Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Civ001, Mar 10, 2014.
Yeah, alternate Bones said it best; "Space is disease and danger..."
^ Wrapped in a flaky pastry shell.
Now I want a doughnut.
Like Kyle Riker's outfit in "The Icarus Factor."
^ Maybe that's why anbo-jytsu has those full face masks. So you don't have to look at the horrible outfits.
Every time I watch that episode, I root for Riker to take his staff and beat his father over the head with it.
^ Switch Rikers, and I'm cool with it.
I'm not so sure that it's all scientific etc. I saw Sisko Snr bring back veg back in a bag in some episode. So there's obviously a place he went and picked it up rather than replicate it, which means there must be some form of infrastructure to shipping fresh produce around the planet/galaxy. Shipping companies etc. That company doesn't have to be money making, but it's best to wrap all your trading routes in a brand from the start.
I would assume that people do the work for two reasons, they either love the job or like the people/situation they work in. I would also assume that it's fairly frowned upon to waste away your life doing absolutely nothing! Personally I'd get bored.
Pike being mute, disfigured and confined to that armored wheelchair may have had to do with the fact that he was being played by a different actor. If they somehow could have gotten Jeffrey Hunter to reprise Pike for The Menagerie, he most certainly would have been able to at least speak in his own voice.
I just watched End Game and there's a TV there, as she's watching the news (or some news based transmission).
I always thought it was weird that we didn't see a 24th Century version of Friends!
I've always had issues with no one working for any kind of monetary-type reward. When Picard says humans no longer have money he may not being including the credit system encountered from time to time. The way I see it everyone starts off with having a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs and food in their bellies, but if they do work they do receive some kind of reward for it, perhaps more replicator energy or credits for more travel, things like that. The extra rewards would not be in keeping with the idea of 21st century wages, but they would be enough incentive for someone to don some industrial gloves and clean up the holosuite after Riker and Worf.
There probably would be a third group (if not more groups) that work because of the advantages work provides. Credits/money, social status, etc..
They don't necessarily like their jobs or the environment, but the end results of their work is enjoyible.
I do think there would be protections so that people didn't "die in the streets," but you might be sleeping in the same room as dozens of other people in your same situation, the social safety net could be deliberately geared to be such that you did want to stay there.
Trek's always been anachronistic, but there's a line between charmingly so and being mockingly so. And in sci-fi, silly is death.
The reality is that technology will make work unnecessary. There's a guy space-sweeping in ST:II? Who cares. They've already invented the Roomba. By TNG they had the good sense to come up with, "The ship will clean itself."
Hell they're already developing software to get rid of lawyers, architects, and doctors.
As people become less necessary, the question will become not of what we need with each other but of what we want with each other. ...I think that is in part why the future has "better" people in it. They've had to learn to appreciate what they actually like about each other rather than be forced to smash against each other to survive.
Trek's done a worse job of showing civilians than soldiers I think. The starfleeters are interesting in part because they're not only soldiers, but scientists and diplomats as well. There's a touch of the warrior-priest Jedi in them that makes them additionally intriguing.
The civilians on the other hand often are presented more lazily, like the crazy-admirals-of-the-week. The boring-civilian-of-the-week is easily identifiable as a 20th/21st century restaurateur or barber or whatever with less the charming futurism of the starfleeters.
What's civilian life like in the 24th century? I imagine there are many professions that we have today but also a bunch that we don't. How many people work in IT or office jobs in our contemporary service economy vs. back during our founding? We're staggeringly different from how we used to be yet not unrecognizable.
And it would be fun visiting strange new professions. Psychohistorians, feeling artists, genetic-engineers, alternate-universe observers, hologamers, anti-time physicists, neobankers, exosexologists, existential detectives, holophoner musicians, saints, sinners...you could build an episode around an incident involving any of these as easily as you could an alien of the week.
I wish they'd try harder to show more of the staggering differences the Federation future would look like without fearing we'd find it unrecognizable.
And explorers, just as soldiers have always been.
Civilian life on earth = paradise. Sisko and the UFP said it. But it looks kind of really safe and bland--like something almost out a super fundamentalist religious pamphlet.
If you ever see background shots of humans doing things, they're always laughing and smiling and wearing those pale clothes that cover up everything. (see Nemesis, wedding scene, Wesley and the girls outake)
And for drinks it's always tea, tea tea tea And the higher arts of course. Couldn't they have jazzed things up a little?
Civilian life in NU Trek looks more contemporary and fun, crazy drinks, sleek clothing, contemporary language.
but a little too much like our own times- as if nothing has really changed except the technology.
So the answer is ..there's obviously lots of tea
I've always been confused by the whole no money, no poverty concept. Has Trek ever explained how this works? Somebody's securing materials for ships and cities, somebody's building them, and somebody's doing the technical research to make all this happen. What is their motivation? Is it purely creative/altruistic? I'm cool with money and poverty being eradicated, but if Trek is going to hype that utopia, I wish they'd explain what exactly makes it tick, and how it is sustainable.
It's one thing to aspire to this type of society, but it's quite another to back it up politically, mathematically, economically, etc. I imagine however it works, it requires some serious central planning, with large, overreaching government branches with their tentacles in every nook and cranny of everyday life. I'd love to be able to spend my days writing poetry and tending orchards, but I'm not sure I'd take the trade-off.
Personally, I like the theory put forth by James P. Hogan in Voyage From Yesteryear, wherein the currency is competency. Consider this passage:
So...consider that the Federation (or at least Earth) is, for all intents & purposes, a post-scarcity economy. It's been oft stated that "humanity works to better itself". The above huge quote may in fact be the basis of their "economic" system, perhaps combined with a Quinnian neotribal "get support to give support" base ethos.
Shik, it's a nice thought and I appreciate the book excerpt, but this seems too much of a stretch for me. A) How did we transition to a post-scarcity economy? B) What about that inevitable percentage of any given population that could care less about competency or recognition? Obvious exceptions aside, isn't career/business success to some degree a measure of competency? And what of the person who isn't in it for competency, but to put food on the table? Drives me nuts how Trek is always recognized for its positive, utopian outlook on the future, but nobody (at least in canon) actually lays out exactly how we got there. I suppose that means I should assume that nobody's yet pulled a plausible economic basis for it out of their arse.
A) I'm sure there are all manner of theories. This is what I wrote in my Trailblazer article:
I chose social credit over the Hoganite theory perviously posted mainly because it's a real thing that people could look up, although the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. If I was forced to choose twixt the two, I'd push more for the Hoganite form with a smattering of social credit. However, trying to explain that without lengthy exposition is difficult.
B) Everyone wants recognition & competency. Ever hear the statement, "Do what you love & never work a day in your life"? This is that taken to global & interstellar extremes. No one has to worry about putting food on the table; the food is there. It's always been there, but by this time people have socially returned to a point where there's no need to lock it up to force people to perform tasks in exchange for it. I work in the restaurant industry; I'm a cook, & a damn good one. I don't want to be a chef, though. I'm OK with that. But I still get better & better without becoming a chef, & I'm proud of that. (Although it causes problems such as last night, when I got into an argument with the Turks about the proper way to keep a kitchen clean...) But it's not the ONLY thing I can do. I can write very well, sing pretty good, fix a few things...& I--like anyone else--am constantly trying to be better. As the passage said (or maybe it's elsewhere in the book), the only people who would be poor would be the willfully lazy. Even criminals are competent at something.
There's another point I just thought of after reading that passage again. Look at the end, where it's noted that for thousands of years, economics has been based on a backing of finite resources. What happens when you've mastered matter/energy manipulation & no longer need to compete for the basics. Oh, sure, there are some rare things that can't or shouldn't be replicated--dilithium, latinum, caviar--but that doesn't automatically make them the new source of economic backing. If it did, people would be hauling crystals around in their pockets, being paid much in the same ways before coinage began. (Remember, in China & Japan, rice was a form of pay--literally working for food, for those that deny the connection.)
Shik, I don't want to come off as dismissing your well thought-out take on this. I really do appreciate it, but re: A) Socialist technocracy? No thanks.
re: B) I value recognition and competency, but if I didn't have to do anything to provide for my lifestyle and family, I think I would do nothing. I'm a project manager. I'm a good project manager. But my growth in this field isn't motivated by passion for it. Although it is driven to some degree for an increase in competency, the underlying reason would be financial compensation. Remove that from the equation and I'm off on a tropical island spearfishing and sitting around campfires for the rest of my life. Now, I'm a pretty responsible, driven person. What about the many, many people who aren't responsible or who don't really care about any particular field enough to excel in it to the point of recognition? I think you overestimate the percentage of people who would actually contribute to such a society.
Separate names with a comma.