal attacks.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Yep, you'd have to list them to convince me that the Arabs achieved nothing. You'd also have to point out in what way the Arab rediscovering of Antiquity is inferior to the Christian rediscovering of it, usually labelled Renaissance. You'd also have to explain to me why we use words like algebra and algorithm.
And above all you would have to stop pretending that you are a victim of political correctness whenever somebody dares to point out to you that Europe has never been a fortress. Seriously, we talk about what how we could hypothetically make it from here towards the fictional future of Trek and you come with all this tribal BS.

First of all - you're using straw-men.
I said the arab's achievements pale by comparison to the renaissance's, NOT that they didn't exist.

Second - we use words such as algebra and algorithm because, among the relatively few arab advancements, most were in mathematics and optics.

Third - the fact that you refuse to acknowledge even the historically obvious fact that the renaissance and enlightenment achieved FAR more than the arab culture in a FAR shorter time proves you have the agenda of furthering your propaganda without caring for what actually happened.
The fact that your brand of propaganda is fashionable these days, the politically-correct standard, matters little - many propagandists before you thought their deformed truths or outright lies would bring a greater good; they were proven wrong.

BTW, the renaissance's discovery and further development of antiquity's knowledge is better than the arab preservation of it because:
In only ~300 years since the reanissance&enlightenment, you can sit here, typing on a computer (an ability beyond the dreams of previous generations), with a standard of living FAR HIGHER than in any past human civilization, with high longevity practically a birthright (another first), one of many who are taught to criticize your civilization (yet another first), or to throw a tantrum/be revolted over human rights abuse halfway around the world (you guessed it - a first), etc.

Last time I checked Bill Gates had more to do with the computer than Leonardo da Vinci. Last time I checked plenty of people in the Arab world went onto the streets to topple their corrupt leaders.
That European guys came up with the Enlightenment is obvious but so what? Doesn't mean that that nobody before or after them used their brains ... and as much as I like enlightenment, it didn't merely bring us democracy and human rights but also the concentration camp and the Gulag. Anybody who thinks that one thing alone in this world can save us from our own wickedness is delusional.

I am an opponent of political correctness. So when somebody calls me politically correct it can only be a right-winger who uses anti PC to cloud his racism. Keep your Islamophobia where it belongs to, in that sick racist head of yours.

Name-calling, eh? As expected from the propaganda of a mr. cult-leader wanna-be - when you run out of arguments.
Read my signature.

Also, read a history book. Not that it'll improve your willfully garbage knowledge of history.

And try to be more subtle in covering up your phobias - and, yes, racism (you're FAR too determined to drag through the mud western civilization despite historical facts; and FAR too violent in doing so).

PS: You saying that political correctness - with its biases exacerbated - is not your religion is like you saying your username is not 'horatio83'.
That it is, is glaringly obvious in your posts.

 

[Count Zero]

All right, I'm closing this before I have to hand out any warnings. If you want to discuss today's and real world politics do so in Miscellaneous or TNZ but not in here.