"The utopian future of 'Star Trek' doesn't work without extreme inequality and some slavery"

[YJ02]

NOTE!!==before I get hate ,that the thread title is a quote

I am not really an economic geek-just tend to stay more basic, but they do bring up some good points here

I mean, WHAT DOES the rest of the population of the Earth do? There is a 1% who makes up the officers of starfleet and the UFP-are they not so busy with their work that they cant even have a veg garden (if they are based on Earth) Does everyone else serve to facilitate SF's existence?

Whatever it is, the rest of the non UFP/Starfleet pop, do not get paid, but what ever they produce goes to the greater good, doesn't it?

Uber-Socialism x 10, no?

The belief systems of the ppl of the Earth as a UFP planet is that they do not believe in any form of capitalism or in any form of profit under any economic style-right?

Did we ever here of an Earthling that was rich or out prospecting the galaxy for gems or other riches? Aliens,yes, humans? Other then Mr Mudd, I don't remember any. Were there others?

And in this go-go non stop meritocracy-are the 1% members ever allowed to slow down? Can they ever truly "let their hair down?"

When we did see some SF personnel do so, they always seemed to be punished afterwards--is Starfleet/UFP a 'killjoy' institution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And just HOW MUCH FURTHER DO WE NEED to go to get anywhere near the ST planet?

In all aspects; financial systems, political, social, military, industry, religious/spiritual belief systems?

Technologically and other matters of modernity; do we HAVE to ensure every nook and cranny on the planet is as advanced in tech and other comforts of modernity (do we have to ensure that every hill tribe in every backwater has high speed net, full electrical service and in compliance with our belief systems) before we can move on?

If yes-do we do this by force if necessary?

Or do we let one nation dominate all else where that nation uses the labor and resources of everyone else to advance unilaterally and leave the planet at the cost of and to the detriment of the rest of humanity?

The path to that planet in ST was a bloody one; wars that ended with a planet mostly governed by one entity (in DS9, I remember Cisco talking about Earth and he mentioned how much of EARTH was under one governance with "some holdouts" I think were the words he used) and in some type of 'nuclear winter'. Do we-real humans- have what it takes to do the required steps?

http://www.businessinsider.com/utopian-future-of-star-trek-2015-10

 

[Overmind One]

NOTE!!==before I get hate ,that the thread title is a quote

I am not really an economic geek-just tend to stay more basic, but they do bring up some good points here

I mean, WHAT DOES the rest of the population of the Earth do? There is a 1% who makes up the officers of starfleet and the UFP-are they not so busy with their work that they cant even have a veg garden (if they are based on Earth) Does everyone else serve to facilitate SF's existence?

Whatever it is, the rest of the non UFP/Starfleet pop, do not get paid, but what ever they produce goes to the greater good, doesn't it?

Uber-Socialism x 10, no?

The belief systems of the ppl of the Earth as a UFP planet is that they do not believe in any form of capitalism or in any form of profit under any economic style-right?

Did we ever here of an Earthling that was rich or out prospecting the galaxy for gems or other riches? Aliens,yes, humans? Other then Mr Mudd, I don't remember any. Were there others?

And in this go-go non stop meritocracy-are the 1% members ever allowed to slow down? Can they ever truly "let their hair down?"

When we did see some SF personnel do so, they always seemed to be punished afterwards--is Starfleet/UFP a 'killjoy' institution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And just HOW MUCH FURTHER DO WE NEED to go to get anywhere near the ST planet?

In all aspects; financial systems, political, social, military, industry, religious/spiritual belief systems?

Technologically and other matters of modernity; do we HAVE to ensure every nook and cranny on the planet is as advanced in tech and other comforts of modernity (do we have to ensure that every hill tribe in every backwater has high speed net, full electrical service and in compliance with our belief systems) before we can move on?

If yes-do we do this by force if necessary?

Or do we let one nation dominate all else where that nation uses the labor and resources of everyone else to advance unilaterally and leave the planet at the cost of and to the detriment of the rest of humanity?

The path to that planet in ST was a bloody one; wars that ended with a planet mostly governed by one entity (in DS9, I remember Cisco talking about Earth and he mentioned how much of EARTH was under one governance with "some holdouts" I think were the words he used) and in some type of 'nuclear winter'. Do we-real humans- have what it takes to do the required steps?

http://www.businessinsider.com/utopian-future-of-star-trek-2015-10

Oh my....where to begin? Let me just say this first...the future is not going to include royalty, money, nation-states or military forces which conquer/attack other populations of humans. Any future which does is uncivilized.

How do we get there? Look behind us...way way behind. You do not find ancient money. You did not have fortresses defending hard borders between nations (groups) of people. You do not find rulers, you find leaders. These ancient civilizations lasted thousands of years. Longer than the longest "modern" civilizations starting with Greece and Rome. Capitalism and militarism is not only unsustainable, it is contrary to the notion of a Unified Humanity. You cannot have war if all people are united.

There is so much more, but suffice it to say that if you want to start with a scifi future universe, please use Trek instead. Star Wars and it's extended galactic society is uncivilized.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Ummm.
He did not mention SW............

I also want to know why does anyone think Trek has no money, it does. STARFLEET doesn't really use it, but the UFP certainly does.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Money

 

[Gatefan1976]

I DID clean my mouse, DAMMIT!!

 

[Overmind One]

Ummm.
He did not mention SW............

I also want to know why does anyone think Trek has no money, it does. STARFLEET doesn't really use it, but the UFP certainly does.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Money

Agreed. But it only uses currencies for those (relatively) primitive societies like the Ferengi and some of the others. Klingons, Humans, Vulcans, Andorians, Romulans and other more (relatively) advanced and powerful societies depicted in Star Trek are showing societies without money.

If I had to put a label on the "type" of society we are seeing in Trek (on earth) it is a socialist meritocracy.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Agreed. But it only uses currencies for those (relatively) primitive societies like the Ferengi and some of the others. Klingons, Humans, Vulcans, Andorians, Romulans and other more (relatively) advanced and powerful societies depicted in Star Trek are showing societies without money.

Sure, but they all have a "barter system" of some kind.

If I had to put a label on the "type" of society we are seeing in Trek (on earth) it is a socialist meritocracy.

That sounds about right, but I would be choosy about the meaning of Meritocracy.

 

[Overmind One]

Sure, but they all have a "barter system" of some kind.

That sounds about right, but I would be choosy about the meaning of Meritocracy.

Agreed. The Klingon meritocracy seems to be built upon a currency of "Honor", and one advances through it by use of bravery and honorable deeds (as defined by the basically religious doctrine of Kahless). Not clear on how that works, except that it results in advancement based upon bravery. Captain Picard once defined the Terran meritocracy as being a society where advancement is based upon a goal of "Bettering ourselves for the benefit of Mankind (and other humanoids, is implied)". Yet, we see a clearly delineated Starfleet which appears to have a military structure. The Science corps are separate from Starfleet. Still, we see no money or poverty. Earth has been described as basically a "paradise/utopia" by various characters in more than one of the series and also the movies.

 

[YJ02]

staying on earth

what would those humans not involved with the UFP or SF be doing for work exactly?

wouldn't most of their activity be for the benefit of the UFP/SF? the new "nobility" of the planet? they would be the new elite and we all know the human drive to make elites into royalty
------------------------------

and most of those ancient civs you mentioned OM,the ones with any (yet) discovered military structure, they all fell to war and invasion

they failed to control their border/area and were overwhelmed by others

great example is the fall of the Mycenaean culture--they fell and with it fell a great civilization with massive constructions and an ordered society. Greece was "dark" for centuries afterwards. similar things happened in the Indus river civ's and in Sumeria. New arch evidence suggests sim activities along the black sea coast as well

the only ancient civ that is still standing, though somewhat changed, and with some low points, is China. And mostly because during the ages it has been led by strong central govts led by a strong dictatorial king/emperor. China displays that "force works"

in this ST future-if the entire planet was not somehow held together peacefully (by force? "goodwill", a chip in everyones head?) then eventually, the outliers would infiltrate the advanced and bring them down as well-as happened before

 

[YJ02]

What about the "slavery" in the article?

We now have a "wage slavery"system and/or, IMO, a "credit slave", or at least-a beholden to one's credit score based system. One that is based on paper and arbitrary scores and financial voodoo.

Is the general population of Earth in ST a "Slave" population as described in the art.? Is there any room for political or social dissent on EARTH in ST?

we never saw it, but could it have existed in that system? or would TPTBs of Earth have squashed it for fear of any dissent exposing flaws in their system?

 

[Overmind One]

staying on earth

what would those humans not involved with the UFP or SF be doing for work exactly?

wouldn't most of their activity be for the benefit of the UFP/SF? the new "nobility" of the planet? they would be the new elite and we all know the human drive to make elites into royalty
------------------------------

and most of those ancient civs you mentioned OM,the ones with any (yet) discovered military structure, they all fell to war and invasion

they failed to control their border/area and were overwhelmed by others

Without saying it explicitly, exactly WHO started with the conquering of neighboring lands and invading and taking their resources? The nations which were already rich in resources had no need to do such a thing. What you see as a "failure to control their border" is a very one sided view. There were no hard borders before the conquerors. None of the rich nations/peoples needed to attack or invade their neighbors. There are no fortresses in ancient Nubia, Egypt, South America or the ancient sites of Asia. The one structure which is a fortification was built to shut out those same conquerors was the Wall of China. Because of that, most of mainland China was spared the age of conquest and colonization. Military conquest and the occupation and raising of flags and drawing of hard borders is a conquerors invention. It does not have ancient roots.

great example is the fall of the Mycenaean culture--they fell and with it fell a great civilization with massive constructions and an ordered society. Greece was "dark" for centuries afterwards. similar things happened in the Indus river civ's and in Sumeria. New arch evidence suggests sim activities along the black sea coast as well

From the same peoples who gave rise to the conquerors/colonists. That behavior is not found in other cultures.

the only ancient civ that is still standing, though somewhat changed, and with some low points, is China. And mostly because during the ages it has been led by strong central govts led by a strong dictatorial king/emperor. China displays that "force works"

in this ST future-if the entire planet was not somehow held together peacefully (by force? "goodwill", a chip in everyones head?) then eventually, the outliers would infiltrate the advanced and bring them down as well-as happened before

China was saved by it's walls, and it's language barriers as well as it's unique culture. But mostly by it's sheer numbers. It has been said that the Chinese could overrun all of western Europe using only sticks and stones because there are not enough bullets on earth to kill them all.

 

[shavedape]

I can't remember the episode but I think it's one of the Mark Twain ones where an Enterprise member (again, can't remember who) says that poverty has been eliminated in their time. -- Or they said that currency was eliminated. -- Whatever it was it was a vague statement that didn't explain how they had dealt with economics in their century. Truthfully this was a cop out because how a civilization handles economics is an important part of their survival.

 

[Overmind One]

I can't remember the episode but I think it's one of the Mark Twain ones where an Enterprise member (again, can't remember who) says that poverty has been eliminated in their time. -- Or they said that currency was eliminated. -- Whatever it was it was a vague statement that didn't explain how they had dealt with economics in their century. Truthfully this was a cop out because how a civilization handles economics is an important part of their survival.

The key is the definition and experience of "wealth". If EVERYONE could fly anywhere on earth they wanted, eat as much and whatever they wanted at any time, lived where they wanted and were of sound body and mind (this would have to come from having abundant resources and advanced knowledge), there would be no need for money. Everything would be free. Everyone would be "rich" as it were. Those whose life work gave something significant to advance society would be given better tools to do their work. Perhaps access to a lab, to supercomputers, perhaps access to an oceangoing ship or the space station, etc. Natural born scientists and athletes and artists and mathematicians would be given access to whatever they needed to do their work. A Meritocracy based upon achievement. As long as there is no income involved, there is no greed incentive. Remove all "prizes" and special distinctions (other than one's name) from the picture. Give credit where due, and leave the accolades to the public. Removing money from the picture exposes the mediocre from the truly exceptional...in terms of merit. Just some thoughts there...

 

[YJ02]

Without saying it explicitly, exactly WHO started with the conquering of neighboring lands and invading and taking their resources? The nations which were already rich in resources had no need to do such a thing. What you see as a "failure to control their border" is a very one sided view. There were no hard borders before the conquerors. None of the rich nations/peoples needed to attack or invade their neighbors. There are no fortresses in ancient Nubia, Egypt, South America or the ancient sites of Asia. The one structure which is a fortification was built to shut out those same conquerors was the Wall of China. Because of that, most of mainland China was spared the age of conquest and colonization. Military conquest and the occupation and raising of flags and drawing of hard borders is a conquerors invention. It does not have ancient roots.



From the same peoples who gave rise to the conquerors/colonists. That behavior is not found in other cultures.



China was saved by it's walls, and it's language barriers as well as it's unique culture. But mostly by it's sheer numbers. It has been said that the Chinese could overrun all of western Europe using only sticks and stones because there are not enough bullets on earth to kill them all.

EVERY city in ancient China and Korea was a fortress-the ancient Korean word for "city" is synonymous with "fortress".

The history of China is FILLED with bloodshed and warfare! What are you talking about?!

It is traceable to at least the Shang chiefdom/kingdom in the east of China

it was in existence from around 1700 bc to about 1100 bc

it was ruled by brutal warfare and expansion as well as plentiful use of human sacrifice in rituals and noble burials

The first ruler of Unified China-a King of Chi'n, used even more extreme measures in his conquest to place all of China under his rule

It is very ancient

just do some reading-oh wait, you will just say that anything I link is just European propaganda, an editorial or some other such nonsense. but even the chinese and any other asian nation will say that their ancient history was a bloody and warlike one.

but anyhow:

http://www.ushistory.org/civ/9b.asp


"The Use of the Chariot and Bronze Weapons in Warfare- The advancement of bronze technology and the use of bronze weapons gave the Shang military great advantage over their enemies and completely changed the way they fought wars. They used newly-developed weapons like the bronze-tipped halberd and spear, the compound bow; and most importantly, they used horse-drawn chariots.The chariot, which had most likely been introduced from western Asia, completely changed the way battles were fought. Chariots allowed commander s to supervise their troops efficiently and across great d i stances. They also gave soldiers a significant edge over their opponents by making them highly mobile and fast. Since war was central to life during the Shang Dynasty, these developments in weapons were very important in allowing the Shang to maintain its military supremacy"

from- http://iis-db.stanford.edu/docs/117/ShangDynasty.pdf

And in general, most paleo anthropologists,archaeologists and historians agree that in the stone ages, war probably DID NOT exist as ppl were still in small bands and spent most of their time in the search for food and shelter.

Once ppl started to coalesce around early towns and cities and took up the agricultural life, the case for war against a cities neighbors probably started. One city's rulers wanted what the other had; the other had better fields or better water access.

Also, the new secure way of life (that is,not being a nomad) allowed for the creation of an upper class/ruler/priest class. This class needed to use force to retain its position. This most likely brought a rise to the trained strongman/ warrior. The tools of war were developed to match this need and new skill.

The bronze age allowed for the creation of stronger weapons, the horse drawn chariot was a weapon of war first and a means of conveyance second. They didn't have spikes and other nasties on the axles just for looks (ie: the scythed chariot)

The same is true today; a food and other needs secure society will become paranoid in a way-they build defenses and armies. They then find a reason to attack the other.

One work on these things: http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...dence-early-prehistoric-people-warlike-020251

 

[YJ02]

Everyone is talking about how great such a planet would be, but no one is talking about how we would get to that point.

Its like gun control--many want it, they flap about it all day, but no one has a real plan for how to do it (and I am not talking about just tweaking some existing systems here and there)

Would every other nation on the planet willingly submit to a one govt model? What would the joiners do with the holdouts? Eliminate them through a total war or leave them be?

the only way I see nations willingly surrender their sovereignty ( a smaller scale union was touted as a great thing (the EU). open borders, single currency, central govt (almost) and standardized laws) on a world level is if there is some great catastrophe, man made or natural

other then that ,,everyone thinks they can go it alone

 

[Overmind One]

EVERY city in ancient China and Korea was a fortress-the ancient Korean word for "city" is synonymous with "fortress".

The history of China is FILLED with bloodshed and warfare! What are you talking about?!

It is traceable to at least the Shang chiefdom/kingdom in the east of China

it was in existence from around 1700 bc to about 1100 bc

it was ruled by brutal warfare and expansion as well as plentiful use of human sacrifice in rituals and noble burials

The first ruler of Unified China-a King of Chi'n, used even more extreme measures in his conquest to place all of China under his rule

It is very ancient

just do some reading-oh wait, you will just say that anything I link is just European propaganda, an editorial or some other such nonsense. but even the chinese and any other asian nation will say that their ancient history was a bloody and warlike one.

but anyhow:

http://www.ushistory.org/civ/9b.asp


"The Use of the Chariot and Bronze Weapons in Warfare- The advancement of bronze technology and the use of bronze weapons gave the Shang military great advantage over their enemies and completely changed the way they fought wars. They used newly-developed weapons like the bronze-tipped halberd and spear, the compound bow; and most importantly, they used horse-drawn chariots.The chariot, which had most likely been introduced from western Asia, completely changed the way battles were fought. Chariots allowed commander s to supervise their troops efficiently and across great d i stances. They also gave soldiers a significant edge over their opponents by making them highly mobile and fast. Since war was central to life during the Shang Dynasty, these developments in weapons were very important in allowing the Shang to maintain its military supremacy"

from- http://iis-db.stanford.edu/docs/117/ShangDynasty.pdf

And in general, most paleo anthropologists,archaeologists and historians agree that in the stone ages, war probably DID NOT exist as ppl were still in small bands and spent most of their time in the search for food and shelter.

Once ppl started to coalesce around early towns and cities and took up the agricultural life, the case for war against a cities neighbors probably started. One city's rulers wanted what the other had; the other had better fields or better water access.

Also, the new secure way of life (that is,not being a nomad) allowed for the creation of an upper class/ruler/priest class. This class needed to use force to retain its position. This most likely brought a rise to the trained strongman/ warrior. The tools of war were developed to match this need and new skill.

The bronze age allowed for the creation of stronger weapons, the horse drawn chariot was a weapon of war first and a means of conveyance second. They didn't have spikes and other nasties on the axles just for looks (ie: the scythed chariot)

The same is true today; a food and other needs secure society will become paranoid in a way-they build defenses and armies. They then find a reason to attack the other.

One work on these things: http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...dence-early-prehistoric-people-warlike-020251

China's history is not nearly as old as ancient Egypt or Kush or Nubia or the Inca. Those super ancient civilizations are more advanced than the "ancient" civilizations of China, Rome, Greece or even the Stonehenge builders. In those highly advanced civilizations, you do not find fortresses, no fortifications or traces of hard borders defining their lands. You do, however, see evidence of socialized farming and food distribution. You see massive structures representing thousands upon thousands of man-hours. And most of all, you do not find any type of money/currency. The idea of "trade" was actually a form of distribution, not for profit. Real goods being used as barter is not the same as using money (which has no intrinsic value). Nations grew and merged, they did not further divide into smaller nations with hard borders, and no wars were fought over borders. All of that started much much later.

 

[YJ02]

China's history is not nearly as old as ancient Egypt or Kush or Nubia or the Inca. Those super ancient civilizations are more advanced than the "ancient" civilizations of China, Rome, Greece or even the Stonehenge builders. In those highly advanced civilizations, you do not find fortresses, no fortifications or traces of hard borders defining their lands. You do, however, see evidence of socialized farming and food distribution. You see massive structures representing thousands upon thousands of man-hours. And most of all, you do not find any type of money/currency. The idea of "trade" was actually a form of distribution, not for profit. Real goods being used as barter is not the same as using money (which has no intrinsic value). Nations grew and merged, they did not further divide into smaller nations with hard borders, and no wars were fought over borders. All of that started much much later.

the first "money" was just a way for narcissistic rulers to get the ppl to love them by having their images stamped into gold and silver
-------------------

Oh silly! Everyone knows the aliens built everything old in egypt and peru!!!

 

[Jim of WVa]

the first "money" was just a way for narcissistic rulers to get the ppl to love them by having their images stamped into gold and silver
-------------------

Oh silly! Everyone knows the aliens built everything old in egypt and peru!!!

Where is the button for "Not Funny?"

You would not say that around an ancient astronaut theorist. He will either agree with you or think you were making fun of his imaginations.

 

[Overmind One]

Everyone is talking about how great such a planet would be, but no one is talking about how we would get to that point.

Its like gun control--many want it, they flap about it all day, but no one has a real plan for how to do it (and I am not talking about just tweaking some existing systems here and there)

Would every other nation on the planet willingly submit to a one govt model? What would the joiners do with the holdouts? Eliminate them through a total war or leave them be?

the only way I see nations willingly surrender their sovereignty ( a smaller scale union was touted as a great thing (the EU). open borders, single currency, central govt (almost) and standardized laws) on a world level is if there is some great catastrophe, man made or natural

other then that ,,everyone thinks they can go it alone

Many scientists discuss this. All over the world. But the steps necessary would destroy most of the major social constructs which have been created as a result of the invention of money and it's assigned value. To just begin, these would be the first steps:

1. Eliminate all national borders. No more nation-states.
   
2. Nullify all forms of money.
   
3. Eliminate national military forces and empty all national treasuries of all gold and silver and platinum (use those materials for industry and science)
4. Distribute food to every person in every nation (this is possible EASILY)
   
5. Rewrite most of the laws which governed people living in nation-states (which would be eliminated)

It would have to be made a crime for anyone to try and establish a separate nation-state, or to otherwise create something divided away from the rest of Humanity for their own gain. No hoarders, no forced labor to enrich individuals who want more than they have merited in that society, etc. Starting new means destroying most of the old.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Many scientists discuss this. All over the world. But the steps necessary would destroy most of the major social constructs which have been created as a result of the invention of money and it's assigned value. To just begin, these would be the first steps:

1. Eliminate all national borders. No more nation-states.
   
2. Nullify all forms of money.
   
3. Eliminate national military forces and empty all national treasuries of all gold and silver and platinum (use those materials for industry and science)
4. Distribute food to every person in every nation (this is possible EASILY)
   
5. Rewrite most of the laws which governed people living in nation-states (which would be eliminated)

It would have to be made a crime for anyone to try and establish a separate nation-state, or to otherwise create something divided away from the rest of Humanity for their own gain. No hoarders, no forced labor to enrich individuals who want more than they have merited in that society, etc. Starting new means destroying most of the old.

It would take a catastrophic event to make any of this happen. In Star Trek, that event was the nuclear WWIII.

 

[Overmind One]

It would take a catastrophic event to make any of this happen. In Star Trek, that event was the nuclear WWIII.

Exactly.

 

[Overmind One]

Money was created by those without any resources to trade and nothing to barter. It is an advanced form of an IOU. Created out of nothing but a promise to pay, it was a way for those with nothing to acquire goods without giving anything real in return except a promise to complete the barter at a later time with real goods. It's ironic that money was created by the destitute, and because of it's existence it allowed those with no real skills or talents or knowledge to amass wealth. Even today, money itself is completely worthless. Only it's agreed upon value gives it any substance.