Yes, but what Pevonis said was he wanted to to be able to walk to work, personal preference. Not that he want to be able to beam there.
So, our hypothetical 24th century citizen wants a penthouse suite with a view of the Eiffel Tower and is located within walking distance of his or her workplace. That's a lot of constraints. Even Bill Gates would have some trouble finding a place that filled all those requirements.
With or without money, our hypothetical 24th century citizen would have to decide
which of these desires were most important, and sacrifice one or more of them. Money isn't the issue at all in this case.
In the 24th century, the easiest thing to do would be to let go of the constraint of having the Eiffel Tower view from home. Paris could be easily reached by transporter. Of course, that does assume transporters are available to the public.
In the DS9 episode Explorers, Sisko states that he used to visit his father back in New Orleans so often, he burned through a month's worth of "transporter credits". Plus, transporters seem to be relatively restricted technology, considering how it can be used to violate one's privacy rather easily.
I see. When I watched that episode, I took it to mean that Academy students were restricted in their movements, because they're not allowed to leave campus freely and randomly, that it was teaching them a form of discipline. If cadets can beam from San Francisco to New Orleans every night for dinner, they're going to have quite a shock when assigned to deep space vessels and can't go home to daddy every night for a meal. It's a form of adaptation to Starfleet service.
As for privacy, again, that's a cultural issue that we may not agree with or understand. Beaming directly into a stranger's living room may be
possible but considered extremely rude or perhaps even illegal.
I'll grant that 100% of the transporter activity depicted in Trek was Starfleet related. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a civilian-related transporter scene. Maybe I'm just missing one.
Still, I think it is incumbent on us to find a good justification for why civilians wouldn't be allowed to use transporters while Starfleet is - it would have some serious implications for the culture of Earth in the 24th century. Civilians can't be allowed to roam freely - they have to be restricted in their movements?
Plus, I think there are hovercars seen to be used in a few episodes throughout the franchise.
I recall seeing exactly one hovercar in the 24th century, in the episode "All Good Things", on the campus of Cambridge University. Sure, they may be ubiquitous, and that's fine. There's probably more than one way to get around in the 24th century. But if the choice is between driving several hours and transporting in a few seconds, which would you choose?
I think in First Contact, once Picard sees "Borgified" Earth, they state there is a population of 9 billion Borg on the planet at the time.
That's not really an informative statement about the Earth's
current population, though; when Data made that statement, the Borg had assimilated Earth in the 21st century. By the 24th century, they could've bred or imported billions more people. It doesn't tell us anything about how many people are on Earth in the 2370s.
Plus, like I stated earlier, I figured, and I think it is reasonable to believe that the use of transporters is not something that can be used constantly by all individuals. You are correct that we don't know what might be desirable to civilians in the 24th century, but it can still be assumed plenty of people would enjoy having a home along the ocean, or in view of a major landmark.
If transporters aren't used widely or constantly, I've not heard a good argument for that situation. It strikes me as having serious implications for the freedoms of civilians in the 24th century. It would hardly be a paradise if people can't move around as they choose.
How would you figure out "reputation" meters for something like that? Sounds almost like a video game, haha. Anyway, the issue I see with that is that there will be plenty of people who conduct moral, but indiscreet lives. The teachers, doctors, engineers, artists, etc. that are perfectly good at their jobs, but they're not famous by any means, like Picard might be to the Federation as a whole.
Actually, it sounds like social networking. Everyone can know anyone else, anywhere, through social media nowadays. The world grows smaller all the time. Of course, social media is not something we've seen in Trek, but then we're
way outside of canon at this point. The economics of the future have barely been described or depicted, and usually only in negative terms (it doesn't have money, it's "different").
We have that now, through television and radio. Millions of people watch sporting events, like the Olympics, or artistic events like musical concerts. Yet, even with this low-cost ability to view such events, people still fill stadiums and amphitheaters to view them live. I don't see that changing in the future.
Right, and people still will fill stadiums to see things live. I'm not saying there can't be a way to regulate and accommodate the distribution of scarce items, like seats to the Klingon Shakespeare. I'm just saying the people of Trek may have different rules for determining how they're distributed. Now, something like Olympic stadium seats are allocated based on the willingness of people to pay the price for the ticket. In the future, though, the "price" may be a relentless streak of generosity, or notoriety in a particular field, or lottery.
Instead of chasing down material wealth, the people of the 24th century could be competing for the things that we can
buy now - status, fame, respect. How do we earn these things now? By trying to get rich, by trying to get people's attention, by working in fields that are financially lucrative. OK, so what if what is "lucrative" changes? What if to gain social status, you have to donate time to charity, or to write amazing plays, or to serve in Starfleet? If money isn't the goal anymore, but the positive view of the fellow humans and their respect, then how would things change?
I'm not saying I would find these types of changes a positive thing, or that we can do something like this now, or ever. What I'm trying to do is work within the canon of Star Trek. We can dismiss claims that "money doesn't exist", saying they're wrong or false or lies, but why? Warp drive, transporters, and human-alien hybrids are equally
scientifically outlandish, but we accept them within the framework of the story, and even work hard to fit certain inconsistencies in, because these are features of Star Trek. If we dismiss them as impossible or outlandish, then we're saying we don't like Star Trek. Why dismiss the social side of the science fiction setting of Star Trek if we can accept these outrageous violations of physics and biology?
Does a moneyless society really break our imaginations where warp drive doesn't?
