Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

[T'Girl]

The problem is, we have plenty of examples this flat out is not true in RL from people who are rich yet continue to work ...

Work for free? Some might volunteer their efforts for a charity, but when they work, they're still being paid aren't they?

... and people who are taken care of by socialist governments yet continue to work.

Again, are these people you speak of working at employment with no compensation?

Not hobbies, not volunteering, actual jobs.

The thing is, many times arguers don't rebuttle these points, they flat out ignore them.

Okay, I just now responded. Your turn.

If a person gets lazy and decides he doesn't want to work, would society cut off his food?

If it was society that was providing his food in the first place, maybe they would be cut back to good basic (really basic) nutritious food and clean water only. If they wish more than that, they can obtain employment somewhere.

Evict him from his home?

If it's his house? Not simply for not working, although in time he might lose it, mortgage and taxes.

On the other hand, if the house was being provided to him in exchange for the work he is now no longer performing, then a bed down at the local shelter can be allocated to him until he reacquires another job.

If he is not contributing, is his life worth supporting?

A minimum social safety net is reasonable, but it should never be so comfortable that people would desire to remain on it.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Work for free? Some might volunteer their efforts for a charity, but when they work, they're still being paid aren't they?

At a charity?

No.

Again, are these people you speak of working at employment with no compensation?

Not hobbies, not volunteering, actual jobs.

Internships.

 

[Third Nacelle]

Just looking across this thread it's quite clear to me that a number of people would work for nothing, just to better themselves.

It also seems a large number of people would not work at all without compensation, and while that would be a big problem here in 2013, with the level of automation the Federation seems to have in the 23rd/24th centuries, those people probably would not be needed to work in that era.

So why is everyone so concerned with convincing these people to work?

 

[marksound]

The problem is, we have plenty of examples this flat out is not true in RL from people who are rich yet continue to work ...

Work for free? Some might volunteer their efforts for a charity, but when they work, they're still being paid aren't they?

... and people who are taken care of by socialist governments yet continue to work.

Again, are these people you speak of working at employment with no compensation?

Not hobbies, not volunteering, actual jobs.

Okay, I just now responded. Your turn.

If it was society that was providing his food in the first place, maybe they would be cut back to good basic (really basic) nutritious food and clean water only. If they wish more than that, they can obtain employment somewhere.

Evict him from his home?

If it's his house? Not simply for not working, although in time he might lose it, mortgage and taxes.

On the other hand, if the house was being provided to him in exchange for the work he is now no longer performing, then a bed down at the local shelter can be allocated to him until he reacquires another job.

If he is not contributing, is his life worth supporting?

A minimum social safety net is reasonable, but it should never be so comfortable that people would desire to remain on it.

You stopped before the last part, which is inevitable in a "progressive" society. It has been proposed before. It has been done before. It will be done again unless we are aware of it and prevent it. I see the attitude here in these fora, just in discussion about a freaking tv/movie franchise. Read what people post, and tell me it isn't so.

Work for free? Some might volunteer their efforts for a charity, but when they work, they're still being paid aren't they?

At a charity?

No.

Again, are these people you speak of working at employment with no compensation?

Not hobbies, not volunteering, actual jobs.

Internships.

Unpaid internships are volunteer work programs. People work for no pay in order to gain experience in their desired field so they may enter that field, for pay, with the gained experience.

Recently there have been lawsuits filed by people who have gained experience through unpaid internships who now want to be compensated for that work.

These people apparently place no value on the time spent learning how to work in their field. This will eventually kill the internship opportunities available, since companies won't want to be exposed to possible litigation.

But back to the topic ...

 

[Charles Phipps]

Unpaid internships are volunteer work programs. People work for no pay in order to gain experience in their desired field so they may enter that field, for pay, with the gained experience.

Recently there have been lawsuits filed by people who have gained experience through unpaid internships who now want to be compensated for that work.

These people apparently place no value on the time spent learning how to work in their field. This will eventually kill the internship opportunities available, since companies won't want to be exposed to possible litigation.

But back to the topic ...

So what would qualify as an unpaid job to you?

And the aforementioned people who violate the contract don't invalidate it.

 

[yousirname]

Work for free? Some might volunteer their efforts for a charity, but when they work, they're still being paid aren't they?

At a charity?

No.

Just to say, many people who work for charities are paid for the work they do (I am, for example).

 

[sonak]

Bluntly, part of why I dislike this argument is that many times the individuals involved fall back on "The Couch Potato" argument which exists solely to serve his own needs and will exist as a drain on society unless motivated by fear of starvation.

The problem is, we have plenty of examples this flat out is not true in RL from people who are rich yet continue to work and people who are taken care of by socialist governments yet continue to work.

The thing is, many times arguers don't rebuttle these points, they flat out ignore them. This page is filled with mentions of these various RL incidents and the pro-money group's response is, "People won't work if they're not paid." It's like none of these things are even mentioned.

I'm a proponent of capitalism in RL but even I think people are SLIGHTLY more complex than this.

I think you're wrong.

In real life, there is no scenario I've ever seen where this works.

If no one volunteers to do a particularly nasty but necessary job, who would assign someone to do it against his will?

If a person gets lazy and decides he doesn't want to work, would society cut off his food? Evict him from his home? If he is not contributing, is his life worth supporting? Then what? Exterminate the non-contributors and the undesirables?

Don't think it hasn't been proposed. George Bernard Shaw said, "Sir or madam, will you be kind enough to justify your existence?" Look into the early 20th century progressive movement, including eugenics. Yes, eugenics.

It's crazy, but it's true. How many people right here on this forum would eventually agree with a proposal like that if it meant not having to deal with people who don't think the way they do? People like me?

er, you do realize that there are millions of people that don't work AT THIS VERY MOMENT who get support through welfare, right?

So WHY, in a post-scarcity future, where there's LESS NEED for work, would there be pressure to "get rid of those not contributing?" That makes no sense. I suspect that those who voluntarily chose not to work would be greeted with shrugs, since everyone would have enough resources to go around.


As to the "who does the crappy jobs?" argument, it's an easily taken care of one. Either technology would eliminate the need for those jobs, or they'd be rotated on a fair and democratic basis.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

As to the "who does the crappy jobs?" argument, it's an easily taken care of one. Either technology would eliminate the need for those jobs, or they'd be rotated on a fair and democratic basis.

There would be a roster on the fridge.

I'd just get me an EMH Mark 1 and make him do it.

 

[marksound]

Bluntly, part of why I dislike this argument is that many times the individuals involved fall back on "The Couch Potato" argument which exists solely to serve his own needs and will exist as a drain on society unless motivated by fear of starvation.

The problem is, we have plenty of examples this flat out is not true in RL from people who are rich yet continue to work and people who are taken care of by socialist governments yet continue to work.

The thing is, many times arguers don't rebuttle these points, they flat out ignore them. This page is filled with mentions of these various RL incidents and the pro-money group's response is, "People won't work if they're not paid." It's like none of these things are even mentioned.

I'm a proponent of capitalism in RL but even I think people are SLIGHTLY more complex than this.

I think you're wrong.

In real life, there is no scenario I've ever seen where this works.

If no one volunteers to do a particularly nasty but necessary job, who would assign someone to do it against his will?

If a person gets lazy and decides he doesn't want to work, would society cut off his food? Evict him from his home? If he is not contributing, is his life worth supporting? Then what? Exterminate the non-contributors and the undesirables?

Don't think it hasn't been proposed. George Bernard Shaw said, "Sir or madam, will you be kind enough to justify your existence?" Look into the early 20th century progressive movement, including eugenics. Yes, eugenics.

It's crazy, but it's true. How many people right here on this forum would eventually agree with a proposal like that if it meant not having to deal with people who don't think the way they do? People like me?

er, you do realize that there are millions of people that don't work AT THIS VERY MOMENT who get support through welfare, right?

So WHY, in a post-scarcity future, where there's LESS NEED for work, would there be pressure to "get rid of those not contributing?" That makes no sense. I suspect that those who voluntarily chose not to work would be greeted with shrugs, since everyone would have enough resources to go around.


As to the "who does the crappy jobs?" argument, it's an easily taken care of one. Either technology would eliminate the need for those jobs, or they'd be rotated on a fair and democratic basis.

You'd have to ask Mr. Shaw and his contemporaries. He asked, paraphrasing, "if your life is not contributing to society, what good is it to you?"

Look it up. Progressivism isn't the cure-all it's touted to be.

 

[sonak]

I think you're wrong.

In real life, there is no scenario I've ever seen where this works.

If no one volunteers to do a particularly nasty but necessary job, who would assign someone to do it against his will?

If a person gets lazy and decides he doesn't want to work, would society cut off his food? Evict him from his home? If he is not contributing, is his life worth supporting? Then what? Exterminate the non-contributors and the undesirables?

Don't think it hasn't been proposed. George Bernard Shaw said, "Sir or madam, will you be kind enough to justify your existence?" Look into the early 20th century progressive movement, including eugenics. Yes, eugenics.

It's crazy, but it's true. How many people right here on this forum would eventually agree with a proposal like that if it meant not having to deal with people who don't think the way they do? People like me?

er, you do realize that there are millions of people that don't work AT THIS VERY MOMENT who get support through welfare, right?

So WHY, in a post-scarcity future, where there's LESS NEED for work, would there be pressure to "get rid of those not contributing?" That makes no sense. I suspect that those who voluntarily chose not to work would be greeted with shrugs, since everyone would have enough resources to go around.


As to the "who does the crappy jobs?" argument, it's an easily taken care of one. Either technology would eliminate the need for those jobs, or they'd be rotated on a fair and democratic basis.

You'd have to ask Mr. Shaw and his contemporaries. He asked, paraphrasing, "if your life is not contributing to society, what good is it to you?"

Look it up. Progressivism isn't the cure-all it's touted to be.

what do Shaw's beliefs have to do with this thread? Why would I bother trying to defend them?

 

[Charles Phipps]

To offer a new subject: I dislike Roddenberry's feelings on religion disappearing in the future.

I also felt his view point on humanity no longer grieving and being "so perfect they're not human" was ludicrous.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

No longer grieving? Where was that bit?

 

[Belz...]

Social pressure, self-fulfillment, and/or opporunity for advancement.

What kind of advancement are we talking about, if there's no money involved ? Certainly not work conditions, because that can be solved by not working.

Internships.

Aren't internships usually done prior to actual paid work ?

Again, yes, SOME people do volunteer work or do stuff that doesn't get paid. It doesn't follow that they would do that 40 hours a week for 40 years. I think the number of people who would do that represent less than 2% of the population, in which case you have a problem, economically speaking.

Just looking across this thread it's quite clear to me that a number of people would work for nothing, just to better themselves.

Be careful not to confuse what people claim they would do, and what they will actually do in the same situation.

To offer a new subject: I dislike Roddenberry's feelings on religion disappearing in the future.

I don't. I feel religion is doomed, but not before a long time.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

No longer grieving? Where was that bit?

TNG "The Bonding"

 

[Charles Phipps]

Yeah, I apologize to everyone still involved but it's not so much I don't have discussion regarding the money issue left it's just the conversation no longer holds much interest. I'll comment I do think some people have some points but I don't think anyone really knows what a society where everyone's needs is taken care of.

 

[T'Girl]

I don't think anyone really knows what a society where everyone's needs is taken care of.

The closest thing to that in the western world, where everything is free, housing is free, food is free, clothing is free, you do little or no work, you aren't paid directly, and you're just all around taken care of ...

... is children.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

To offer a new subject: I dislike Roddenberry's feelings on religion disappearing in the future.

I've heard (haven't watched much DS9, sorry) that Bajoran spirituality was depicted in a mostly positive light on Deep Space Nine. If that's true, I wonder what Roddenberry's reaction would have been to that.

I also felt his view point on humanity no longer grieving and being "so perfect they're not human" was ludicrous.

Not to mention would make for piss-poor dramatic TV.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I wonder what his reaction would have been to the (mostly positive, I've heard) depiction of Bajoran spirituality on Deep Space Nine.

Ron Moore has hinted on more than one occasion, DS9 was revenge on the entire Trek franchise.

Albeit not as much as BSG.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

^ Now I'm thinking maybe I should watch Deep Space Nine.

 

[Charles Phipps]

^ Now I'm thinking maybe I should watch Deep Space Nine.

Oh yeah, they don't even hide it.

* Quark and the Ferengi constantly mock the fact the humans don't use money but need it whenever OTHER cultures come up who do.

(One episode has them repeat Picards "we no longer need money, we improve ourselves" speech sarcastically.)

* Religion is an important part of people's lives and attempts to suppress (or "educate" those who believe in it) it is diminishing yourself as well as the people who believe it.

* Dismissing deities in a world with Sufficiently Advanced Aliens is stupid since the two might as well be interchangeable.

* The Federation's self-described utopianism actually creeps other races out, leading them to believe they'll suck up other races' cultures and replace them with a meaningless family friendly Disneyland version.

(They call it "Federation root beer" -- look it up on Youtube)

* The ends sometimes DO justify the means.

* There's a group which does the Federation's dirty work so everyone else can feel safe and secure.

* Sometimes war is inevitable and the other side isn't capable of being reasoned with.

* People would use holodecks for sex--all the time.

* Infinite Diversity and Utopianism are incompatible--you have to accept the good with the bad in tolerance.

* And my favorite: If you were a 20th century human you'd probably prefer living with the Bajorans or Klingons.

It's very very idealistic but the series is one long deconstruction of everything Roddenberry's vision implied.