Trying to figure out the Federation Economy

[SpyOne]

Spock had a brother. Irrelevant, but ...

Earth might address shrinking population the same way modern nations do: importing people. I imagine plenty of people on "mature" colonies would be interested in moving back to where their grandfather lived. That doesn't really address the whole "no commitment to the future" issue, but ....

I'm loving this discussion, with all its twists and turns. And a wondrous variety of viewpoints. IDIC indeed.

 

[Pavonis]

Technically, this is not incompatible with Riker's statement... He said that humans don't "enslave animals for meat"? He never said they didn't hunt and kill wild animals (which includes fish and other sea animals) for meat, did he?

Technically, no, but has hunting ever been discussed as an activity humans engage in?

...And the situation with replicators is even more extreme, it's not just additives or even genetically modified food, it's food whose origin is completely artificial, it is made by a machine that restructures molecules! Even if it could get the taste right, which is doubtful, I am sure that they would be lots of people who would say "I only eat the real food - I want none of that stuff that the machine made out of shit!" (which would quite often by literally true, as confirmed in ENT. How else do they recycle shit on starships...)

But that's what nature does anyway - restructures molecules to produce energy; its just done in cells rather than a replicator. Feces have often been used as fertilizer. What's the difference if a machine restructures the molecules rather than a biological organism? A carbon atom is a carbon atom, whether it's been in a pile of shit or not. I believe in Arthur Clarke's The Hammer of God a character claims that "Even God can't tell the difference between one carbon atom and another."

As for transporters - I'm not sure that everyone would be so eager to beam everywhere instead of walking, even if they had enough energy to waste, which I doubt. Let's not forget what transporters actually do - they take you apart and put your molecules back again - and that there is a risk - statistically very small, but still existing - that a horrible accident might happen... Walking to the john seems like a better idea.

Transporters have been said to be the safest way to travel. Characters who show a disdain or reluctance to travel by transporter (McCoy, Pulaski, Barclay) have always been portrayed as old-fashioned, or considered by others to be odd or neurotic.

I'm not claiming that humans regularly beam from room to room, but we know they beam from city to city regularly. Both Ben Sisko and Nog, while at the Academy in San Francisco, would regularly beam to New Orleans to have dinner. Kim beamed from San Francisco to Marseille to visit Tom Paris in "Non Sequitur". In the same episode, Starfleet security officers beam directly to Kim's apartment.

 

[DevilEyes]

...And the situation with replicators is even more extreme, it's not just additives or even genetically modified food, it's food whose origin is completely artificial, it is made by a machine that restructures molecules! Even if it could get the taste right, which is doubtful, I am sure that they would be lots of people who would say "I only eat the real food - I want none of that stuff that the machine made out of shit!" (which would quite often by literally true, as confirmed in ENT. How else do they recycle shit on starships...)

But that's what nature does anyway - restructures molecules to produce energy; its just done in cells rather than a replicator. Feces have often been used as fertilizer. What's the difference if a machine restructures the molecules rather than a biological organism? A carbon atom is a carbon atom, whether it's been in a pile of shit or not. I believe in Arthur Clarke's The Hammer of God a character claims that "Even God can't tell the difference between one carbon atom and another."

That's not the point, the point is, how many Federation citizens feel that way? Even if there is just a tiny minority who are into "real food", that's enough to make organic food more valuable than replicated food.

As for transporters - I'm not sure that everyone would be so eager to beam everywhere instead of walking, even if they had enough energy to waste, which I doubt. Let's not forget what transporters actually do - they take you apart and put your molecules back again - and that there is a risk - statistically very small, but still existing - that a horrible accident might happen... Walking to the john seems like a better idea.

Transporters have been said to be the safest way to travel. Characters who show a disdain or reluctance to travel by transporter (McCoy, Pulaski, Barclay) have always been portrayed as old-fashioned, or considered by others to be odd or neurotic.

In the Starfleet. I'm pretty sure that we'd see far more "old-fashioned" people in the rest of the population, than among Starfleet officers and Federation officials. But the vast majority of Federation people we meet in Star Trek belong to those groups.

And incidentally, when we did meet Starfleet officers' family members who were neither Starfleet themselves, nor ambassadors or politicians, some of them had a lot more old-fashioned views (Robert Picard, Joseph Sisko).

 

[Pavonis]

That's not the point, the point is, how many Federation citizens feel that way? Even if there is just a tiny minority who are into "real food", that's enough to make organic food more valuable than replicated food.

Why should any of them feel that way? They're an educated people, and know how nature works. The replicator does the same thing, just quicker.

OK, I admit that there must be a minority that feel that way, as O'Brien said his mother did. How representative of the rest of the civilian population is she, though? She may hold a fringe view by Earth human standards, much less UFP civilian standards. Who knows?

There are probably some people who practice farming, not to support themselves, but to occupy their time. They may just give away the produce, altruistically.

In the Starfleet. I'm pretty sure that we'd see far more "old-fashioned" people in the rest of the population, than among Starfleet officers and Federation officials. But the vast majority of Federation people we meet in Star Trek belong to those groups.

And incidentally, when we did meet Starfleet officers' family members who were neither Starfleet themselves, nor ambassadors or politicians, some of them had a lot more old-fashioned views (Robert Picard, Joseph Sisko).

Yes, Starfleet is over-represented in Trek. If anything, Starfleet must compose a very small portion of the UFP population, and the attitudes and views of Starfleet personnel may be far different than the rest of the population. I recall GR wanted to imply such a disconnect between the civilian and SF population in the TMP novelization. It didn't come across in the movie, though, but no civilians were seen in TMP.

As for Robert and Joseph, well, they'd have to be a bit old-fashioned to want to engage in their selected hobbies/vocations. In the 24th century, they very well could do almost anything else, but decided to respect the past.

The Picard family, in particular, seems very tradition bound. It's said that Jean-Luc Picard was the first member of the family to leave the solar system, if I recall correctly (though that may just be fanon, or my imagination). Seems unusual when you consider that warp drive had been around for more than two centuries by then.

 

[Cheapjack]

The Laughing Vulcan came up with a good idea. Perhaps he could repost it.

Stanley: You know, Ollie, I been thinkin'!
Oliver: What about?
Stanley: Well, if we caught our own fish, then we wouldn't have to pay for it and whoever we sold it to, it would be clear profit.
Oliver: Tell me that again!
Stanley: Well, if we caught our own fish, then the people we sold it to wouldn't have to pay for it, the profit would go to the fish...
Oliver: That's a pretty smart thought!

Lightning never strikes twice in my brain... sorry.

I think someone talked about aspiration credits, or something. Some other Einstein may feel it in his brain sometime.

Pavonis, I don't think that 20th/21stC capitalism is evil. It's just a way of getting things done and keep people alive and with a good standard of living. Something may come along that offers a higher standard and powers it and changes it a bit. It may not be a world of infinite abundance, but it may make things a bit better. The reason why it has only been implicitly referred to in ST may be be because like those humans in the Neutral Zone found, some of its implications take some getting used to.

 

[DevilEyes]

Technically, this is not incompatible with Riker's statement... He said that humans don't "enslave animals for meat"? He never said they didn't hunt and kill wild animals (which includes fish and other sea animals) for meat, did he?

Technically, no, but has hunting ever been discussed as an activity humans engage in?

Fishing has (which is hunting, only with a specific kind of animal for a target). Riker and his dad did it; and I don't think that those shellfish in Joseph's restaurant died out of old age, either.

 

[Pavonis]

I'm the one who pointed out that fishing still occurs, and that wild natural clams are consumed. I know fishing is a type of hunting. I'd also like to point out, though, that for whatever irrational reason, humans tend to not view fish as a meat, and so fish may not be protected from "enslavement".

If Riker's "Lonely Among Us" claim is true, then if humans wanted to consume natural wild cow, turkey, or chicken, then those animals would need to be hunted! Has this activity ever been discussed, mentioned, or implied?

 

[SpyOne]

I can't reconcile this with Riker's statement, unless Riker was specifically referring to the food aboard the Enterprise.

I can.
Free-range shellfish.
More explicitly, the shellfish are fished from their natural habitat, so they aren't "enslaved".
Back when the buffalo roamed freely, they too were not enslaved. People occasionally ate them, but they were otherwise free.
Now, cows have been bred to captivity for so long that I doubt they would fare well if just turned loose in the wild, but I could see 200 years of breeding leading to cows roaming freely in the environment, and you have to find and shoot one if you want a steak.
Dairy cows actually seem to want to be milked: they will return to the milking parlor all on their own if you forget to go get them: their udders are full, and they are seeking relief. Perhaps Riker views this as a symbiotic relationship rather than the cows being in a state of servitude.

At the very least, Riker's statement means the more onerous forms of raising meat have been done away with: no more feed-lot cattle, no more grinding a chicken's beak off so it can't damage other chickens.

 

[SpyOne]

With the widespread use of replicators, buying a replicated product that could just as well be replicated at your own household replicator would be pretty useless, yes. I don't think there would exist a market for stuff like that. Well, unless it's something like drinks at a caffe, where you have the added social and entertainment element.

As I said above, the TNG Tech Manual clearly states that for parts that you are going to use a lot of, it is better to carry a supply rather than replicate one when you need one.
Replication is better than carrying spares of everything, because you can just carry a few hundred kilos of tritanium and replicate whatever specific part you need, effectively carrying one of everything in the mass for just one item plus some energy cost when you replicate, but it is in general preferable to store and ship objects than to replicate them.

This would suggest that replication is not the preferred method of distribution, even of manufactured goods.

 

[SpyOne]

Joseph may not serve any real meats other than fish, shrimp and clams. If for some reason he did serve alligator (?!) why could he not simply replicate the raw meat, then prepare it? Killing a wild alligator just doesn't strike me as an activity that would occur on 24th century Earth.

And yet it has been repeatedly said that replicated food does not taste the same.
It has also been said that it should taste the same. But apparently it doesn't.
Now, perhaps this is psychological: sandwiches made by your mom taste better, even if they are scientifically identical to other sandwiches. But perhaps it is technical: humans are not supposed to be able to see the difference in a single generation of JPG compression: the bitmap image and the JPeG should look the same to you. I know people who have spotted changes in the color of certain pixels, though.
We have recognized a great variety in the human sense of taste: something like 15% of the population finds the taste of aspertame unpleasant, while the remaining 85% think it tastes like sugar. A similar percentage find saccharine to be like the nuclear weapon of sweetness: so sweet that adding it to anything is overkill. So it is totally believable that some people can taste a difference when most cannot.

Again resorting to the TNG Tech manual, replicators use data compression to store the templates for the things they make: if they didn't, the data storage would be prohibitive. To store a single object at full resolution would take enough memory to store 2,700,000,000 items. Further, it adds that storing "quantum electron state information" and "Brownian motion data" would increase the memory needs "another billionfold".

"The resulting single-bit inaccuracies do not significantly impact the quality of most reproduced objects ..."

 

[Pavonis]

Brownian motion data? Bah.

If the replicator is assembling items at an atomic level from raw matter, what need for storing "Brownian motion data"? Brownian motion would result naturally from the assembled molecules.

And even in the Tech Manual, in a footnote the authors remark that, while Picard complained that the replicated caviar was (supposedly) inferior to the real thing, they wondered whether the captain could really tell the difference.

And I note that, once again, fish (in the form of caviar) seems to not come under the category of "meat" to characters in the Trekverse.

 

[Arpy]

And yet it has been repeatedly said that replicated food does not taste the same.

Only because the average TV viewer doesn't know how a replicator's supposed to work, allowing lazy writers to remain so.

Unless they all have oral molecular analyzer implants, they shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Oh, and add apologist rationalizing enablers to the list of culprits.

 

[SpyOne]

Unless they all have oral molecular analyzer implants, they shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Actually, I gave a number of possible reasons, including the Technical Manual specifically saying that replicated stuff is not an exact copy, even at the molecular level; it will contain "errors".

Oh, and add apologist rationalizing enablers to the list of culprits.

That sounds remarkably like it was intended as a personal insult.

 

[Arpy]

^It's late here, so I will say no more than to refer you to the last line of your earlier post quoted from the tech manual.

...No, I will say this as well. No disrespect was intended to you as a person.

I haven't reread all your posts, but if you are an "enabler", then I don't need to apologize for stating my annoyance your views in this matter.

 

[Cheapjack]

I read a TNG book, where they were stranded on a planet, and Geordi shuddered as he recalled that the replicators broke down and they had to kill and eat some wildlife.

Imagine if there was no wildlife, and one of them died! Would they be able to do what those rugby players did in that plane crash in th 70's???

 

[T'Girl]

Given that I can taste the difference between milk that comes from a Jersey milk cow as oppose to a Holstein milk cow, even after it's been pasteurized, yes I think people in general would be able to taste that "something" was off about the artificial food from a replicator

In the remake of the movie "The Fly" after Jeff Goldblum basically replicated a steak, Geena Davis could taste that it possessed a artificial favor.

How real is the food that comes from a replicator? I take for granted that what comes out of the slit is nutritious. But if you ate a replicated steak, like in "The Fly," is that replicated cooked meat exactly, down to the genetic level, a segment of cow muscle tissue? Or is it just "something" that looks, smells and has a similar texture of a actual steak?

Try it from this direction, the impression I received from the shows is that they can't yet replicate a Human body organ that can be transplanted into a Human being. Doctor Pulaski couldn't just replicate Captain Picard a new heart when his mechanical heart became defective. The replicator was unable to produce a real, wet, ready to be shock into motion heart. What came out of the replicator slit might have LOOKED like a Human heart, but it ony would have LOOKED like one, it wasn't actual going to be the real genetic article. It could not be made to function.

The same with the steak on your dinner plate. It isn't a real. Not down to the genetic level. For want of a better term it is a facsimile of a steak.

----

After Worf was adopted by Sergey and Helena Rozhenko, he was raised on the planet Gault. Which on the internet is described as either a farming colony or a agricultural planet. Now this isn't Earth, but it does show that humans grow food for more than just a hobby. Or maybe tens of thousands of Humans moved to another star system just to get away from that nasty replicated food.

---

Imagine if there was no wildlife, and one of them died! Would they be able to do what those rugby players did in that plane crash in th 70's???

Geordi might have been mentally cultural incapable of eating a killed wild animal, but Worf might in the same situation have culturally preferred the same killed wild animal.

 

[Cheapjack]

Given that I can taste the difference between milk that comes from a Jersey milk cow as oppose to a Holstein milk cow, even after it's been pasteurized, yes I think people in general would be able to taste that "something" was off about the artificial food from a replicator

In the remake of the movie "The Fly" after Jeff Goldblum basically replicated a steak, Geena Davis could taste that it possessed a artificial favor.

How real is the food that comes from a replicate? I take for granted that what comes out of the slit is nutritious. But if you ate a replicated steak, like in "The Fly," is that replicated cooked meat exactly, down to the genetic level, a segment of cow muscle tissue? Or is it just "something" that looks, smells and has a similar texture of a actual steak?

Try it from this direction, the impression I received from the shows is that they can't yet replicate a Human body organ that can be transplanted into a Human being. Doctor Pulaski couldn't just replicate Captain Picard a new heart when his mechanical heart became defective. The replicator was unable to produce a real, wet, ready to be shock into motion heart. What came out of the replicator slit might have LOOKED like a Human heart, but it ony would have LOOKED like one, it wasn't actual going to be the real genetic article. It could not be made to function.

The same with the steak on your dinner plate. It isn't a real. Not down to the genetic level. For want of a better term it is a facsimile of a steak.

----

After Worf was adopted by Sergey and Helena Rozhenko, he was raised on the planet Gault, Which on the internet is described as either a farming colony or a agricultural planet. Now this isn't Earth, but it does show that humans grow food for more then a hobby. Or maybe tens of thousands of Humans moved to another star system just to get away from that nasty replicated food

---

Imagine if there was no wildlife, and one of them died! Would they be able to do what those rugby players did in that plane crash in th 70's???

Geordi might have been mentally cultural incapable of eating a killed wild animal, but Worf might in the same situation have culturally preferred the same killed wild animal.

I can't remember, the book, but I think Geordi actually did it. I would have thought they would have all trained to be able to do it, in Starfleet. After all, they can eat 'burnt,replicated, bird meat', so dismembering the animal and getting the result should be possible.

 

[T'Girl]

Deanna: "Okay Geordi, repeat after me, "Meat doesn't come from the supermarket."

Geordi: "Meat doesn't (gulp) come (gag) from the ..." (sprays carpet)

Deanna: "Okay, that's a good start."

 

[Cheapjack]

It's possible that they don't even eat anything that resembles our food at all. Not meat,vegetables or anything like that. There was an article in New Scientist that talked of constructed food, just built out of the chemical building block nutrients that we need, proteins,sugars,carbohydrates etc.

I think they might have a blade, or at least a spade, handy, just in case the synthesisers fail. But, it may be as likely as a worldwide computer crash.

Has anyone here read that A Clarke story where they start experimenting with flavours and food and then work back to see what their favourite synthesised protein substitute most resembles?

Human meat!!

 

[SpyOne]

I can't remember, the book, but I think Geordi actually did it. I would have thought they would have all trained to be able to do it, in Starfleet. After all, they can eat 'burnt,replicated, bird meat', so dismembering the animal and getting the result should be possible.

Sort of like getting moisture in the desert by drinking your own urine: survival class taught you to do it, and if forced you might do it, but you almost certainly aren't going to like it.