@Destructor ^^ We're probably not going to agree on a whole lot here. You're making a moral argument based on the belief that I'm championing capitalism and its future immutability. (I'm not) I wrote that post while battling insomnia one night so I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be. An actual economist could give a better explanation, I study political science which is a related field but I don't have that sort of grasp on economic theory. I'll take a stab at it again though. Basically my argument is that the utopian moneyless Star Trek economy could never work. Not because the idea is ideologicaly abhorrent to me or I believe that people are inherently evil, but because the future portrayed in Star Trek would still be governed by the basic principles of economics.
Let's start with Replicators. The only way they could conceivably work is by utilizing a supply of simple materials, I would think elements (carbon, hydrogen, iron etc..). From these, molecules are synthesized and combined to form macroscopic objects. It would be impossible to simply start with energy and covert it directly into matter and vice-versa. While it’s theoretically possible due to mass-energy equivalency, the amount of energy involved would be astronomical. There is more energy locked away in the atoms of a few ounces of ordinary matter than is released by the most powerful nuclear weapons.
So this leaves us with the idea that the materials used by replicators would still need to be mined/harvested. This means that while replicators could greatly increase the level of affluence, they would not eliminate scarcity. They are not magical fountains of goods, they are dependent on resources with a finite supply. Think of them like advanced factories. The elements used by replicators would therefore have a relative value in relation to each other based on supply and demand. Also, the goods produced by replicators would by extension have a finite supply and a value based on that of their inputs. These goods would have to be distributed in one of only two possible ways. The Federation would have to ration them or they would have a monetary price.
Money is both a store of value and a medium of exchange and it is much harder to do away with than people suppose. It is a representation of goods and services via its purchasing power. Even the command communist economies of the 20th Century found that they needed money to function. Even if the Federation strictly adhered to a socialist utopian model and rationed out replicator privileges in a perfectly equal way to all citizens, the ration credits themselves would become a form of money. People would trade them amongst themselves for other things they wanted such as non-replicated food, a larger house or time in a holodeck. Everyone could be guaranteed a high level of affluence by today’s standards but there would still be relative wealth and poverty. Economics is based on the concept that humans have unlimited wants but limited means and this would still be true in the future portrayed in Star Trek.
This brings me to my second point. Humanity is not on some progressive march towards greater morality and what we view as moral progression is really the result of concrete political and economic processes that have played out through our history. For example slavery really ended because agriculture became far less labor intensive due to industrialization by the mid 1800’s. Saying everyone in the future is nobler and altruistic only carries you so far. Did the poor shlubs waiting tables and washings dishes at Sisko’s restaurant really wake up one morning and say “I want to preform menial labor for the rest of my life because it’s what I enjoy and it will better humanity”? Why does grandpa Sisko get to own a restaurant instead of them? Can’t they all own restaurants? No, because it would be a waste of resources, which I established are finite.
People will do some very cool things for no monetary reward but it will only go so far. On an individual scale, people may enjoy their work but if it is on a purely volunteer basis what motivation do they have for showing up day in and day out and doing the best job possible. Wouldn’t everyone just work when they feel like it and spend most of the week in a holodeck? Think of how 90% of fan made efforts fall apart before they are ever finished, especially video games. The team members have good intentions but there aren’t any consequences for simply giving up and walking away. What compels the sods who work for Sisko to come in on time every day so the place can run smoothly?
A moneyless society would make an impossible mess out the division of labor. In our world if there is a shortage of people in a certain profession, let’s say plumbers, the wage for that profession will increase encouraging more people to be trained as plumbers until the wage begins to fall. In a moneyless Star Trek future no such mechanism would exist. People would either try to crowd into popular professions or not work at all. The result would be chronic shortages in key professions. On top of that, the people actually preforming vital labor would (as a previously mentioned) have no real compulsion to show up to work.
Karl Marx argued that modern advancements are driven by the quest of the owners of the means of production to obtain ever increasing surplus values. Technological process is fundamentally about increasing efficiency and productivity. Without financial incentive in some form the basic progress of society would stall and the economy would become bloated and inefficient. Not because people are evil but because the fundamental motivation is not there.
What would be left is a degenerate, barely functional society lorded over by bureaucrats who parcel out resources to the masses, not the well-ordered and progressive humanity shown in Star Trek.
Let's start with Replicators. The only way they could conceivably work is by utilizing a supply of simple materials, I would think elements (carbon, hydrogen, iron etc..). From these, molecules are synthesized and combined to form macroscopic objects. It would be impossible to simply start with energy and covert it directly into matter and vice-versa. While it’s theoretically possible due to mass-energy equivalency, the amount of energy involved would be astronomical. There is more energy locked away in the atoms of a few ounces of ordinary matter than is released by the most powerful nuclear weapons.
So this leaves us with the idea that the materials used by replicators would still need to be mined/harvested. This means that while replicators could greatly increase the level of affluence, they would not eliminate scarcity. They are not magical fountains of goods, they are dependent on resources with a finite supply. Think of them like advanced factories. The elements used by replicators would therefore have a relative value in relation to each other based on supply and demand. Also, the goods produced by replicators would by extension have a finite supply and a value based on that of their inputs. These goods would have to be distributed in one of only two possible ways. The Federation would have to ration them or they would have a monetary price.
Money is both a store of value and a medium of exchange and it is much harder to do away with than people suppose. It is a representation of goods and services via its purchasing power. Even the command communist economies of the 20th Century found that they needed money to function. Even if the Federation strictly adhered to a socialist utopian model and rationed out replicator privileges in a perfectly equal way to all citizens, the ration credits themselves would become a form of money. People would trade them amongst themselves for other things they wanted such as non-replicated food, a larger house or time in a holodeck. Everyone could be guaranteed a high level of affluence by today’s standards but there would still be relative wealth and poverty. Economics is based on the concept that humans have unlimited wants but limited means and this would still be true in the future portrayed in Star Trek.
This brings me to my second point. Humanity is not on some progressive march towards greater morality and what we view as moral progression is really the result of concrete political and economic processes that have played out through our history. For example slavery really ended because agriculture became far less labor intensive due to industrialization by the mid 1800’s. Saying everyone in the future is nobler and altruistic only carries you so far. Did the poor shlubs waiting tables and washings dishes at Sisko’s restaurant really wake up one morning and say “I want to preform menial labor for the rest of my life because it’s what I enjoy and it will better humanity”? Why does grandpa Sisko get to own a restaurant instead of them? Can’t they all own restaurants? No, because it would be a waste of resources, which I established are finite.
People will do some very cool things for no monetary reward but it will only go so far. On an individual scale, people may enjoy their work but if it is on a purely volunteer basis what motivation do they have for showing up day in and day out and doing the best job possible. Wouldn’t everyone just work when they feel like it and spend most of the week in a holodeck? Think of how 90% of fan made efforts fall apart before they are ever finished, especially video games. The team members have good intentions but there aren’t any consequences for simply giving up and walking away. What compels the sods who work for Sisko to come in on time every day so the place can run smoothly?
A moneyless society would make an impossible mess out the division of labor. In our world if there is a shortage of people in a certain profession, let’s say plumbers, the wage for that profession will increase encouraging more people to be trained as plumbers until the wage begins to fall. In a moneyless Star Trek future no such mechanism would exist. People would either try to crowd into popular professions or not work at all. The result would be chronic shortages in key professions. On top of that, the people actually preforming vital labor would (as a previously mentioned) have no real compulsion to show up to work.
Karl Marx argued that modern advancements are driven by the quest of the owners of the means of production to obtain ever increasing surplus values. Technological process is fundamentally about increasing efficiency and productivity. Without financial incentive in some form the basic progress of society would stall and the economy would become bloated and inefficient. Not because people are evil but because the fundamental motivation is not there.
What would be left is a degenerate, barely functional society lorded over by bureaucrats who parcel out resources to the masses, not the well-ordered and progressive humanity shown in Star Trek.
Last edited:
