I was and continue to be shocked that there are conservative Star Trek fans. I just can’t wrap my head around how they justify it. It’s very clearly painting socialism and left leaning ideas as the universally correct ideals which will lead us to a utopia.
The show is also about a space navy that has near total autonomy on the frontier, securing the interests of the Federation while inducting new worlds into its ranks, with our heroes being the Good Guys who are high ranking officers in the military who give orders and investigate conspiracies and hold life and death in their hands as they fly around their heavily-armed “totally not a warship” exploration vessels.
It’s very Space America, and at times almost libertarian in its politics and non-interference. It’s not even explicitly socialist, all we know is that they don’t use money, except when they do. The writing is sort of fuzzy on the matter, which results (regardless of the intention) in an economy that doesn’t actually seem that different to our modern day in practice. There’s no money, but people still own businesses and talk about buying stuff, which allows for the economic system to fade into a sort of forgettable background space.
Besides, Star Trek isn’t necessarily about a socialist future. It’s about a post-scarcity future. I think that’s a key difference. I’ve spoken to many conservative fans who say that they believe that capitalism is the only way that we can achieve a post-scarcity future, i.e. invent replicators. Because Trek isn’t about a worker’s revolution, it’s about the slow progression of technology, followed by a nuclear war, and then at some point they just sort of got rid of money because it was obsolete. All we even know about it is from one-off lines.
There’s a bunch of info on the economy of the Federation in this article on Ex Astris Scientia.
It makes me think of the Culture series, another sci-fi universe I’m fond of. It’s even more leftist-coded than Star Trek, yet somehow Elon Musk is a fan of it and names his rockets after ships from the books. Apparently Jeff Bezos is a fan too. Ugh. And as a result, a lot of people’s first introductions to the series is through these awful people, since it’s a lot more niche than Trek.
all we know is that they don’t use money, except when they do. The writing is sort of fuzzy on the matter, which results (regardless of the intention) in an economy that doesn’t actually seem that different to our modern day in practice
At most they use credits, which at least according to this guy, are at most a peripheral, 3rd party currency, or at least a currency the federation uses for external trade, and that’s what makes most sense to me. Why would the average person care about federation credits when they’re only used on border systems at most, and your home replicator can make you pretty much anything you’d ever want? To a person living in such a world, for all practical purposes there is no such thing as money in the federation.
There’s no money, but people still own businesses and talk about buying stuff, which allows for the economic system to fade into a sort of forgettable background space.
They never seem to talk about buying stuff unless it is out on the frontier, exchanging with foreign entities, etc. It also doesn’t seem like businesses in star trek (at least the above board, earthlike ones) aren’t anywhere near today’s businesses. To me, it seems that they are treated as family businesses, with limited “employee” count, and with each “customer” getting their service/food/item for free, within reasonable limits. It’s like going over to your family’s house for dinner. You don’t pay, you’re family and they will happily feed you (within reason). And it seems that businesses treat everyone like that.
There is no stock market, profit motive, costs of running a business. It’s all done out of the goodness of people’s hearts.
I largely agree with your analysis here. My point was that the way the economy is portrayed is such that we don’t get to see much of how it actually works, meaning that a lot of our understanding is speculation based on a handful of lines.
Meanwhile, they’re still participating in the aesthetics of commerce within the Federation, and literal commerce beyond its borders. The idea that there’s a currency used for trade outside the Federation, but citizens get everything for free within it, is a popular interpretation but it’s never actually explicitly stated within the text outside vague mentions of a “Federation credit”. It’s personally my favorite interpretation, but I think everything’s vague and in the background enough that I can see how people can walk away with different interpretations. Just look at that Ex Astris Scientia article; I even disagree with where some of the evidence should fall on whether it’s pro- or contra- money.
The wildcard here is that we see Federation worlds that seem to still use money, namely the Bolians who are members of the Federation, but the Bank of Bolias is a major financial institution.
The interesting thing to me is that people often assert that replicators are the reason that money doesn’t exist in the Federation, but that’s simply not the case; it’s established in VOY that money “went the way of the dinosaur” in the late 22nd century, prior to the invention of the replicator over a century later. Neither replicators nor money existed in Kirk’s era. It seems that replicators are not essential to eliminating money in the Trek universe, although I’m sure they’re a boon to the standards of living.
My point was that the way the economy is portrayed is such that we don’t get to see much of how it actually works, meaning that a lot of our understanding is speculation based on a handful of lines.
For sure, and it is rather frustrating. But it makes sense that they don’t outright explain the details, as it would just cause lots of people to complain.
The wildcard here is that we see Federation worlds that seem to still use money, namely the Bolians who are members of the Federation, but the Bank of Bolias is a major financial institution.
It also might be a planet to planet thing. Like, imagine if a ferengi colony world broke off and asked to join the federation? They would undoubtetly keep their currency. It would just be a question of whether or not it is seen as a dealbreaker for the federation. I’d wager it wouldn’t be, so long as said ferengi colony keeps to the “every one treated equal, with dignity, and sufficiently provided for” philosophy of the typical federation world.
It seems that replicators are not essential to eliminating money in the Trek universe, although I’m sure they’re a boon to the standards of living.
Yeah, that is a common theme that I’ve heard as well. If we had replicators in today’s world, it would only be for the rich, and even if it came down in cost it would still never be free to get one or operate. The philosophy of society itself has to change to agree to make sure everybody is housed, fed, and cared for sufficiently. Without that step, replicators aren’t going to do anything to get us to a post scarcity world.
It’s said over and and over again how much better real food is compared to replicated food.
Things still have value, but it’s all “luxury”; that is, there’s no needs that are not being met.
I only say this to emphasise that replicators didn’t fix or replace everything.
I doubt it’s that big of a difference. If they have the tech to materialize full fledged humanoids regularly, millions of times a day, I’d think they’d also have the tech to make replicated food taste good.
But sure, I can see it being marginally better. But not enough to mean money is still in use.
It might be more of a “tomatoes I grew myself” type of thing for most cases.
I always saw the “real food is better” attitude exists as either a hipster thing or simply because recipe they prefer just doesnt exist in the database. In TNG we see people from the past try repilcated food and absolutely love it.
So (hipsters aside) a home cook would also be more likely to have some minor variance in their meal while the replicated version would be identical on each plate every single time. I imagine the heterogeneity may be part of the appeal of human prepared meals. The replicator also may have grandma’s beloved secret recipe, but not your grandma’s secret recipe.
This is true, but also it’s implied in technobabble that replicators operate on a lower “molecular” resolution whereas transporters operate on a quantum scale. I rationalize this as a space saving measure; when you’re transporting living organisms, you need perfect precision, and thus a full pattern buffer worth of resolution. This is clearly expensive to store, so much so that it decays over time unless you do something tricky.
Replicators use a lower resolution scan, as you can just reassemble protein molecules into the right shape most of the time. Eddington complains about this issue. (The non-canon TNG technical manual mentions tanks full of protein sludge used for replicators.) Now, is this actually detectable by a human palate? Eh, maybe.
I imagine if you were to beam a plate of non-replicated food though, the full flavor profile wouldn’t be lost. It’s specifically the low resolution of the replicator tech.
I haven’t heard that take before, which is actually a decent workaround for the “why can’t we replicate living beings?” question.
I doubt it would be detectable though. Because you’d have to be able to tell the difference between replicated molecules, and molecules that were transported, with only differences being individual atoms and subatomic particles. Neither of which I’d think somebody capable of discerning. Maybe it’s a bit if a placebo thing?
Or maybe it would be a “pure water has no taste” sort of thing, where replicators make things too pure, to the point where some consider it bland. A real tomato grew in dirt and still has at least some, and the soil effects it’s taste, whereas the same isn’t true for replicated foods.
There also may be some degree of intentionally making an excuse. Lots of people love gardening, and in a world with effectively infinite, free food, your hobby seems more valuable if you have an excuse that your home grown real food & liquor tastes better.
They say it’s detectable all the time, though!
This isn’t a random, one-off comment - in every series, it’s mentioned over and over again how much better non-replicated food is. And getting better/ upgraded food patterns, and so on and so forth.
Hell, it even took Picard a while to get his tea made right.
Now that said, it’s mostly a software issue, not a hardware issue.
But it isn’t a placebo.
The Culture is amazing, it’s an anarcho-socialist utopia that’s much more radical free than Star Trek’s society.
… I feel the same way as you about billionaires appropriating it.
Some great points!
I like Steve Shives’s take on the issue
They’re watching it for Crusher/Troi/Seven/Dax/Uhura. The technobabble confuses them and they think any solution they come up with in the show is just a byproduct of the fantasy premise. That or they identify with the Cardassians.
… “Multi-modal reflection sorting” should confuse you, on account of the fact it is nonsense.
Because classic trek - for all its reaching for the stars and left leanings - is still very much rooted in and reflects the US postwar mindset. We are the good guys! The best guys! We do no wrong! Which is a trough that right wingers like to feed at.
Maybe people like good writing and story telling and aren’t interested in “the message”?
They’re not big fans of ‘infinite diversity in infinite combinations’ either.
Well, basically you have 3 types of people. Humans. Painted humans, and humans with prosthetic foreheads on their real heads.
Then you have SFX aka gods.
Thought the first rule was “Greed is eternal”?
In a post scarcity society, greed becomes irrelevant.
This man doesn’t have the lobes for business.
If you can’t create artificial demand in a utopian society, what kind of Ferangi are you?
Post-scarcity societies are good for business. Rule of Acquisition #74.
Rule #74 is Knowledge equals profit. Are you reading some pirated copy of the rules?Don’t give Hu-Mons the actual Rules of Acquisition. Rule of Acquisition #23.
I see this is actually the Grand Nagus’ account. I’m sorry Grand Nagus. My apologies.
Removed by mod
Define “post-scarcity”. You can’t replicate everything (without programmable matter, anyways…), and some raw materials are needed to build the replicators. And latinum is a rare commodity, though I don’t know why it’s so value beyond its scarcity. Greed will always be there as long as some things remain scarce yet required for a functioning society.
Latinum is only valuable outside of the Federation, where societies are not post-scarcity.
Now, before you argue that there are no material conditions demanding scarcity in (some of) them, I’ll add that artificial scarcity is scarcity nonetheless.
In societies outside the Federation, where they don’t have replicators, things have value due to being able to use them for other purposes. Latinum has never been shown to be used for any other purpose except to trade. Its not clear why a useless material is considered valuable, except for the fact that its rare.
Says a huh-man that uses paper to trade…
That paper is at least backed by the GDP of my country.
That reminds me of that joke:
Two economists are walking side-by-side.
One tells the other: I’ll give you $100 if you take a shit on the pavement.
He proceeds to shit on the pavement and grab the $100.
He then tells the other economist: I’ll give you $100 if you eat my shit.
The other does the deed and collects his $100.
After walking a few more blocks, one of them says: both of us left our dignity with that work back there and neither of us are any richer!
To which the other responds: no, but we grew our combined GDP to $200.
And they both walked away happy, patting each other on their backs.
Latinum is valuable because it can’t be replicated.
Yes, but beyond its scarcity, what other purpose does it have? Lots of things are rare and can’t be replicated, but their value comes from the need to use them for some purpose such the ability to build other things that you wouldn’t be able to build otherwise. Latinum has never been shown as anything more than a currency with nothing behind it to give it value.
What value does gold have other than it doesn’t rust and it looks pretty?
It’s the same thing essentially. Latinum looks pretty and can’t be replicated therefore it’s a good currency.
Gold is used in a variety of applications. You’re likely holding a device filled with gold right now. Even before the computer revolution, is was still used in medical applications. There are tons of uses for gold that don’t involve currency.
Yes it does have applications nowadays but when gold was used as a monetary store we didn’t have electronics. Gold was mainly used because it is shiny, easily workable, rare, and never corroded.
The microgram of gold in my phone pales in comparison to the gold used in jewellery or hoarded.
You missed a big advantage of gold: for most of human history, gold was the densest material known to man by a wide margin, making it very easy to verify that a piece of purported gold is real.
Irrelevant, but it still exists.
When everyone has unlimited access to stuff, one person wanting more does not deprive others of anything so it does not matter if it exists.
IE: In a post scarcity society, greed becomes irrelevant.
but it still exists - even in Star Trek
You’re arguing against a straw man. They never said it ceases to exist, only that it’s irrelevant.
Rule of Acquisition #1:
Once you have their money, you never give it back.That’s it back in the wormhole with you
The socialist utopia that is Earth is a dystopic story for them. It’s like one of us reading Brave New World.
Remember: Ferengi exists. In germany many call our libertarian party - FDP - Ferengi Party.
How can you be a libertarian on lemmy? There aren’t any children here
But they aren’t pedophiles! They’re ephebophiles, which it totally matters to argue about the differences!
No, but if you go by reading age, I can pretend pretty easily. Much more ethical source for my kicks than actual child predation.
Is this the US libertarian which means ancap or the rest of the world libertarian which is a socialist?
Yeah. Libertarian is not only a thing for the right. There are libertarians on the left too.
Mostly on the left actually, libertarian only refers to ancaps in the US where it was co-opted from its original meaning for socialist with anti state leanings. Ancaps basically don’t exist outside the US except for rare and lone individuals so it’s still has its original meaning in the rest of the world.
They don’t exist out there? Fuckin’ lucky you. 🤦🏼♂️
Nah, the Prime Directive is all about staying out of other people’s business.
Yeah I know y’all read LOTR, yet none of you are anarcho-monarchists.
Meh I read a lot of the culture and am just a regular anarchist
