| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have often thought about how in Star Trek TNG the federation exists without the need for an economy based on money. Yes, the univerrse as a whole has Gold Pressed Latinum, but generally speaking only non-federration members have any need or use for it.
So staying within the scope of "the federation" how do you think it would be possible in the real world to accomplish this?
My Assumptions;
1)This idea would only work for a more socially evolved future generation. Most of us in this century would contribute almost nothing to society given the option. Think about it. What would you do if you had a guaranteed income of X (X=whatever number you want) with no work or maintainance needed. If this phenomena happened to enough people the economy would collapse and a bottle of water would cost $1000. So the need for the economy has to be maintained until no one needs it, not just a select few. Also society as a whole would have to evolve to the point where bettering ones self and contributing to society is motivated by something more noble than greed.
2) We do not presently have the necessary technology. Take Replicators for example (TNG replicators, not original star trek that replicated colored food cubes). If replictors exist and they can create all the necessities of daily life and facilitate perfect recycling, there are a number of industries that cease to be needed. Mass food production, 99% of all Manufacturing, 99% of shops, resturaunts, etc. etc. etc. Add Safe affordable efficient robotics and you eliminate the need for 99% of manual labor jobs. So with the lack of what is mostly menial jobs what do all these people do? I think that some people would still (for example) grow something and set up little booths at local farmers markets. Of course this would be more a matter of socializing and maintaining general humanity than an actual greed based means of making money. The business wouldn't even necessarily need to be 'profitable' to be a positive contribution to society. ALong those lines teachers, police, and other public serrvants could be compensated better, though not with the use of money.
Things that should be core values of such a society
Education
Research
Science (valuing testable facts over speculation and heresay)
Social responsiblity
Ethics (not to be confused with religion)
Betterring one's self
The last one I'm not sure how to word, but that odd facination that society seems to have with vapant things, like the Kardashians and "reality TV" needs to go away.
To be clear I'm not talking about creating the federation in the real world. I want to hear thoughts on how to turn the real world into the pseudo-utopia that TNG society represents. No society is perfect, including TNG, but they're doing a better job than we are. It's a much better version of the future than others i've seen. This is merely a mental exercise. I'd rather not turn it into a debate on how TNG society is flawed, unless that thought is followed up with a way to do it better.
Thoughts? Contibutions?
If food replicators were a reality, the final nail would be driven into the coffin of Marxist Theory.
|
The key thing necessary is the capability to generate vast quantities of energy cheaply and cleanly. If you have that to underpin the use of your replicators, then all of the basic needs of people can be met. I think that it is that step that allows people to become more socially evolved, as it eliminates competition for resources.
So let's also stipulate that the unlimited cheap energy is also a part of this society. For sake of speculation lets say cold fusion (which I don't fully understand) is a reality and it offers unlimited cheap energy.
|
Neal Stephenson's 'The Diamond Age' deals with a society that has perfected '3D printing,' and can have any item created by a 'printer' that has, A) the proper schematics and B) raw elements of the appropriate type. We're already flirting with that sort of tech, and could, in theory, already be creating dubious 'food' from raw carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus.
Assuming we don't collective degenerate into penguins or something, we could have machines able to assemble pretty much anything (food, replacement organs, computers, whatever) from raw elements within a generation or two.
Once that happens, the raw elements being fed into your home, to provide the base components for whatever you are programming your 'home replicator' to whip up for dinner, or clothing, or whatever, will have a cost, similar to a utility bill, and then the schematics for the best and coolest stuff will have a cost (with various sorts of pirated copies or 'freeware' copies available, and various sorts of 'copy-protection' such as the machine being required to log on with a valid product registration with the copyright owner before beginning to actually assemble a particular item).
Tons of stuff will likely be free, but all of it will be stuff that was given away by copyright owners (recipes for all sorts of common dishes, for instance) or 'obsolete' copyrights that companies have abandoned for things that are no longer in fashion or so far behind current top of the line specs that using them would probably be a bit of a pain for the top-end user, who will just fork over whatever currency is used for the newest and shiniest iGadget. Because so much of 'last years stuff' would be freeware, those who don't live on the cutting edge, but do have access to a 3D printer, would still be able to print up physically new clothing, tools, etc. (in 'so 5 minutes ago's' style).
Most of the base elements for creating relatively bland food would be common and, probably, cheap, sharply reducing hunger. Instead of growing a cow, requiring growing grain, the machine can just zap up something that tastes more or less like cow and is probably a lot more nutritious than a bowl of rice.
There'd be a funky sort of divide, where only the very rich, and the very poor, would eat real meat, from real animals. It would be a luxury item, to city-dwellers, who would primarily live off of whatever molecularly-assembled meals their 'printers' spat forth, and be a sign of status. And, at the other end of the spectrum, in places that don't have ready access to 3D printers, regular folk would still raise their own chickens and goats and pigs, and butcher them regularly, and shake their heads in bewilderment that middle-class suburbanites in the developed nations only have real meat once a month...
It's one of a bajillion different ways we could end up going, but it's interesting.
If all people's needs can be met How do you motivate anyone?
I think education would be of utmost importance and should be free to anyone who wants it. Teachers (since they don't actually need to be paid) would be in abundance. One teacher per 30+ students could be a thing of the past. Even better still with technology to aid learning would be significantly easier (daresay fun?) overall. Imagine if everyone had access to every version of Rosetta stone at no cost and plenty of time to use it. I think their would be a lot more bilingual/multilingual people out there. Or those pod things that Spock used as a kid in the latest Star Trek movie. Individual adaptive learning programs to maximize an individual childs potential. Have you ever wanted to learn about something? What if you had the freedom to do so? Personally I'd speak fluent Portuguese, Spanish, German, and Mandarin. Additionally I'd learn a lot more about technology and robotics. As it stands I have to spend far too many hours a day in a dull dead end job at a bank to pay the bills.
My theory is that the traditional morally rewarding jobs, teaching social work medicine etc, are typically the worst compensated and worst treated by the buercratic mechanisms that support them. So if the business of teaching, social work, medicine, wasnt a necessity the draw to such professioons would be stronger and people would do such things out of a desire to contribute.
Not to play devils advocate but wouldn't that be a rather bad thing for the human race as a whole.
If all our needs are met with no effort on our part needed then we as a race would cease to strive and or change thus leading to stagnation and eventual extinction.
however back to the main topic. The easiest way to achieve what your asking is unlimited cheap energy that's environmentally sound. Like TCG suggested cold fusion, which could then be used to help power the next generation of space vehicles and begin a new age of exploration and enlightenment.
... Individual adaptive learning programs to maximize an individual childs potential. Have you ever wanted to learn about something? What if you had the freedom to do so? Personally I'd speak fluent Portuguese, Spanish, German, and Mandarin. Additionally I'd learn a lot more about technology and robotics. As it stands I have to spend far too many hours a day in a dull dead end job at a bank to pay the bills.
Or maybe we'd all turn into those obese sloth-like chinese teens who do nothing but play on-line video games all-day.
Hmmm...
Ultradan
|
|
Not to play devils advocate but wouldn't that be a rather bad thing for the human race as a whole.
If all our needs are met with no effort on our part needed then we as a race would cease to strive and or change thus leading to stagnation and eventual extinction.
It meets our physical needs, it does not meet our mental needs. I think the closest analogue today is people who win vast sums of money on the lottery. Sad to say, that often does not end well.
I think that's the question of the whole thread Steven -- how do you get people to act.
Personally even if I was very well off and work was unneeded on my end there are still lots of things I do want to do that have nothing to do with simple survival. I would love to have the time to commit to the mastery of an art. I would love to be able to learn more crafts and trades not for their intrinsic economic value but because I like being able to make things. Granted the replicator can do it for me... but then what am I doing.
Self perfection isn't a goal for everyone but for those that it is there for would be motivated to act regardless of what provides for them in the first place.
In addition there is still competition. People want, it is built into us, and what many people want isn't something that can be replicated by a machine: Fame, accolades and (again) mastery over a field is still a huge driving factor for people. Many simply want to be famous which is where I would see the majority of a unlimited supply society aiming towards.
Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are kind of examples of that already. People celebrate their celebrity and actively seek it. This is something that no amount of material goods will likely solve and because of it things like American Idol and other game shows will likely become a much more serious endeavor for many. I would suggest something a bit like the tron games could develop as well as a means to pit and promote one's self to the world.
Having a limitless society could spark something of a religious underpinning too -- people will want to spread the 'message' of unlimited material goods and the 'new way' to everyone/thing in the galaxy. Combined with those that do want to be daredevils and risk takers doing what they can to travel to new locations and do new things we would see colonization of different planets happen.
This also has nothing to do with whatever forms of Luddites and Amish develop as a counter reaction to the new systems.
|
|
If all our needs are met with no effort on our part needed then we as a race would cease to strive and or change thus leading to stagnation and eventual extinction.
As a race? Probably not.
We've lasted for millenia with the vast, vast majority of us dying pointlessly due to insufficient food or water or healthcare or shelter or whatever, without ever having a chance to contribute a darn thing to the advancement of our species.
If the endless pointless *waste* of human life in the pursuit of these necessities is prevented, suddenly there are millions more potential Einsteins out there.
Will there be billions who don't end up contributing? Yes. And there were always going to be billions who didn't contribute. Now, at least, they are *choosing* not to contribute because they're too busy playing EverQuest 7 in their room, and not being prevented from contributing because some warlord stole the medical shipment again, which includes the retrovirals that they need to survive because their mom got HIV while working as a prostitute to keep herself alive long enough to give birth to them.
Looking back at the world-changing inventions and innovations that have shaped and totally redefined our world, or even the last century, they seem to have come most commonly from the well-fed educated 'leisure' class of Europe and the US. It wasn't the hungry people, struggling to put food on their tables in the so-called third world, that invented the TV or the automobile or the atom bomb or the computer or stem cell tissue regeneration. They were too busy putting food on the table.
If the entire world becomes a leisure class, able to learn anything they want at the flip of a switch, and nobody is spending twelve hours a day fixing fences or toting bales or jamming their arm up to their shoulder into a horses ladyparts to get a colt turned around so that it can be born (less fun than it sounds...), progress won't slow down. It will speed up.
Some will indeed sit around and not do anything to advance the species. And that's their right. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not 'you must advance the species / national interest / furtherment of mankind's spiritual evolution, or we aren't going to feed you!'
|
|
There are certain physical tasks, like Set's horse ladypart's manipulation, that will still have to be performed by humans. Would those humans demand compensation for their time? Probably. So there would probably be a trade in replicator blueprints. Which means that they would need some form of encryption and DRM to artificially restrict supply. Hmm... People would probably need to have some kind of physical skill that they could barter to others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's the question of the whole thread Steven -- how do you get people to act.
Good points made all around, but the above really is the main theme. We all know that most people are lazy, or perhaps just exhausted from the constant rat race.
Personally if I won the lottery and had all the time and money I could ever want I would still strive for self improvement and to in some way contribute. For example I would want to contribute to cancer research. If I won the lottery this means giving a healthy portion of the winnings to cancer research. However in a society where money doesnt exist I would instead have educated myself from a young age and gone into cancer research. The latter only being possible because I didn't have to worry about the basic necessities of existance or making enough money to be able to educate myself.
Oh, and in this world I think perfect contraception needs to be free, easy, and reversable. Also curing of STD's needs to be a top priority. To do otherwise will cause either overpopulation and/or STD pandemics.
People will have lots of extra time for "amor." In an environment where other motivtions are minimal sex is going to go straight to the front of peoples minds. This is perhaps less so true after the initial paradigm shift, but during people will be "very amorous."
If food replicators were a reality, the final nail would be driven into the coffin of Marxist Theory.Not really. Replicators still consume energy, possibly more than the energy used to create food by agriculture. Energy is still a resource issue every now and then even in the paradise of TNG and more so in the other successor shows.
What Marxist theory said about the evolution of capitalist societies is still dead on. Where he was off was about the inevitable evolution of capitalist societies like England to Marxist collectives. But otherwise things are pretty much unfolding as he saw them i.e. the growth of monopolies and the inversion of the producing consuming pyramid.
But Marxist theory was dependent on an agrarian class as a backbone. 2011 is the first year that the Chinese announced that their urban class has outnumbered its rural class in a census. Industrialization of energy through means of automation will eventually not require the support of an agrarian class to sustain it. Such responsibility would fall into the hands of a specialized / educated class to maintain it at far less numbers than what is needed by the agrarian class in his model from a mid 19th century viewpoint.
Where are the resources going to come from to support the transition of this agrarian class to educate them to support the new model? I can't see capitalism financing it long term.
Onto a more relevant example.
The game Swordbearer did not use money for purchases. It instead evaluated items by social standing. If you were a person of sufficient social standing it's assumed that you'd be able to obtain such an item if it were available.
Turns of fortune, such as finding a great treasure, or losing much of your crops or land, could raise or lower your standing appropriately.
Though I like the idea of a class system based on social standing (ie based on actual social contribution), but my fear is that it would contribute to a caste system.
|
|
People will have lots of extra time for "amor." In an environment where other motivtions are minimal sex is going to go straight to the front of peoples minds. This is perhaps less so true after the initial paradigm shift, but during people will be "very amorous."
Without cash, and with most other physical needs catered for, it would be one of the few things unskilled people could trade for other services.
People will have lots of extra time for "amor." In an environment where other motivtions are minimal sex is going to go straight to the front of peoples minds. This is perhaps less so true after the initial paradigm shift, but during people will be "very amorous."Without cash, and with most other physical needs catered for, it would be one of the few things unskilled people could trade for other services.
Except that people would have no need to exchange goods for services.
|
|
Except that people would have no need to exchange goods for services.Without cash, and with most other physical needs catered for, sex would be one of the few things unskilled people could trade for other services.
I disagree. The creation of physical goods at will has been stated, as has the removal of currency. That covers the majority of situations, but what about services. Would the vet above be willing to provide his services without compensation?
We've created a situation where physical goods have no value, so what would the owner of the horse give the vet? A skilled person could trade their services - perhaps installing a satellite dish that the vet has replicated (maybe he's afraid of heights), or doing a live artistic performance. But what would an unskilled person have to trade?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
I have often thought about how in Star Trek TNG the federation exists without the need for an economy based on money.
They have money in Star Trek. But it is continuously being both Earned
and Spent through out the day. Their quantum computers keep track ofevery second they are "on the job" and account balances are automatically
adjusted for each item they consume e.g. food, water, air.
It just happens so quickly it goes unnoticed. We are trying to make this
work today, in the real world, with gadgets like your cell phone acting as
your credit card.
In Star Trek, if you consume more food and energy in a given period than
your quantum-computer accountant can pay for you, or can project you will
have the ability to pay for in short order, you get instantly
disintegrated.
This is the dirty little secret nobody talks about in Star Trek. It
also explains why no one has apparent fear of death. They are so used
to people dieing around them every day, because of too much debt.
.
Seriously... I read about it on the interwebs (before they got censored,
that is.)
I disagree. The creation of physical goods at will has been stated, as has the removal of currency. That covers the majority of situations, but what about services. Would the vet above be willing to provide his services without compensation?
Yes. that's the point exactly. The vet didn't become a vet so he could barter serivces. That would kind of be a step backwards to before money existed.
The vet became a vet because he loves animals and wants to help. Being a good enough vet to barter services wouldn't even be a concern. Or in this society if no one wants to be a vet (or ditch digger, or whatever) than either technology replaces the task or the governing body encourages people to become (insert task here) in some way.
Vet is like doctor in this example. Some people become doctors for altruistic reasons. In this society all of those people will be given every tool they may need to become doctors.
Or in this society if no one wants to be a vet (or ditch digger, or whatever) than either technology replaces the task
I don't mean this in a rude way, but you appear to be missing the point. It's not "money" that spontaneously disapears, though that's the word I've been using. More accurately it's the token economy we have based on the accumulation of wealth. The question being how in an environment that lacks a token economy does one motivate a society? It's not a matter of replcing money with a barter system. That would be a step back on the socital evolutionary ladder. In a future society where people are no longer motivated by wealth accumulation, what would/can motivate them?
Hopefully that helps clear up the confusion, but if not I may need some help from other posters who appear to understand the question.
Again, not trying to be rude, but we don't appear to be talking about the same thing.
[
I don't mean this in a rude way, but you appear to be missing the point. It's not "money" that spontaneously disapears, though that's the word I've been using. More accurately it's the token economy we have based on the accumulation of wealth. The question being how in an environment that lacks a token economy does one motivate a society? It's not a matter of replcing money with a barter system. That would be a step back on the socital evolutionary ladder. In a future society where people are no longer motivated by wealth accumulation, what would/can motivate them?
Hopefully that helps clear up the confusion, but if not I may need some help from other posters who appear to understand the question.
Again, not trying to be rude, but we don't appear to be talking about the same thing.
The axiom that "most people are lazy" is not true in my experience, they just don't want to break their backs so a stranger can control more resources or are exhausted after breaking their backs.
What they would do would not be consider productive in todays world but thats OK because the resource allocation is such that production is not a issue, the supply surpasses demand.
There is still a need for barter since there are still unique items or services, only one person can own the original Mona Lisa or if you want your favorite band to play (the band may play for fun but what if two people want the band at the same time?)
Assuming Maslow Needs Pyramid if vaguely correct the motivation will be cultural and self-actualization since the physiological and safety needs are freely available.
I believe it will come down to how people define status.
In todays world status is often equated to controlling resources (i.e. having lots of money) and displaying it.
If status is associated with civic service or performance or research then thats what would motivate people.
[
I don't mean this in a rude way, but you appear to be missing the point. It's not "money" that spontaneously disapears, though that's the word I've been using. More accurately it's the token economy we have based on the accumulation of wealth. The question being how in an environment that lacks a token economy does one motivate a society? It's not a matter of replcing money with a barter system. That would be a step back on the socital evolutionary ladder. In a future society where people are no longer motivated by wealth accumulation, what would/can motivate them?
Hopefully that helps clear up the confusion, but if not I may need some help from other posters who appear to understand the question.
Again, not trying to be rude, but we don't appear to be talking about the same thing.
The axiom that "most people are lazy" is not true in my experience, they just don't want to break their backs so a stranger can control more resources or are exhausted after breaking their backs.
What they would do would not be consider productive in todays world but thats OK because the resource allocation is such that production is not a issue, the supply surpasses demand.
There is still a need for barter since there are still unique items or services, only one person can own the original Mona Lisa or if you want your favorite band to play (the band may play for fun but what if two people want the band at the same time?)
Assuming Maslow Needs Pyramid if vaguely correct the motivation will be cultural and self-actualization since the physiological and safety needs are freely available.
I believe it will come down to how people define status.
In todays world status is often equated to controlling resources (i.e. having lots of money) and displaying it.
If status is associated with civic service or performance or research then thats what would motivate people.
Good summation and use of Maslow's hierchy of needs. Using Maslow's hierchy as a framework is a good idea. You're right that self actualization will be the concern over the basic necessities.
Regarding unique goods; I'm not sure how that could be handled. In regard to art objects the answer is obvious enough in Museums run by the state. Yes, it sounds like communism, but it would be more a matter of preservation of the art objects than a commie plot. Also remember that volunteering at said museum is a distinct possibility for performing one's civic duty, so likely that they will have plenty of extra help as needed. I digress. Everything is on display and everyone can see them at leisure. If it is a particularily popular museum may have to distribute tickets with specific windows of time to prevent the museum from getting crowded. The Atlanta Aquarium does something similar. You buy tickets for a window of time and that is when you can arrive and get in. Just remove the "buying" part from that same equation and distribute tickets on a first come first serve basis.
I think it would be more complicated with something like a rock concert. If everyone wants to go you will have to keep it from becoming a madhouse. On second thought I think free tickets given on a first come first serve basis would be a solution. Like any popular concert now they can "sell out," but the tickets wouldn't actually cost money. I can see an issue with people getting extra tickets annd not having the extra people show. When money exchanges hands it's not a concern. however if the tickets were free those no shows are preventiing others from attending. You could have a standby for any empty seats. In other words people without tickets can wait in line to take seats of any no-shows. Additionally each ticket could only be attainec/purchased with a specific person's name attached. A single person couldnt arbitrarily get four tickets. They could only get four tickets if they had four names to put on the tickets. Some mechanism would need to be in place to prevent made up names from being used. Perhaps compare ticket name to ID's at time of purchase or at the door.
In a culture that prides itself on social morality and courtesy I imagine a lot of these problems will solve themselves. Though additional measures could be taken as needed.
Hmmm. Then there's the big stuff...
Say you want to become captain of a crab fishing boat (cause, crab fishing is your thing for some reason). How would one go about getting a boat? You can't purchase one, cause there's no money lol. Do you have to wait until another captain retires and gives his boat away? What if you want a new one? Then again, who would make these boats? Say you are given one eventually; Who says that you get to be the captain and not be the guy who grinds the bait?
It boggles the mind thinkin' about this stuff... lol
Ultradan
Yeah... What is money exactly? It's nothing more than an I O U note, stating that you contributed somehow, and you now want something in return. Somewhere down the line, it just grossly got out of hand for some reason...
Ultradan
Well you could always take this guy's advice and make being unemployed a crime punishable by death.
Remember we have only had money for maybe the last 5000 years. I can easily imagine a world without money.
Me too.
Hmmm. Then there's the big stuff...
Say you want to become captain of a crab fishing boat (cause, crab fishing is your thing for some reason). How would one go about getting a boat? You can't purchase one, cause there's no money lol. Do you have to wait until another captain retires and gives his boat away? What if you want a new one? Then again, who would make these boats? Say you are given one eventually; Who says that you get to be the captain and not be the guy who grinds the bait?
It boggles the mind thinkin' about this stuff... lol
Ultradan
Why would you need a crab fishing boat in the first place? With replicators their is no need to farm crab unless you're just doing it for fun. Even then you don't need to do it in order to turn a profit. Although if it was recreational (for some bizzarre reason) you could simply replicate a crab fishing boat using a large replilcator designed for vehicles (and other large items). All you'd have to do it sign up and wait for your turn, assuming their was a wait in the first place.
Remember we have only had money for maybe the last 5000 years. I can easily imagine a world without money.Me too.
I was wondering when you were going to show up. ;-)
I was on strike against the internet yesterday.
Yeah... What is money exactly? It's nothing more than an I O U note, stating that you contributed somehow, and you now want something in return. Somewhere down the line, it just grossly got out of hand for some reason...
Ultradan
Exactly! Money is nothing more than an IOU based on a government sponsorship. When a government fails their currency becomes the value of the material it's made of (paper, gold, silver, etc). I think "no economy because technology has allowed us to move beyond it" is a more accurate description of what I'm asking than "no money."
I was on strike against the internet yesterday.
I heard the internet was on strike againt you.
If we end up using all this energy what happens to all the excess heat from entropy that is created?
This would destroy economics as we know it if all was free. Also what would obesity be if you can so quickly get good food out of these things.
If we end up using all this energy what happens to all the excess heat from entropy that is created?
This would destroy economics as we know it if all was free. Also what would obesity be if you can so quickly get good food out of these things.
the fictional enrgy souce has been perfected. It's clean (no excess byproducts including heat) Cheap, and abundant.
You missed the original statement. This is not something that happens overnight, but it's a process that is managed until cash ecnomics are unnecessary.
I imagine obesity would be reduced greatly if healthy food was free and readily available. Not ot mention replicators can make anything at the drop of a hat with no prep work. I'd like grilled swordfish with asparagus and rosemary roasted potatoes please. "Poof." I tried to think of healthy, but expensive foods and fell short. Personally, I'd have sushi every day.
So this breaks entropy and scarcity both?
Star Trek is cheese.
There'll always be money.
Money, for all it is cracked up to be, is essentially a measuring unit by which we represent each of our personal shares of all the crap that exists.
It exists to create a more fluid barter.
As long as people need to cooperate, there will be always money in some form or another. Think about it.....if you're Tom Hanks on an island, you don't need money because it's all yours.
Gaddafi actually tried to get rid of money and go back to the honest barter system.
It's the kind of thing dingbats like Gaddafi try to pull.
I beleve we're reached the point of the thread where people don't actually read the original or follow up posts. Instead it appears as though contributers are assuming the subject matter based solely on the title. If the last 4 posters could please re-read the original post and subsequent posts I think you'll mind that your questions/concerns/misunderstandings have already been addressed.
Thank you.