What is your Federation?

[T'Girl]

(at the risk of repeating myself)

PICARD: People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things.

The episode "The Inner Light," in the last scene of the episode, Picard walks his quarters, examining his nick-nacks. Looking at the things he had accumulated over the course of his life. Perhaps what people discarded was the obsession, but kept accumulating the things.

PICARD: the need for possessions

That first addition William Shakespeare that Picard keeps open and under glass in his ready room says otherwise.

PICARD: we've eliminated hunger

Three hundred years, they've learned to grow food. Bravo.

Picard could have been referring to the need to possess material things to prove one's worth to others

Then wouldn't Picard, who if nothing else seem able to articulate his thoughts, have specifically said words to the effect of "... eliminated the need for status symbols."

From what I see the replicator can create even luxurious comforts; I think Data once said the replicator could create any dish a person wanted.

But would they want what the replicator dished up? Watched "Relics" a few nights ago, judging by Scotty's disgusted reaction to replicated liquor, not everything produced is the best quality or just like "the real stuff."

 

[Anwar]

Like I said, Picard was really saying those things in a way that a guy from the 1980s would understand without going deeper.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Nightdiamond, your errors are:
-assuming that criminality is motivated only by the need for items that a replicator can make - food, clothes, etc.
-and that the replicator can fulfill any possible 'need'.
Both assumptions are incorrect:

Any criminology treaty will show that in many cases, the criminals do not lack anything that can be bought with money. Indeed, many criminals lived/live in luxury, and yet they continue with their criminal behaviour.

Agreed, and I can understand if a person is a sociopath or has some psychological problems. They are going to commit crimes no matter what.

In this case, I mean committing crime for profits.

From what I see the replicator can create even luxurious comforts; I think Data once said the replicator could create any dish a person wanted. (meaning wide variety)

In a society where food supply is limited (no replicators) perhaps a criminal's motivation is to keep making money to keep from running out (and of course, it's their career)

The south american druglords have more money than they'll ever need and they still continue with criminal activities 'for profit.
Of course, they are/were not alone - not today, not throughout history.

Having food on the table or enough money to keep spending until one dies was never enough to stop criminal activities.
The human nature is not so linear; sane people never had a problem commiting crimes in these conditions, even for profit, 'for more', 'because they like it', 'because they're good at it', etc.

 

[Nightdiamond]

The south american druglords have more money than they'll ever need and they still continue with criminal activities 'for profit.
Of course, they are/were not alone - not today, not throughout history.

Having food on the table or enough money to keep spending until one dies was never enough to stop criminal activities.
The human nature is not so linear; sane people never had a problem commiting crimes in these conditions, even for profit, 'for more', 'because they like it', 'because they're good at it', etc.

Very, very true, they have more than enough money, and yet they continue risking going to prison and their lives.

They have a built in motivation in the 21th century.

But then again, a 21st century drug lord has never had access to a replicator in his entire life.

A device that can create drinks, food, gifts at the touch of a button-no, all you have to do is speak!

Now if this was person was exposed to replicators from the time he was born, one that can make fancy watches, fancy dinners, gifts, etc, would that person still get into the crime business?

Like risk getting killed, arrested, going to prison, on the run etc.

So they can use the money to eventually buy fancy watches, fancy dinners and sewing thimbles?

The difference with Trek's version?

Supposedly these people knew already knew about replicators either owning them or had easy access to them, and still decided to pursue crime in order to gain profit.

Yet this what Trek claims in a small way at least -if you take Picard's words literally, no human being should be in a crime organization or seeking profit because the replicator has eliminated human need for acquiring possessions.

But would they want what the replicator dished up? Watched "Relics" a few nights ago, judging by Scotty's disgusted reaction to replicated liquor, not everything produced is the best quality or just like "the real stuff."

Do you ever wonder if they had to create that part in order not make everything about technology a bit too perfect?

It seems to depends; if you are new to a replicator, like Nelix or the 20th century country guy, then the food from replicators are great.

Even Troi seemed to enjoy her sundae (it looked good).

Seven of Nine's expression when she ordered a cheesecake (it looked good)

Then again, maybe you're right-maybe replicator food tastes generic.

That first addition William Shakespeare that Picard keeps open and under glass in his ready room says otherwise.

In TNG Generations, Didn't he end up tossing aside the artifact his mentor gave him, but kept that book?

Sisko and his ball? Worf and his weapons? Pictures??

Trek is full of examples of individual characters whom have personal possessions, but the argument to that would most likely be what was stated before.

Acquiring status symbols possessions to show off that can already be easily created or replicated. Or possessions related to basic need.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

The south american druglords have more money than they'll ever need and they still continue with criminal activities 'for profit.
Of course, they are/were not alone - not today, not throughout history.

Having food on the table or enough money to keep spending until one dies was never enough to stop criminal activities.
The human nature is not so linear; sane people never had a problem commiting crimes in these conditions, even for profit, 'for more', 'because they like it', 'because they're good at it', etc.

Very, very true, they have more than enough money, and yet they continue risking going to prison and their lives.

They have a built in motivation in the 21th century.

But then again, a 21st century drug lord has never had access to a replicator in his entire life.

A device that can create drinks, food, gifts at the touch of a button-no, all you have to do is speak!

They have sommething far better - as much money as they'll ever need - and then some.
All they have to do is ask and they'll have anything a replicator can make - and more.

I already told you, Nightdiamond - read any criminological treaty, and you'll find that profit is only one of many motivations for criminality.
Eliminate poverty from a society and crime will not dissapear.

Now if this was person was exposed to replicators from the time he was born, one that can make fancy watches, fancy dinners, gifts, etc, would that person still get into the crime business?

Like risk getting killed, arrested, going to prison, on the run etc.

Many criminals never lacked confort, food, watches, etc from the time they were born.
They still became criminals.

Yet this what Trek claims in a small way at least -if you take Picard's words literally, no human being should be in a crime organization or seeking profit because the replicator has eliminated human need for acquiring possessions.

Take Picard's FC words literally?
During a crisis, he ended an irrelevant conversation without an hour-long economic lecture.

A sentence a WAY too short/lacking in information to be anything other than a simplistic generalization of the economic/philosophical system of any civilization - even our present-day one.

Indeed, the trekverse presents many humans who seek profit, either legally - traders, etc - or illegally.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I don't deny criminal behavior exists in an abundant society, but just stating some of trek's future view of money, motivation and behavior.

It's safe to leave your windows open at night because we have replicators now? No thanks, it's nowhere near that simple.


Crime exists for many reasons, but depending on which episode you watch, the crime for profit motive in the 24th century would seem silly because of what the replicators provide.

Basically that seems to be what Picard is saying.

Plus it possibly makes the claim that replicators would make certain professions --particularly dealing with crime and greed --obsolete because the service or risk has no value anymore;

If a replicator can provide many goods and products that humans need/use, then how can a criminal organization make profit off something that can be produced easily and instantly?

Even drugs for example- if drugs are a crime organization's business, and if the average person with a replicator can already produce them easily, (assuming it's legalized ) then the service becomes obsolete.

It would seem hard to understand why criminals would go through so much trouble to supply something people can already make easily themselves.

Well, except that they're criminals of course.

Picard could have said something like, "Sure your business might still be there, and if not, talk to someone and they'll set you up in no time, if that what's you really want to do".

Picard's statement mirrored Jake Sisko's statement about money, motivation and possessions.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Picard could have been referring to the need to possess material things to prove one's worth to others

Then wouldn't Picard, who if nothing else seem able to articulate his thoughts, have specifically said words to the effect of "... eliminated the need for status symbols."

Not really, no. Picard was articulate, but he was also rather curtly about certain things, particularly during the early seasons of TNG, IMO.

 

[T'Girl]

Picard's statement mirrored Jake Sisko's statement about money, motivation and possessions.

Almost word for word, like the both of them were reciting a slogan. It's a interesting problem with Trek continuity, there are only three (or four) references to a "no money" Federation. There are a couple of dozen (non-Ferengi) references to there being money in the Federation, not just money but commerce, capitalism, businesses, property. In both the 23rd and the 24th centuries.

Robert Picard in particular strikes me as being a fairly wealthy man.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I don't deny criminal behavior exists in an abundant society, but just stating some of trek's future view of money, motivation and behavior.

Not really - you're just repeating a slogan relating to 24tth century economics, too simplistic to be anything but an oversimplification.

Crime exists for many reasons, but depending on which episode you watch, the crime for profit motive in the 24th century would seem silly because of what the replicators provide.
[...]
If a replicator can provide many goods and products that humans need/use, then how can a criminal organization make profit off something that can be produced easily and instantly?

Even drugs for example- if drugs are a crime organization's business, and if the average person with a replicator can already produce them easily, (assuming it's legalized ) then the service becomes obsolete.

I alrady told you:
"Nightdiamond, your errors are:
-assuming that criminality is motivated only by the need for items that a replicator can make - food, clothes, etc.
-and that the replicator can fulfill any possible 'need'."

A replicator needs prime materials and energy in order to provide food, etc. It's not 'free' - on Earth/starfleet facilities, social services may pay this particular bill; not so somewhere else.
AND there are numerous items (including chemicals/drugs) that the replicator can't create. Items which would be very valuable.

 

[Arpy]

Picard's statement mirrored Jake Sisko's statement about money, motivation and possessions.

Almost word for word, like the both of them were reciting a slogan...

That was the writers making fun of TNG.

 

[Sci]

Picard's statement mirrored Jake Sisko's statement about money, motivation and possessions.

Almost word for word, like the both of them were reciting a slogan...

That was the writers making fun of TNG.

Specifically, that was Ronald D. Moore making fun of himself (as he wrote both scenes).

 

[Arpy]

Berman, Braga, and Moore wrote FC. Of the three, who do you think likely put in the line?

 

[Sci]

Berman, Braga, and Moore wrote FC. Of the three, who do you think likely put in the line?

Moore posted in his old AOL forum (transcripts of which can be found on Memory Alpha) that he wrote both scenes and was parodying himself.

 

[Nightdiamond]

ProtoAvatar4597656:

I alrady told you:
"Nightdiamond, your errors are:
-assuming that criminality is motivated only by the need for items that a replicator can make - food, clothes, etc.
-and that the replicator can fulfill any possible 'need'."

A replicator needs prime materials and energy in order to provide food, etc. It's not 'free' - on Earth/starfleet facilities, social services may pay this particular bill; not so somewhere else.
AND there are numerous items (including chemicals/drugs) that the replicator can't create. Items which would be very valuable.

Not at all, I never stated that criminality was motivated only by the need for certain things a replicator could make, but questioning the idea of committing crimes for profit concept if the society has access to replicators.

Which seems to provide from basic to luxurious needs for the average humanoid.


When you combine all the statements about no needs, wants or obsessions with accumulating possessions, it is what is.

Picard: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity.

JAKE: We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.

NOG: What does that mean exactly?

JAKE It means... it means we don't need money.

I'm not stating that the replicator could fulfill any possible need, but could fullfill most basic needs to the point of luxury.

Q: It doesn't sound too appealing. What else is there?

Data: A wide variety of items... the replicator can make anything you desire.

This statement in itself can be possibly used to contradict the idea that the replicator has limits- but I feel Data could have been giving a generalized answer.

But it does give a slightly misleading example of the technology provides everything idea.

Just like the quotes that have been made, which leads some to believe, "hey why would someone like Vash get into so much trouble for profit, if according to Humans have no need for money?"

Sci:

Arpy wrote:
Berman, Braga, and Moore wrote FC. Of the three, who do you think likely put in the line?

Moore posted in his old AOL forum (transcripts of which can be found on Memory Alpha) that he wrote both scenes and was parodying himself.

Ronald D. Moore : "By the time I joined TNG, Gene had decreed that money most emphatically did NOT exist in the Federation, nor did 'credits' and that was that.

Personally, I've always felt this was a bunch of hooey, but it was one of the rules and that's that."

So this is what he meant then, lol.

 

[T'Girl]

JAKE: We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.

NOG: What does that mean exactly?

JAKE It means... it means we don't need money.

This quote comes from the episode "In The Cards," interestingly it's part of a scene where Jake is trying to get money from Nog so he can buy something that he can''t get from a replicator.