A Star Trek society

rimshaker

Senior member
Dec 7, 2001
722
0
0
According to the star trek series, mankind gave up the idea of money and greed in the future, and focused instead on exploring and to better themselves. And in the process, they conquered physics, built starships, and traveled the galaxy

I wonder how far technology would actually go if the economic monetary system was gone. Or maybe it's just impossible since greed can never be eradicated. Thoughts anyone?
 

rimshaker

Senior member
Dec 7, 2001
722
0
0
No, i thought about that one. Who better than the folks who read this forum to comment on futuristic star trek technology, and what impacts cost and manufacturing would have on it.
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
81
The defacto method of trading goods & services when the monetary system is gone/broken is might makes right. The technological progress will all be in the form of weapons.
 

imgod2u

Senior member
Sep 16, 2000
993
0
0
The whole point of Star Trek was that human nature itself changed, and with it, the economic/political structure, not the other way around. So if today, with humans the way they are, the abolition of any currency system in favor of a communist society will pretty much end in "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
THe money system is actually a very effeciant system, developed over millenum of try and error. Much of what we deal with in terms of legal agreements and contracts go back 3-4 thousands years ago.

Historians freaked out when they figured out that the Vikings used runes for more than just cerimonial stuff and used them for corrisondance. THey thought well will figure out what they talked about and get some of the earliest literature known in Northern Europe. You know what these letters turned out to be? Some were love letters, true, but the vast majority were as like the following:

I own you 2 sheep for the use of your cow in my feild and the flour I took. I will get you them by next fall.
-Sven

Its been two months since last fall and I still haven't heard from you. I want my 2 sheep. Don't make me walk all the way over there and kick your ass.
-Eric

Barter and trade amoung humans is natural. It's built into how we act and think, to try to control that aspect of human nature is to invite trouble. The results to societies can be dangerous. Look what happened in China. Overpopulation consentrated in areas has always caused problems in China, harse winters would cause startation and hundreds and thousands would die. Each in there own little communities, some would have enough, some would have more, and some wouldn't have enough and die. So you know what China's solution was. ALright everybody you must give all your food to the government, everything. Then it would be given back out according to need. So it sounds resonable, you know the whole utopian dream, everybody gets there fair share. So the first year it didn't work, people died. Ok orginization failure, fix it and try again, and again, and again. You know what the net result was? Thirty million dead. Oopsie your freind the government was the direct cause in one of the worst humanintarian disaster in human history (1959-61). Almost as bad as the revolution itself. Well it did cut down on some "exess population" and added some extra revanue to the state in terms of food exports. (you know it seems to me this population could be sort of... you know on purpose. Kinda like the forced abortion things China does nowadays... hmmm). It wasn't until people were given back partial control of ther food product that this "famine" cesced. And now people praise china for being able to feed 22% of the worlds populatation. Ya what-ever. A lesson learned from millions of people dead.

Thats why we can't allow governments to be socialist forces, because everybody is human and if you even have good intentions you still screw up. I feel bad enough when I misjudge something and fry a computer. What if my mistake killed ten thousand people? If anybody in the capitolistic system screws up all that is hurt is the owners and the employees of a company, and there is always some other company to pick up the slack. In the america there have never been any mass starvations since the pilgrams dropped the communal distrubution of food and started trading amoung themselves and the Indians (hence thanksgiving day). Sure people are hurt here and there, but nobody starves to death, even during the worst of the dust bowl when the majority of production of food dried to dust (global warming haha), it was never people helped out and privite institutions gave away food to those that couldn't afford it. All government welfare during the time was in the form of work details and widespread projects like the highway system and the developement of the tennesee damn projects... Many modern economists contend that Rosevelt's meddling in the privite sector actually prolonged the Depression. It wasn't until after WW2 when returning GI's had big bank accounts stored over the war and the privitely owned manufacturing base was released from their wartime contracts was when the economy for the US really took off. This private sector armed with the years of research they've amassed during the war, lead to phenominal advances in plastics, medicine, and electronics amoung others that got use were we are today.

The only way the Star Treck model would work is if every person would be highly educated (probably up to a level of a major in econimics) and volentarially fuffilled there role in society, would a moneyless system be possible. Distrubution of resources would be automatic and the people involved would have to know what to do if the distrubution became distrupted. (I suppose replicators would help alot) You'd have to agree to a base set of standards, widely known and understandable by most people. A centralized monopoly controlling everything would be too easily corrupted and prone to failure... I don't know how you could do that without money today, but I suppose if the earth politics every realy settled down and the governments would f-off I think people would have a chance to figure out something really cool.
 

Sahakiel

Golden Member
Oct 19, 2001
1,746
0
86
Originally posted by: drag
I don't know how you could do that without money today, but I suppose if the earth politics every realy settled down and the governments would f-off I think people would have a chance to figure out something really cool.

We are Borg.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Hey, I wouldn't mind a couple implants myself.. Something so I could remember were I left my car keys. Maybe cat-hearing would be cool too. Being able to change a cartire one handed would be great, or have a swiss army elbow with drill bits and pliers that could pop out and stuff like that..

I read something once were people could use networks were they had receivers hooked up to nerve recepters.. So that made me think, Ok so if we had implants in our optic nerve and pickups hooked up to our muscle's nerve endings.. So in the future you could easily confuse a good game of quake IIX with a epileptic fit.

I also seen were you can be trained to control electronics with your brainwaves. It's being designed for people with missing limbs, or are paralyzed. You wear a device that is basicly a sweat band with electronic pickups and wires hangin out of it. The user can be trained to modulate brain waves.. It's pretty neat people that are good at it, you can look at a osciliscope hooked up to there forheads and they can make a specific frequency go up and down up and down. The learn to do it with just one.. mind you. And part of the training is playing video games like pong. Once they get good at it they'll hook a robotic arm up were the missing on is or attach a robot arm to the wheel chair or whatever. On guy Hooked it up to a sail boat and will use it to steer the wheel with it. He just sits there on the boat with arms and legs crossed looking all Zen like with his boat all going this way and that. Saw it on PBS with a show hosted by Allen Alda.

I mean come on! Don't you find the borg, you know kinda sexy?
 

vegetation

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2001
4,270
2
0
Originally posted by: imgod2u
The whole point of Star Trek was that human nature itself changed, and with it, the economic/political structure, not the other way around.

Note this was only with Roddenberry's "vision" of trek. The "new" version (watch DS9 reruns) contradicts a lot of the fluff in the star trek world, and in fact makes the empire pretty dark the farther away you get from Earth.


 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,653
205
106
Having things like the communistic society in Star Trek would be a great thing today, theres only one problem with it...communism only works if there is unlimited resources to work with. Otherwise we have "Everyone is equal, but I'm more equal than you..." eventually, because there just isnt enough resources for everyone to have everything they want, need, etc.

Star Trek had unlimited & abundent all types of resources, food, fuel, energy, materials, etc. They make something out of nothing. Because of the laws of conservation of matter & energy, that is physically not possible. Due to all types of things, 100% efficient energy processes are not possible, and therefore we would eventually run out of matter and energy to make other matter and energy with.

Since we eventually will consume everything, we will eventually decline back to the way things are today, resources will become scarce. People will become greedy. Because of the accellerated expenditure rate, there will be even less resources available then than now, and the gap between the haves and the have nots will become even further increasing.
 

rimshaker

Senior member
Dec 7, 2001
722
0
0
Originally posted by: sao123
Star Trek had unlimited & abundent all types of resources, food, fuel, energy, materials, etc. They make something out of nothing. Because of the laws of conservation of matter & energy, that is physically not possible. Due to all types of things, 100% efficient energy processes are not possible, and therefore we would eventually run out of matter and energy to make other matter and energy with.

Why limit your scope of abundance to only this planet? If interstellar travel were to ever happen, i'm sure by then the problem of limited energy would have been dealt with. As with resources and materials.... go to another part of the galaxy and get some there

 

gururu

Platinum Member
Jul 16, 2002
2,402
0
0
i think we have to wait till people get smarter. bigger brains, less blondes.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,653
205
106
Why limit your scope of abundance to only this planet? If interstellar travel were to ever happen, i'm sure by then the problem of limited energy would have been dealt with. As with resources and materials.... go to another part of the galaxy and get some there

the law of Conservarion of mass and energy applies universally.
The mere fact that no energy process can be 100 efficient eventually rules out collecting energy and mass from the rest of the universe....
because...
Imagine we are able to convert matter to any form of matter(constant mass applies) or energy at will.
1) Eventually because of less than 100% efficiency, the universe will still eventually run out of usable matter to convert to energy.
2) It takes some energy Z to retrieve mass Y and move it back here for conversion to more energy. It takes some energy W to gain some energy X-x (less than 100% efficient process) out of mass Y.
Eventually (X-x) - W - Z, will become a negative number... because Z will become infinitely large when distances to matter needed for conversion become larger.

We will use all of our energy trying to make more energy. We will be expending more energy than we create, and just destroying matter in the proceess. Eventually we still run out of matter and energy.
 

dejitaru

Banned
Sep 29, 2002
627
0
0
i think we have to wait till people get smarter. bigger brains, less blondes.
And fewer blonde jokes.


Of course the people on the starship don't buy things, but there are markets on other planets.
 

Ultimaix

Junior Member
Mar 19, 2003
2
0
0
I think it would be more appropriate to say that the laws of conservation, etc., as we know them prohibit infinite usable energy.
On the other hand, many things once though impossible are now known to be possible. Many things once though to be facts have been disproven. It is not a good idea to assume that just because we "know" something now it will stay that way.
 

KillerCow

Member
Jun 25, 2001
142
0
0
I wonder how far technology would actually go if the economic monetary system was gone. Or maybe it's just impossible since greed can never be eradicated. Thoughts anyone?

Founding principle of economics from my econ101 class:

Human desires are unbounded, but the resources to fulfill those desires are limited. So there must be some system to ration resource allocation

Rationing systems:
[*]Planned and managed economy (communist)
[*]Free market economy (capitalist)

Pitfalls of managed economy:
[*]Planners don't know the future
[*]Planners' decisions may be arbitrary and may not represent the desires of the populace
[*]Planners cannot effectively manage a large economy
[*]Economic plans must be enforced if they are against the will of the populace

There was more, but I passed the class, so it has been erased from memory.
 

nirgis

Senior member
Mar 4, 2001
636
0
0
Originally posted by: sao123


We will use all of our energy trying to make more energy. We will be expending more energy than we create, and just destroying matter in the proceess. Eventually we still run out of matter and energy.


The same can be said for life on earth, we will eventually use all energy on earth. The difference is, in my perspective, is that we can basically consider the energy of the universe boundless, i.e. it is pointless to worry about running out of energy in comparison to the vastness of existence.

Additionally, many socialists/economists consider the individualistic drive for sucess i.e. greed to be largely a construct of capitalism. I suppose it is impossible for us to grasp the fact that greed is not fundamental to humans given that a truely decapitalized society has not occured. Mockeries such as communism, which still retained capital, only serve to reinforce this.

I dont think, however, that this type of decapitalization could occur in our present society, it would require, as others have commented, a fundamental shift in perspective-- any individual drive for sucess reinforced by material gains is instead replaced by group mentality, where satisfaction comes from pride of labor, or recognition of the duty of a citizen.
 

lokiju

Lifer
May 29, 2003
18,526
5
0
I've always thought when thinking of this topic, how does the guy that has to unclog a toilet feel about all this?

How does the guy that lives in the small broom sized closet of quarters feel versus the captain who has a nice place?

They all make the same amount, which is nothing, yet clearly some get better things and quality of life than others.

Seems flawed.

Also, wheres the incentive? Why become a ensign knowing full well that if you teleport down to the surface you're 99% likely to be killed when you could just as well have the same pay (again nothing) and do some cushy job.
 

meltdown75

Lifer
Nov 17, 2004
37,548
7
81
you may say i'm a dreamer.... but i'm not the only one........

yeah it'll never happen kthx
 

Jesusthewererabbit

Senior member
Mar 20, 2008
934
0
76
When we have machines that can make food and pretty much anything you want out of thin air, we will be able to have a society like that. Not a second before.
 

ktehmok

Diamond Member
Aug 4, 2001
4,326
0
76
Rocket scientists would probably work for nothing. As long as they had a decent place to live, good food to eat & a good looking girl to put out & slob his knob whenever it was wanted/needed.

Let me know if you figure that out & the no money thing will work. Until then...BACK IN YOUR CUBIE!
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |