Similar things that were "destined to last forever" like slavery, monarchy, smallpox, polio etc have been eliminated today.
One of my favorite shows is a British sci-fi show called
Doctor Who. In a recent episode, the two main characters traveled to the far future, where they discovered that that era's humanity was using a sentient alien species for slave labor. The central character, the Doctor, noted that things weren't all that much different from the other main character's (Donna's) era, the present. Donna, appalled, turned to the Doctor and demanded to know how he could say that when the humans of the 42nd Century used slaves. The Doctor just turned to her and said, "Who do you think made your clothes?"
Slavery has been eliminated today? Really? That'll come as a surprise to many people living today in the Sudan, or to the millions of women kidnapped and forcibly transported across international borders for the sex trade. To say nothing of the millions of people who work incredibly long hours on dangerous or unhealthy work for wages so low that they might as well be slaves, or about the millions of children who are essentially enslaved by predatory lenders as repayment on their families' debts.
Monarchy hasn't been eliminated, either. Obviously it exists in a ceremonial form in Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, amongst others. But it exists in a dictatorial form in countries like Saudi Arabia, Jodan, and Tongo, too, and up until a recent revolution, in Nepal.
As for greed being in human nature, there is no biological basis for greed
Yes there is. People want things. They want things and they want security and they always have. That's why you have to socialize children into sharing their toys and into not over-eating -- because we're a species that evolved in habitats were resources were scarce and if you weren't greedy enough, you'd die.
Perhaps some posters here should look up the term ethnocentrism, there are many cultures whos entire basis is cooperation not compitition, just because many critical aspects of the dominant western culture currently rely on greed and professional gambling (or as we call it investing) does not mean this is the way it has to me forever.
Sure. And those cultures are very successful at socializing people into cooperating rather than competition. But this does not mean that greed does not exist amongst them.
In any event, trying to pin down the Federation economy is very difficult be we we've gotten mutually contradictory information throughout Trek. In TOS, we see Federation civilian merchants and hear of people buying things like tribbles with Federation Credits -- apparently the Federation's form of electronic currency in the 23rd Century. Kirk talks about Scotty earning his pay for the week. Scotty says he's bought a boat in
Star Trek VI. On the other hand, Kirk in
Star Trek IV notes that humans in the 20th Century still use money, implying that humans in the 23rd Century do not.
In TNG, of course, we get Picard's famously self-righteous sermons about how humanity no longer uses money and how greed is not the driving force of humanity in "The Neutral Zone" or
Star Trek: First Contact. On the other hand, Beverly talks about buying something from Farpoint Station and having it charged to her account, and the Federation, in bargaining for the Barzan Wormhole, proposes to pay the Barzans millions of credits. Kevin Uxbridge is referred to by his wife as having been a "starving student" when she met him in "The Survivors," a phrase that makes no sense outside of the context of a society wherein people can accumulate wealth of some sort.
In DS9, Jake repeats the party line to Nog about how humans have evolved beyond the need for money in "In the Cards" (to which Nog replies, "Then you certainly don't need
mine!") and references having a book of his about life under Dominion rule published by the Federation News Service but not getting paid for it in "You Are Cordially Invited. On the other hand, we constantly see characters paying Quark for his food and drink at his bar. We also hear that Quark sold his (sabotaged) private shuttle for scrap in the Sol system and then bought a ticket back to Deep Space 9 in "Little Green Men." Bashir's father talks about having run an interstellar transport business and about the importance of treating his customers well in "Doctor Bashir, I Presume?" and "Honor Among Thieves" features the Bank of Bolias, a bank on a Federation Member planet from which the Orion Syndicate steals a great deal of money. In "Explorers," Sisko mentions that he was so homesick when he first joined Starfleet Academy that he used up a month's worth of "transporter credits."
VOY contains next to no information about Federation economics, except that Tom Paris in "Dark Frontier" refers to the "New World Economy" taking shape in the 22nd Century and "money going the way of the dinosaur," thus rendering Fort Knox obsolete.
ENT confirms that by 2151, humanity has put greed behind it. In "Acquisition," Archer tells the Ferengi that their greed reminds them of his species' former greed, and notes that that greed nearly destroyed Earth (implying that there were economic causes to World War III). The Ferengi reply, "You should have managed your finances better!" However, we hear references to the continued existence of money in "These Are the Voyages...," implying that some form of currency-based economics continues in the 22nd Century. This is consistent with the continued existence of money in TOS.
In short, Trek basically wants to have its cake and eat it, too, when it comes to the question of money. I would, therefore, propose the following:
In the United Federation of Planets, no one needs money to survive or be healthy. Resources are so abundant that if someone has no ambition, they can apply for and be assigned free housing. They can receive free, nutritious food, and free health care. They can probably even get a free newsfeed so that they're not totally disconnected from the rest of the world and can still exercise their civic duty to vote as an informed elector.
However, there's a trade-off there. You don't get to pick where you'll live. You're not going to get a large house. You'll get what you need to be healthy, and that's it. No luxuries. Even if resources are abundant, why should society reward a lack of ambition, a lack of any desire to contribute to society?
So someone who wants more -- who wants a large house, or a lot of channels on their comm screens, or who wishes to own many books, or who wants to live on the Pacific coast on oceanfront property, has the option of taking private or public employment. There, they can earn Federation Credits in return for their work, and can use their credits however they wish.
There are probably still rich people, but significant wealth can no longer be inherited -- it has to be earned. There are no more corporations, because, let's face it, those things are just plain evil, and even Adam Smith wouldn't argue with that. There's still free trade, but it's no longer the defining feature of society.
I think all this is consistent with what we've seen throughout Trek. It's a Capitalist-Socialist hybrid -- the best of both worlds. Everyone is taken care of, but no one is coddled, and ambition is rewarded. No one is homeless and no one starves, but no one gets to just leech off of the public, either.
