I'm sure they can easily erect a tent about the Transporter Archs
What is other transportation like in the 24th Century?
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
I still wonder how common interstellar travel for the average peeps is (i.e. not particularly rich, not Starfleet, etc). Is it normal for almost anyone that would like to, to visit (say) Risa every once in a while? Or do you have to be in some kind of privileged situation for that? (e.g Starfleet officer?) For another example, are there travel agencies like in our days that offer organised 3-week itineraries to Vulcan or Tellar to 'explore their culture and have a fun (logical) time' ?
Picard said that he was the first member of his family to leave the Solar System, but his family was also a bit of an outlier in a lot of ways.
Since money isn't used, there are no rich or poor.
TNG mentioned transport ships on a regular basis so those are probably used to ferry people from one planet to the other - an equivalent to the public transport (just free).
There probably aren't any travel agencies... but you can arrange to check availability of various resorts and plan accordingly.
Weather control is also a thing.
As we know, money is how we deal with scarcity and resource allocation. But would vacation resorts operate under post scarcity conditions? If Riza is booked on a first serve basis, then there is probably a years long waiting list. So you'd look up the other resort planets to find one that's not full during the time you want to go. Of course, this is an entire planet we are talking about, perhaps there really are always openings somewhere, and there really isn't scarcity of rooms, as long as you don't have to go to this exact specific resort with that one famous waterfall.
That may be accurate in theory, but in practice, the approach fails miserably since we are producing massive abundance and also generate massive waste as a result.
The amount of food being produced outnumbers the amount of humans on the planet by at least 2.5 times... and yet, nearly 50% of this is thrown out or given to animals as their feed (land based farm animals outnumber humans by more than 10x in the amount they are being needlessly slaughtered every year... and this rises to over 1 Trillion when you take into account all the marine life being fished out of the oceans)... and yet we still have people dying of starvation, homelessness and people dying of preventable diseased.
We have enough housing in USA alone to provide for all homeless people there 6.5 times over... and the numbers are roughly similar across the world (China for example built whole cities that are sitting empty because no one can afford to live in them), whereas in the EU, there's about 3x more empty homes than there are homeless people.
Scarcity only exists in todays world as artificially induced as a result of money which acts as a barrier to accessing resources.
Plus, resource allocation in Capitalism (which the whole world uses) is ridiculous as evidenced by the waste we produce, the environmental pollution and cyclical consumption of overall resources (which the planet cannot maintain under the current system).
We CAN produce things in abundance while being sustainable... we just can't maintain inefficient capitalism or the warped value system it induces along with cyclical consumption.
Risa is a planet (a whole planet can have a ridiculously large amount of people on it especially if its technologically developed with relatively minimal footprint on it - for example, if we decided to change our methods of production to something that existed since 1970-ies, such as fully automated vertical farms and going vegan, we could drop our footprint on Earth by 100 times and return all of that land back to nature. From Trek, I got the indication that whole of Risa (or most of it) was turned into a resort.
Also, in a post scarcity environment, Risa probably wouldn't be the ONLY possible resort in the whole Federation... its just one that's seemingly mentioned more than others on-screen (this is a problem with Trek sometimes as it suffers a 'small universe syndrome' - aka, the whole UFP would collapse if Earth is destroyed [even though that makes no sense], or that the whole of SF was attending that holiday in SOL in PIC S3 (utterly unrealistic to think that the WHOLE of SF dropped everything, including withdrawing from border patrol, deep space exploration, etc. just to attend that 'special day' in SOL - lol, no, the more likely explanation is that the fleet seen in PIC S3 SOL on Frontier Day was just a tiny portion of whole Starfleet - a number of vessels that were in SOL already or nearby that could actually attend the ceremony in question).
Plus the whole 'we're the only starship in range' - well this one certainly has more merit considering how large space is, but realistically, SF would have multiple ships in any given region of space which are separated by several LY's or less - enough to provide support - except possibly deep space exploration vessels which would be in a different predicament - but even then I'd expect at least a second deep space vessel being relatively nearby doing its own thing).
As for demand... in a post scarcity environment, I imagine that for the most part, the general population would have a wide range of options of destinations to choose from (including on their home planets).
Bear in mind that just because Risa is more mentioned in Trek, it doesn't mean its the ONLY resort in the whole Federation, or that EVERYONE wants to go there.
To illustrate this... there is a (silly) notion running around today (or it used to) that everyone wants to have a beach house, a mansion, high status in society, etc... that's wrong.
It may be the case with some people, but it certainly isn't what the grand majority of people want (most just want to be able to live their lives without obstruction while having access to basic necessities of life and some amenities)... myself included (mainly becaue beach houses aren't appealing to me, and mansions are pointless due to being ridiculously huge - its a waste of space and a nightmare for maintenance - plus, most are ridiculous and have an outdated design - honestly, the whole concept of what people seemingly 'want' is skewed to the point to intentionally present the argument as proof that we are still living in a scarcity based environment that we couldn't possibly go about solving - when in fact, the whole approach to scarcity or how these people try to present it is WRONG to begin with - but thats a separate matter and I don't wish to derail the discussion into a different direction any more).
Bottom line is that most likely, in Trek, if Risa or their desired destination isn't available, then people just say 'oh well' and go somewhere else.
Besides, we HAVE seen the main characters going to (or mentioning) destinations OTHER than Risa for shore leave, vacations, etc.
Risa may be more like a spa for those who are spending most of their time in deep space. A chance to unwind and relax. We have no evidence the general population of the Federation frequents Risa in huge amounts... it could be that demand for Risa could be relatively small from the general population, but is more popular with people who essentially live in space onboard starships.
Last edited:
Sure, why not? The exchange of cultural experiences would be as important as exchange of resources. People traveling would be very common because of interest.
Or not as some might not be interested in that travel but stay at home. Both are accessible options.
If you're interested, check the transport listing and go.
Yeah, I mentioned that in my original comment. I was using Risa as an example but I think my larger question really is how the Federation deals with things that cant be made not scarce. Lets pick a different example. There's a one in a lifetime cosmological phenomenon happening on this one planet. There isn't enough space to fit everyone who wants to see it in person. Tickets are thus a scarce resource. How do they decide who gets to go? Whoever made their reservation far enough in advance? A lottery?
But we have no evidence that 'once in a lifetime cosmological phenomenon' is actually happening on this one planet to start with.
And even if it did, its very likely that the amount of people interested in this would be relatively small (due to having different set of priorities)... and the phenomena in question would most certainly be recorded and made available to everyone to experience in the holodeck (or at least to those who are interested in it)... which brings me to my next point: UFP has holodeck technology to deal with such potential scenarios (if they actually arise).
Prior to the invention of the holodeck however, its likely that it would be available through different means (recordings, etc.) and if a certain place was 'booked' (so to say), then they would just pick different destinations in that case and certain 'events' or 'phenomena' would be broadcast live - but as I said, its very unlikely EVERYONE in the UFP would want to go there for this one thing.
Resorts would likely have a relatively high turnover. And bear in mind that in a post scarcity environment like Trek, its alluded people work because they mainly derive a sense of accomplishment in desired fields and because they gain experience and knowledge that benefits society as a whole. As such, its very likely that on a large scale, their work day is mostly non-stressful, they also probably work less (thanks to automation), etc. So, the amount of time you need to 'decompress' in a resort will probably be smaller as well and their definition of 'want' would probably be very different from how most people define it today.
Archer's NX-01 travelled over 100 Ly's before it reached Risa, and only a select portion of the crew went down to the planet for 2 days... and the crew that went down was rotated.
I would imagine something similar would occur for resorts where they would have a high turnover rate.
Picard went to Risa for a week... and Crusher mentioned he spent 4 days at Zytchin Three prior to that (which he supposedly hated) - plus Picard as a whole already said he loathes vacations - he probably derives a sense of pleasure from doing things that do not involve the things some people think they would.
For example, in Lower Decks, its been shown that the best way for the engineers to relax is to work on solving problems.
When you think about a post scarcity type of society, the very MINDSET of the people who live within it would fundamentally change (and I do not think this is something Trek sufficiently explored if you ask me - they touched upon it, but don't necessarily go into too much detail of it for some reason - even though it would be very fun to see how the difference between monetary and non monetary systems could work - coupled with accessibility of highly advanced technology) compard to the mindset of most humans today.
Sure, we can extrapolate... but we also need to leave aside any preconceived notions or ideas that stem from our current socio-economic system when trying to imagine a system that's effectively a polar opposite.
I'm not saying people in Trek wouldn't develop wants in a post scarcity system... no. I'm just saying that wants would be viewed from a different contextual point of view and would be very different compared to how most of society today defines wants.
Also, if Picard was able to get 1 week worth of vacation on Risa at a moments notice, then it stands to reason that the planet in question (and other resorts) are probably NOT in huge demand as some people would assume because people go to resorts either on their home planets, or they do different things for fun.
Besides, in an era of space travel with FTL capabilities, I'd imagine people would mostly be attracted to the idea of exploring what's out there to start with - as such, concerning oneself with a 'resort' would not necessarily be on their minds when they can probably just make a resort by visiting practically any planet that's uninhabited and considered safe (there's very likely a HUGE amount of planets within UFP which is 8000 Ly's in size - this could realistically contain over 1.23 million habitable planets as is - if we go by existing estimation that there are 300 million habitable planets in the Milky Way).
In short, I don't think Risa would be considered anything 'special' in the large scheme of things for most people in UFP.
Sure it may be a more popular resort, but its likely it isn't the only one and every other planet in the galaxy would have its own 'unique' appeal that may be a lot more 'common' for people to enjoy (and Risa would be no exception)... but that's no guarantee people would want to go there to experience the environment just for that... for a lot of people, just being in a new environment for a certain amount of time is enough.
Last edited:
Where'd you get those numbers, because the numbers I have is vastly different from the numbers you're providing.
For USA:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brenda...es-are-the-vacancy-hot-spots/?sh=2b73b90427c1
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-homeless-people-are-in-the-us-what-does-the-data-miss/#:~:text=The Department of Housing and,about 2,000 people from 2020.
For EU:
https://www.feantsaresearch.org/public/user/Observatory/2022/EJH_16-2/EJH_16-2_RN2.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/europe-11m-empty-properties-enough-house-homeless-continent-twice#:~:text=More than 11m homes lie,Guardian from across the EU.
For China, the numbers are admittedly more grim as the number of homeless people does seem to far exceed the number of empty homes - however, the exact amount of ghost cities in China is unknonw along with the actual size of those empty flats in ghost cities - to date, the number of accounted ghost cities sits only at 50, but its been said that not all ghost cities have been accounted for).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9326182/#:~:text=Globally, approximately 1.6 billion people,evicted on an annual basis.&text=This situation is often profoundly,1.4 billion Chinese—are homeless.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chi...ande-housing-market-problem-2021-10?r=US&IR=T
Size and Suitability of the Flats in ghost cities...
The Business Insider article does not provide specific details on the average size of these empty flats. However, given the context of Chinese urban development, these flats are likely designed to accommodate families. This means that a single flat could comfortably house multiple individuals (approximately 3), whether it's a family or shared by unrelated individuals.
This means that those empty ghost cities would be able to house approximately 195 million of China's homeless.
But as I said, the actual number of China's Ghost cities is currently unknown... to date we only accounted for 50 ghost cities.
I used Chat GPT to try to arrive at a conservative estimation based on available data and trends on how many actual ghost cities China could have today.
I also asked it to take into account Historical Urbanization Rate, Government Initiatives, Real estate as an investment, Economic Factors and Success stories, and arrived at a total conservative number of 75 ghost cities (which, if accurate, would be enough to house about 225 million homeless Chinese individuals - which still falls short of the 300 million figure, butbear in mind it IS still a conservative estimate).
The World economic forum in 2021 estimated 1.6 billion people lack ADEQUATE housing, while 150 million people would actually be homeless across the globe... but how homelessness is defined is not exactly clear cut, nor would it seem to account for figures from China (the World Economic forum data admits its difficult to get exact numbers).
Nevertheless, if we take into account Chat GPT's conservative estimation for China's empty cities being counted closer to 75 (as opposed to 50) and taking into account how people share housing in different countries and available data on empty properties across the globe, there is 500.5 million potential housing capacity vs. 450 million homeless people acros the entire globe.
In most areas of the world, the empty homes do seem to surpass the amount of homeless people by several times... and in cases where they seemingly do not (China appears to be the glaring exception for now if we take only known data without ChatGPT's estimation)... well, its not a question of whether we can MAKE enough to house everyone... we certainly can (plus, there's sharing of accommodation to be taken into account)... the problem is that even if we already have enough housing for everyone (which seems to be the case under even conservative estimations), under the current system, we won't actually abolish homelessness as its a systemic issue... because, despite the fact of Humanity producing abundance (or are capable of it in a sustainable capacity - which we are), Capitalism is extremely bad when it comes to management of global resources (not to mention accessing them) and money acting as a barrier (in short, the monetary system is ridiculously inefficient).
Last edited:
This article talks about the varying reasons for homes being empty but doesn't actually give any estimates on how many of those homes are actually habitable, it just assumes its mostly other reasons. I'm not so sure that's the case. But numbers are hard to find on that
If you put a hard-capped Ownership limit of 1x Residential Property per Adult Citizen of each country / Nation-State.
You'd easily deflate the ridiculous Housing Bubble. Ownership limits like that would quickly tamper down the "Bubble-like" effect that people use to flip houses to make a quick buck. It'd bring housing prices back down pretty quickly.
According to the US Census.
Population Estimates: July 1, 2022
Total Population USA: 333,287,557
US Persons < 18 y/o ≈ 21.7%
US Persons ≥ 18 y/o ≈ 260,964,158
# of House Holds = 124,010,992
Persons/House Hold ≈ 2.60
Housing Units = 143,786,655
Potentially (≥ 18 y/o) not part of a House Hold ≈ 12,942,174 (Single Adult House Holds)
There's 19,775,663 more Housing Units than 2x Adult House Holds
19,775,663-12,942,174, there should be a excess of 6,833,489 Housing Units
As for what state those Housing Units are in, that's hard to tell. More info is needed that is beyond the scope of this thread and the quick napkin math.
The number of renters was 114.4 million, or 35% of the U.S. population in 2021.
More than half a million people experienced homelessness in America last year.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) counted around 582,000 Americans experiencing homelessness in 2022
In 2022, 60.6% of homeless people were cisgender men, compared to 38.3% for cis women.
Around 1.1% of homeless Americans were trans, nonbinary, or questioning.
Last edited:
The numbers ARE hard to find, but the article seem to suggest a significant amount of those 16 million homes are indeed suitable for habitation, or in effect, more than enough for the homeless in USA alone.
Without the specific dataset, we can only make a rough estimation. If we consider the general trend of "zombie" foreclosures (homes that are vacant and under foreclosure but have not yet been repossessed by banks), these properties might be in varying states of disrepair. A conservative estimate might suggest that 10-20% of the 16 million vacant homes might require significant repairs to be habitable. This would translate to 1.6 to 3.2 million homes. The remaining homes might be in a condition suitable for habitation or require minor repairs
If some homes are in a state of disrepair or require fixing them so they can be habitable, that's not so difficult to remedy since we do have the ability to repair homes that need it in a relatively short amount of time (aka, work with what is already there, or just demolish what is there and rebuild from those resources while adding more - the preexisting material can be recycled and reprocessed into construction material after all, so that can be used - and with prefabrication or 3D printing, this can be done very quickly if its done from scratch... but if you're renovating an existing building which still has solid base, that can be fairly quickly done too).
Minor Repairs (painting, minor plumbing fixes, etc.) : A few days to a couple of weeks
Moderate Repairs (flooring replacement, kitchen/bathroom updates, etc.) : A few weeks to a couple of months
Major Repairs (structural issues, complete remodels, etc.) : Several months to over a year (though in this instance a combination of desconstruction and demolition can be used and then recycle all of the material from both methods to construct new housing - which would probably be quicker if prefabrication is used or even 3D printing).
This assumes materials are readily available and able to be done in a timely manner.
My parents currently are waiting for a new tub and have since June, due to both workforce shortages and material shortages.
My parents currently are waiting for a new tub and have since June, due to both workforce shortages and material shortages.
I'd argue that the excess Residential Lots would be closer to 6,833,489 Lots.
As for the state of the lots, that's hard to say since there are so many factors & data that we don't have access to.
Aren't tubs pretty common, is there one specific type of tub that they "Must have", or will "Any Tub" work for them?
Size has been the challenge, as well as replacing damaged materials due to old tub cracking. Plus availability and pricing.
But, they got ghosted by 3 plumbers for install. My mom thinks it won't be done until the end of the year.
My perspective is slightly skewed here in New Orleans, My best guess via the information available is that there's around 70,000 empty units, but 30,000 of those are blighted buildings, and would require significant rebuilding. We haven't even talked about all the red tape involved, especially in historic districts.
Any delays on account of manpower or availability of certain materials for repairs of certain homes can be addressed by temporarily placing the homeless in hotels for example (however, in my experience, materials ARE readily available and things CAN be done in a timely manner - its just that in the west, there's a lot of bureaucracy and regulatory hurdles which can easily slow down infrastructure projects).
This was done during the COVID pandemic and homelessness was not an issue in countries that did this... at least for the time frame they housed the homeless in hotels.
Plus, we have to consider the fact that in most cities, office buildings are frequently not used to the fullest or are sitting empty, which means that these can be converted into affordable housing.
Here in UK, some of the empty office buildings were appropriated by local councils and are being converted into social/affordable housing - albeit actual new builds are usually student accommodations (of which there are too many and are mostly there to acquire money from rich overseas students - and the rents in these student accommodations are ridiculous in the sense that most locals wouldn't be able to afford living in them).
Some empty buildings are being used by squatters who are using them for free as they have no other option.
In this instance, such buildings (like abandoned hospitals, etc.) could be refurbished and turned into affordable housing too or just give it to the homeless for free (as it would still be cheaper than keeping them on the streets) and try to get them re-employed... but priorities are mainly skewed so this isn't done.
Last edited:
Similar threads
