Your thoughts needed: using Star Trek to solve today's problems?

[Bishop76]

i don't even know if this type of society is possible in a country like the USA. the USA is basically the definition of 'super-abundance'. sure, there are poor US states, but look at california. i visited cali a few years ago and i couldn't get over how many homeless people there were. cali is the 6th wealthiest economy in the world. i went into places like beverly hills and the homes were just astonishing. then you had homeless people living about 15 minutes away.

Also, don't confuse professional panhandlers with homeless people. When I visited there, we were told not to give money to the panhandlers because some of the best of them made upward of $80,000 a year in that area. (Mind you, I don't have any numbers or polls or hard statistics to back this up, just my experience)

 

[Arpy]

The replicator might not change the values of a nation. The population may skyrocket and live better off, but other things might stifle the new utopia. It might become expensive to buy or run or repair one. Newer models with new programs would become all the rage. Non-replicatable goods would be what the Paris Hiltons have and lord over you. A society like the Federation does not buy itself into existence.

That said, with life being easier overall, perhaps those preaching a different way of being might find more people to listen.

 

[Arpy]

By the way Bishop, Sci can be a jerk, but I agree with him here. I think you underestimate the motives of a lot of people. I think what you're saying holds some merit, but at there have been many black and female candidates that ran for office. His being a minority intrigued people (like Reagan's being an actor, Clinton being a southerner) but it was his campaigning that won him the job. People liked him, his politics, believed in him to get stuff done, and thought he was better than the other guy.

All that said, I voted for Hillary at the time because although I liked him and his politics more, and thought little of his race (heck, she's a woman so either way...) I thought she had the experience and support to get stuff done. Given that we were looking at another Great Depression, I voted pragmatically. Yet Obama's lofty message of change (toward the politics I believe in) moved others more than, cynically, I thought possible. We're talking about too many millions of people to be swayed otherwise by what boils down to the fun of voting for a minority. The economy was imploding and McCain was saying that our fundamentals were strong: people weren't voting for fun. In the end, they saw that he had the best take on the situation and the support to lead - that is why he won.

 

[AstroSmurf]

^ Arpy, you need to stop calling other posters names. I should slap you with a warning for trolling but I am going to let it slid this time. I won't next time. You should also know better then to double post. Next time edit your first one.

And everyone needs to dial it back a bit before things get personal in here.

 

[Bishop76]

Fair enough, Arpy. You make some good points. I still think there was a bit of a cult of personality vote (along with my previous thoughts) that really helped carry the day moreso than in the other elections you mentioned. Of course, there was the "he's not in Bush's party" vote too, which I'm sure helped out quite a bit after that mediocre administration. I just think in the next election, he'll very likely still win just based on his incumbent status and the fact that there aren't any real contenders on the right, but I really think it'll be a very close election now that people have seen he can be just as mediocre as the last guy and there's no historic element of "first black president" to it. We shall see.