Okay, so I was thinking about the nature of property in Star Trek (really the 24th century version rather than TOS) I've posted this article before about Marxism in Trek and I came to wonder about the perhaps oppressive nature of Trek society with regard to property. Obviously real estate on Earth is a limited resource. If you wanted to live on earth, you would need somewhere to live. But without money, and no pay (they all serve in starfleet to 'better themselves') this presumably must be allocated to you. How do you get a bigger house? Choose where to live? And how about if a house has been in your family for decades? Will the government take it away from you and give it to someone else? How are these limited resources allocated without money? How can you know that anything you possess won't be taken away by the sinister Federation government in the name of 'the greater good'? Wouldn't this be an invitation for corruption since only political forces can allocate resources rather than a free market? What do you guys think? Would you be happy giving up all your possessions - including those of sentimental value - for some vague notion of self-betterment?
Im not sure you'd have to give up all your possessions. The Picard Vineyards have apparently been in that family for several generation before United Earth, and Archer's Starfleet from what I recall. Although I could be wrong about that. I believe there are other examples of property staying in a family for a long time, can anyone else think of any?
That bar in Marseille that Tom liked during his academy days and recreated it on the holodeck. He mentioned that the bar was owned by the same family for centuries. And where was it said that real estate was a limited resource? We've seen a lot of greenery on 24th Century Earth, and the population probably has stabilized by then.
Thing is about the Picard Vineyards is that how do they justify taking those resources over several generations when no one else can just buy thier own vineyards? There are only two options I see - either give up the vineyards or allow others to buy thier own vineyards. Who wouldn't want thier own vineyards in France! Personally I think it would be unfair to have to give up property held over several generations.
How is that so? What's keeping them from building a new apartment complex? WE have more than enough room for the homeless around the world, just as we have enough food to feed them...
Well maybe I'd rather have a vineyard than a crappy apartment in Siberia! There are only so many with views over the Eiffel Tower or Central Park.
Actually, all you need for a view over the Eiffel Tower is a holographic window, and a transporter that gets you to whichever part of Paris you prefer for your evening stroll. Supposedly, the futuristic Trek economy is based on the idea that poverty, that is, lack of things, has been eradicated. Why not argue that lack of land has been eradicated right along with lack of food or lack of transportation or lack of computing time or lack of warmth? Replicators provide food, clothing and so forth, probably at such a ridiculously low price that there's no harm in setting the price to a flat zero. Replicators don't provide transportation, though - that's solved differently, probably largely by teleportation machines. Lack of real estate could also quite plausibly be solved "differently". Obvious alternatives would come in two categories: 1) Introduce more land that is usable and attractive. 2) Reduce the population. The former could be accomplished by terraforming places like Siberia or Sahara, or by creating colonies on other planets and moons. The latter could be accomplished by limiting the birth rate, or by creating colonies on other planets and moons. We know the second half of these solutions is taking place in Star Trek at full throttle. We also know that the means exist for accomplishing the first halves. The question would mainly be one of political and popular will to undertake the first-half measures. Would people of the Trek future insist on having eleven children, or would they agree to have just one or two? Well, small families ARE the onscreen norm. Would people allow all of Siberia be transformed into the Medierranean coast? Probably not, as environmentalism seems to be a big deal in the UFP, and wilderness is greatly appreciated by our heroes, villains and bystanders alike. But a combination of the two measures, with the emphasis on birth control, would render the real estate allocation problems fairly irrelevant. Timo Saloniemi
Since there is probably 100% effective birth control there are no unintended children and interstellar travel for the masses has drawn a lot of the population elsewhere. I would imagine the demand for land is not especially significant. With 6 billion today there are still vast amounts of pristine land. Since traveling between cities and continents is inconsequential, perhaps there would be more 'rural' residents.
Thing is one of the main reasons people don't have many children in the industrialised countries today is because the money required to raise them is excessive, and they cannot contribute economically to the family in a way that is the case in agricultural societies. In the Trek universe, the financial problems associated with children no longer exist. People could have as many children as they want. Why should the governemnt restrain that wish? Like communist China? Look at what happened there! And anyway it is against some people's religion and it is certainly not the Trek way to force someone to go against thier beliefs - since humans appear not to be very religious this could apply to other species in the Federation. And anyway having a holodeck recreation of views over Central park is not the same as the real thing. After all, it is the real thing that is the resource, and there are limitations to holographic technology. Anyway, it would be like putting a board of manhatten outside your window. It may look like you are there, but you're not. So none of that solves the inherent problem - how do they allocate the scarce rescource of desirable propery on earth?
We don't know what the population of Earth is in the 24th century. As other people have argued between birth control, colonies everywhere, and staff on starships the population living on Earth could be much smaller than it is today. And who wants to run a vineyard in France when everyone drinks replicated wine and you could run a vineyard on Risa? The only thing about commuting patterns we know is that Starfleet cadets have transporter rations that Sisko used going to New Orleans when he first entered the Academy.
In TNG there are at least two cases dealing with unplanned pregnancies. First, the episode "Reunion" establishes that K'Ehleyr and Worf conceived Alexander during their liaison in the episode "The Emissary." Second, in the episode "Bloodlines" Picard admits to a physical relationship with Miranda Vigo and that it was a possibility that he fathered her son Jason. While Jason Vigo turns out not to be Picard's son; it does not change the fact that the possibility had been there. Warmest Wishes, Whoa Nellie
My last post was only intended to demonstrate demand may not be a serious issue. Although it is not well explored, ownership still seems to exist in the Federation, which is the central issue here. I would suspect documents such as property deeds still exist in some fashion. Without currency, there would be some other means of transferring ownership... not sure what though.
Also with regard to the family issue...I have to think that even without people being very religious, that if money is no longer an object, there may still be families that have a preference for more children. Just because we haven't seen larger families (especially since we've seen space station/starship environments that aren't that conducive to it) doesn't mean they're not out there.
The reverse would also be true. There will be those people who will opt to have no children at all. I'm sure the feds have freedom of choice for most things. People there are educated enough to make the right choices without the government dictating to them.
Miranda could have wanted a kid, and thus sabotaged any birth control methods used by whoever Jason's father was.
Hmmm, I can't remember any large families being mentioned among humans (not that my memory is a perfect guide), but didn't Tuvok have five kids?
Surprised nobody's mentioned this. In DS9 Kassidy's pregnancy was unplanned because 'someone' forgot their monthly birth control shot (or whatever it was). Interesting scene. It seems to show birth control is pretty convenient so unplanned pregnancies should be low. But apparently Kassidy wasn't taking birth control which could indicate it's up to the male to take care of it. In that case, unplanned pregnancies should be sky high because Sisko himself demonstrated how unreliable knucleheaded males can be. I'm sure you ladies out there would agree with me Robert
Birth control likely depends on the people themselves. Unexpected pregnancies occur likely because people forgot they have to take regular shots/pills/whatever. It's just human behavior. The tech works ... biological individuals were the ones messing it up.