Comments on: The Economic Fantasy of “Star Trek”

By: Zackdc

Zackdc — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:41:34 +0000

This article is right on spot. What all of you “money-less future” proponents leave out of this arguement is LAND! Back on Earth, who gets on the oceanfront? On the lake?

What about great works of art? There are no private collectors anymore?

Even in the cities…who determines who get’s the penthouse apartment and who gets the ground floor? I live in SF and work at Starfleet HQ…who get’s the beautiful flat in Sausalito with amazing views of the Golden Gate bridge?

There will ALWAYS be money because something is always scarce..in this case..LAND.

By: New England Patriots

New England Patriots — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:50:45 +0000

I don¡¯t ordinarily comment but I gotta say regards for that post on this one.

By: Just Jer

Just Jer — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:07:38 +0000

I love this article not for it’s content but for the comments. That the author thinks the value of a commodity is set by demand, completely ignores the effect of wall street commodity trading on prices. Who’s writing economic fantasy?

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:57:54 +0000

In Easy Rider, Jack Nicholson’s character gets stoned for the first time & talks about Venusian aliens having the technology to feed, cloth, transport, etc all of their citizens equally & w/out effort. If such technology could in fact eliminate scarcity, then yes, economics could be eliminated also. But that isn’t the case in Star Trek, where beings compete over modes of transportation, the occupation of planets that make their inhabitants immortal, and positions of control of resources. If they really are able to replicate away their desires, then why do they have orbital shipyards? Why not replicate a ship for each person, instead of having them go to the Academy to determine who is worthy of directing the limited resources of ships like the Enterprise? There are more demands than supplies in the Federation, so there is a logical need for economics. Money makes economic exchanges easier.

By: NathanMcKnight

NathanMcKnight — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:12:22 +0000

“man’s nature does not change”

Now *that* is fantasy! We’ve got about two million years of human biological evolution and several thousand years of cultural evolution–not to mention a wealth of currently existing cultural diversity–that demonstrate beyond any doubt that mankind’s nature is constantly changing and highly malleable.

By: Mimbrena

Mimbrena — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:29:35 +0000

I dare to join these true aficionados and thank them for countering the ex-Star Trek-writer who failed to digest the initial premiss.
What our writer missed, perhaps he was too young, was this series was not written for children. It was an adult “western” that addressed the pressing issues of our time when no one else would.

While suspending my disbelief in what could be possible, it was what might be probable that fired my imagination. Obviously the “Federation” is a collection of independent and sovereign entities with their own economic systems. However, Kirk explained more than once that they had learned to share resources. This dialogue spoke directly to present day facts like we already produce enough food to feed our (real) world but it is the distribution system that gets controlled by the greedy that keeps people hungry.

The difference with Fantasy is there must be an insurmountable problem that can only be resolved by extra human forces. Science Fiction needs to explain how their solution fits our knowledge of physics. Admittedly that can be a giant leap but the point remains.

Roddenberry obviously hoped for a time when we could reach beyond our selfishness and when technology as well as our better selves would make that possible. There were credits for work performed and in TNG they were required for time on the Holodeck. I did not know of his exclusion of “money” but that some might hoard resources for profit and then hoard that profit was, in fact, the joke.

I do not know if we can achieve his vision. How can we transport strawberries from the south to the north in winter? How can we extricate ourselves from the despot Corporate rulers? How can we feed the world? Replicators are more believable than a change from human greed. It doesn’t negate economics but changes the supply & demand curve substantially.

Fantasy is believing some super-human will lead us to our better world. Maybe that is why our politicians feel the need to promise to be Saints and then proved so much less. Science Fiction asks the question: Why can’t we?

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:31:17 +0000

Stephen’s comment that “Deep Space Nine proved the Star Trek universe in teeming with capitalism” is a deeply odd and misguided reading of the series. The space station Deep Space Nine is set at the edge of Federation Space, and so has more opportunities to come into contact with commerce and trade, yes. Yet the Ferengi – who epitomise the search for “profit” and “latinum” – are ridiculed throughout the series, especially compared to the Federation’s continued commitment to equality and universal prosperity. The head of the Ferengi’s capitalist society, “Grand Nagus Zek”, is a patently comical caricature, played, as it happens, by a well-known and controversial left-wing actor (Wallace Shawn). To miss the point that the Ferengi are the butt-end of many of the show’s jokes (and that by the end of the series Zek promotes Rom to be the new Grand Nagus, ushering in a period of labour rights, environmental protection and trade reform in the Ferengi Alliance) is a strange and almost total misunderstanding of the show.

By: Doug Barbieri

Doug Barbieri — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:41:35 +0000

Nathan Rhodes makes a good point that replicators have eliminated a lot of scarcity. But he also ignores Deep Space 9. Outside the Federation, societies trade using gold-pressed latinum. Why? Because latinum is a special liquid that *cannot* be replicated, therefore is scarce. The writers of DS9 understood that basic economic principle. In order to have trade and prosperity, you *have* to have scarcity.

Technology never obviates the need for trade. People adjust and other things will be traded. You can’t replicate the human gut, drive, initiative and creativity.

By: James Madison Fan

James Madison Fan — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:58:33 +0000

Buzz,

If you can deconstruct and rebuild a human body with a replicator then a replicator can replicate a replicator. When you’re so far up the technology tree you can create matter out of energy there aren’t any limits.

Energy isn’t an issue because once you find a practical way to exploit anti-matter you have a fuel source that makes cold fusion look like a joke. E=MC^2 so .5 kg of matter mixed with .5 kg of anti-matter will yield 90 quadrillion (9*10^16) joules of energy which is roughly 15 million barrels of oil from something the size of your left shoe.

The problem is this means the replicator is a power hog of epic proportions if it is true energy to matter conversion because it would take 90 quadrillion joules to create 2.4 pounds (1 kg) of matter (i.e., making a new left shoe). It is far better to start with mater and manipulate it than to assume energy to matter conversion.

The good news is that when you can fly around in space at will you can harvest energy from entire stars so energy really isn’t a problem.

One thing the writers of Trek don’t seem to grasp is once you can manipulate matter with a replicator you don’t need to build star ships. You just build a really big replicator, put it in orbit around a super-giant and it will squirt out ships of any size and type you can imagine as fast as the mechanics will allow and the capacitors can recharge.

After we talk about the tech inconsistencies in Trek we can move on to the problems with At Will Time Travel and why the Battlestar Galatica episode “Water” didn’t make a lick of sense.

At some point it would be nice if these writers paid attention to the first word in SCIENCE-Fiction. >>heavy sigh<<

By: Buzz

Buzz — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:44:40 +0000

So who made the replicators? Who maintains them? Who fixes them when they break? Who creates the energy to run them?

Sorry, but your replicator solution to basic economics doesn’t pass the basic logic test.

Now, “Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.” Yeah, that hits the spot.