SFDebris: Booby Trap

The Next Generation
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Atekimogus wrote:Here is what is bothering me. As soon as you need a "system" to keep track of foreign "spending" - like you said noone can just request a billion bars of GPL or make holiday all the time - you basically just invented money again. Money IS the system by which one keeps track. Sure, say it is not money and call it "Federation Duty Achievement Bonds" or whatever, which can then used for buying GPL for use in trade with offworlders, but all you did is slap a different label on basically the same thing.
I'm not suggesting you would earn or buy money off the government for going to foreign places. Only that you would just ask for it.

And yes, money would still be there in the system - for dealing with outsiders only. Just not for everyday life and internal matters.
But here is the thing....it never went obsolete, not even in the paradise-world of star trek. Some ressources are still limited and even if they were not, some things like living space still are. By your own admission you would need a system to keep track of how many ressources every person needs and uses, as to limit misuse and waste.
Yes, you would. But whilst money is a way to do that, it isn't the only one.
Now if everyone is getting the basic amount of "ressources to use" or if you get only a little to cover your basic needs and get more when you "get a job" doesn't really matter. You basically have money by any other name. (And it takes probably a whole nano-second before someone trades in some of his "ressources" to get someone else to paint a fence white, or starts trading with it.............BAM...money, right then, right there.)
You're assuming it can be traded or that people would want to trade it, though. In terms of how resources are distributed/rationed, I'd imagine it's more along the lines of allocation by the government. Apply for an apartment, make a case for why you should live in a particular area in a particular type of dwelling, the government allocates you one. Something like that.
Precisly the only scenario where a "no-money" society could work. But Star Trek isn't such a society, hence it wouldn't work. More or less my point.
I don't think it's the only way, but it's certainly the most achievable.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Mikey »

To illustrate GK's point, this is from a novel called The Hydrogen Sonata. It doesn't refer to the Culture specifically, but to an equivalent society which had reached similar status:
Iain M. Banks wrote:The couple had resigned their ranks, whatever they had been. It happened. It made you poor - it was tantamount to taking a religious vow of poverty - though being poor in a post-scarcity society that only retained money as a sort of ceremonial formality was not so terrible; it took only one person of nominally average means to support any number of those requiring alms.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Atekimogus »

Mikey wrote:To illustrate GK's point, this is from a novel called The Hydrogen Sonata. It doesn't refer to the Culture specifically, but to an equivalent society which had reached similar status:
Iain M. Banks wrote:The couple had resigned their ranks, whatever they had been. It happened. It made you poor - it was tantamount to taking a religious vow of poverty - though being poor in a post-scarcity society that only retained money as a sort of ceremonial formality was not so terrible; it took only one person of nominally average means to support any number of those requiring alms.
I get his point and it is a nice thought experiment. I just don't think it will ever have any practicallity whatsoever. It's like the homo eoconomicus with a complete knowledge of the whole market etc., a nice concept and food for thought.

GrahamKennedy wrote: And yes, money would still be there in the system - for dealing with outsiders only. Just not for everyday life and internal matters.
Yes it would be, because....
GrahamKennedy wrote: You're assuming it can be traded or that people would want to trade it, though. In terms of how resources are distributed/rationed, I'd imagine it's more along the lines of allocation by the government. Apply for an apartment, make a case for why you should live in a particular area in a particular type of dwelling, the government allocates you one. Something like that.
how would the government determine what is your due? How would they know that citizen A is more important living in apartment X than citizien B? What about a citizen A who is more qualified to life in apartment X than citizen B for some reason, yet is willing to wave his rights to it (eg trading) and living in apartment Y because it is closer to citizen C who happens to be his/her lover?

Point is, as soon as you need a ranking system, you have money. As soon as you have two humans in a room, you have trade on some level and you might as well use money since having money has NO NEGATIVE side effect whatsoever. It's morally ambigious and there is no NEED to get rid of it. No need whatsoever. All you do by eliminating money from the society is bringing said society back to barter level economics. Now why would you want that?

Have you any idea what kind of problem you are creating just for my little appartment example by eliminating money from the equation? Because citizen B really would like to live in appartment X and citizen A would be willing to trade his/her rights to it, but only to the degree both perceive an growth in utility. (A would trade for the appartment, but expects more than a wet handshake for it). Since they have no money it is incredibly hard to achieve an consensus since they are reduced to barter or trading for favours.

I admit I have trouble imagining how eliminating money from this equaption could be seen as a step forward because on it's most BASIC level, all money does is giving a numerical value to a certain utility and making it COMPARABLE. That's the whole magic and yet, such an important function for every society. And since in your own words, the government still would need to give a certain value to some people and their utility and need to get food, appartments etc. all they do is creating a system for assessing and rating utility and making them comparable.......well.....making money in other words.

GrahamKennedy wrote: I don't think it's the only way, but it's certainly the most achievable.
I admit I am lacking creativity here. Let us assume there is a society which can instantly satisfy EVERY material need. We would still trade favours and there would still be some things which are not accessible to all people at the same time, hence creating demand and bam...you are back with old market forces and humans trading and stuff. (For example, no matter what, there are only so many people who are able to watch the soccer-WM finale live in the stadium.)



I admit, maybe I am to brainwashed to imagine a society without money, but for me money is just a neutral thing and has nothing at all to do with the economical system of a society. It like designing a car, some are fast, some are slow, some are better than others, and here comes star trek damning the shape of the wheel. I just don't get the connection and a society with no money could just be - probably even moreso - as unfair and cruel as every other society WITH money but that's just mho.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Atekimogus wrote:how would the government determine what is your due?
But that's the point - it's not your "due", it's your need.
Point is, as soon as you need a ranking system, you have money.
And again, this doesn't follow.
As soon as you have two humans in a room, you have trade on some level and you might as well use money since having money has NO NEGATIVE side effect whatsoever. It's morally ambigious and there is no NEED to get rid of it. No need whatsoever. All you do by eliminating money from the society is bringing said society back to barter level economics. Now why would you want that?
You're stuck on the idea that people will need to trade... whatever. That's the point I'm making - money is fine as a way to regulate trades, but to suppose that money will always be needed because of that is to suppose that trading will always be needed. This ain't necessarily so.
Have you any idea what kind of problem you are creating just for my little appartment example by eliminating money from the equation? Because citizen B really would like to live in appartment X and citizen A would be willing to trade his/her rights to it, but only to the degree both perceive an growth in utility. (A would trade for the appartment, but expects more than a wet handshake for it). Since they have no money it is incredibly hard to achieve an consensus since they are reduced to barter or trading for favours.
But that's the point - in the system I describe they can't trade apartments. B would like to live in apartment X? Then put your name down on the list for it. If "they" think you need it more than others, you get it. If not, you don't. Citizen A is willing to trade his/her rights to it? Tough luck, what's that got to do with anything? Mind your own business, citizen A!
I admit I am lacking creativity here. Let us assume there is a society which can instantly satisfy EVERY material need. We would still trade favours and there would still be some things which are not accessible to all people at the same time, hence creating demand and bam...you are back with old market forces and humans trading and stuff. (For example, no matter what, there are only so many people who are able to watch the soccer-WM finale live in the stadium.)
Well I will go with the culture's example as it's probably the best thought out.

In the Culture, there really isn't a shortage of anything in any meaningful sense. For example, yes only so many people will be able to watch the soccer final live in the stadium - but that's physical presence. They'd use totally immersive VR to allow an infinite number of people to have the experience of attending. Which is good enough, virtually all the time - the example I cited in which money of a sort did spring up because of people wanting to attend a concert was hilarious to all involved precisely because it was a one-in-a-lifetime example, largely driven by people thinking it was funny. It Culture terms "trading favours" to go to the concert was was about the equivalent of people putting "Jedi" down as their religion on a census form.

In reality there really isn't anything at all that's rationed or limited in the Culture.

Actually I think a model that may be closer to Trek is the Caves of Steel trilogy by Issac Asimov. His is almost an anti-Culture society, in which everything is in short supply and carefully rationed. But again, the system functions without money because everything literally is rationed. From the apartment you live in to the food you eat to how good a seat you can have on the public transportation system, it's all rationed out to you in amounts that depend on how your job rates on a predetermined scale.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Mikey »

Let me add, Atek, that I think you're conflating the 'Trek anti-economy with RL 21st-century obstacles to such a system. The roadblocks you mention certainly would apply if such a 'Trek-style system were just dropped onto our own heads; but in the 'Trek universe, there is no valid reason why Apartment X is more desirable than Apartment Y. Transit and communication have elevated to the point at which distance from work, a lover, a favorite hangout, or whatever is meaningless. There is no need for money to mediate trade because for any mundane material want... if you have it and I want it, I don't trade you for it - I just get my own.

Of course, such a system (obviously in 'Trek, but otherwise as well) must subsume a certain level of technological ability - sanitation, for example. In such a society in which people are free from want and free to pursue their artistic, expressive, and possibly hedonistic avocations; there must (for this example) be a technological ability to manage sanitation. Why would someone take time out of their pleasurable pursuits to be a garbage man when he doesn't need to work?
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by McAvoy »

I just remembered even using the transporter is rationed on Earth. Ben Sisko as a young cadet used up his rations coming back to New Orleans each night.

So use of certain things are or can be rationed. It is a possibility that Starfleet rations transporter use.

That was stated by his father BTW in either the first or second part of the Paradise Lost episodes.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Atekimogus »

GrahamKennedy wrote:
Atekimogus wrote:how would the government determine what is your due?
But that's the point - it's not your "due", it's your need.
Considering that you propagate a society where every material need is fullfiled both are basically the same. If it is just your need but not your due, you create instant demand...welcome back to the market.
GrahamKennedy wrote:
Point is, as soon as you need a ranking system, you have money.
And again, this doesn't follow.
Since money IS the ranking system...... . Fine, don't call it money. Call it ranking system. :roll: Semantics. Again, money just assigns a numerical value to an utility and makes them comparable and easily exchanged. How is that ANY different than a ranking system which determins the value of a certain need and assigns ressources based on it? Both systems can be used in a totalitarian communist society and in a hyper-capitalist one.

That's the same as you replacing the alphabet with bitcode and saying, lo and behold our super-society where we don't write things down anymore. And I say, sure you do, you just changed the lettering. Or you wave your creditcard in my face and say, lo and behold, no money anymore, and I say...whatever...
GrahamKennedy wrote: You're stuck on the idea that people will need to trade... whatever. That's the point I'm making - money is fine as a way to regulate trades, but to suppose that money will always be needed because of that is to suppose that trading will always be needed. This ain't necessarily so.
I guess I can agree with that, I can certainly imagine scenarios where trade is not really "needed" anymore. I am sure we will still do it, though...just to much fun for some people.
GrahamKennedy wrote: But that's the point - in the system I describe they can't trade apartments. B would like to live in apartment X? Then put your name down on the list for it. If "they" think you need it more than others, you get it. If not, you don't. Citizen A is willing to trade his/her rights to it? Tough luck, what's that got to do with anything? Mind your own business, citizen A!
Jesus Christ......I consider myself a socialist at heart and I would love to see more regulation where it is obvious that the free market ruins the economy and societies but what you are describing is a horror-scenario.

I am NOT ALLLOWED to do with as I please with my own RIGHTS? Do you know what follows your implication here?! So what is next, there is no private property anymore? Shame about Ben Siskos father in his restaurant, but the allmighty federation computer decreed, that the need of the society is better served by installing a library in its place so please leave the premises? Poor Picard brother, but seriously how DARE he approbriate means of production just for making his stinking french whine while the almighty UFP computer decrees that his farm would be the ideal place for a snail-farm, go packing Picard!

Point is, every scenario imaginable that functions without money tends to become quite quickly some form of hyper-communism and this is NOWHERE to be seen in star trek. People still have private property, businesses and means of production. That they maybe have no theoratical need to do so does not enter the equation.

GrahamKennedy wrote: Actually I think a model that may be closer to Trek is the Caves of Steel trilogy by Issac Asimov. His is almost an anti-Culture society, in which everything is in short supply and carefully rationed. But again, the system functions without money because everything literally is rationed. From the apartment you live in to the food you eat to how good a seat you can have on the public transportation system, it's all rationed out to you in amounts that depend on how your job rates on a predetermined scale.
As I said, hyper-communism. It certainly is not a desirable system. Now I haven't read it, but the natural human thing to do in a society where everything is scarce and rationed is to immediatly invent something called black market. Do they come up with a solution for that?



Another independant example would be the famous baseball-card episode where Jake is unable to obtain said card because he has no money and Nog exchanged favours instead, which is bascially the same, sure it's called bartering and is a step below an evolved monetary system but still..... .

Now my question is this: "How would it have worked if the current owner of that card would have been "drumrolls" another human?"

It seems he would have only two options: First, he trades it for work or favours or other valubles he currently possess. Welcome to bartering 101, you might now as well introduce money again. Second option, he fills out a form with the human government and makes a case that his need for the card is by far the greater one and that therefore it should be assign to him, since it would make his daddy happy and we all know that a daddies happyness is far more important than little things like your basic human right to own something....brave new world indeed.

Or I am a gourmet and I am feed up with replicated whine and want a bottle of the famous chateux Picard of which there is only a limited amount of. What are my options here? Do I really need to apply for a part time job at the farm or promise a future favour for it? Do I fill out a form stating my need? How does the government rank the needs of one gourmet over another? Are they counting taste buds on their tongues or what? :shock:

Again I admit I am a bit brainwashed in that area but what am I missing, what other choices would he have and how would they be superior to an evolved system which includes money? (I guess a third option would be stealing, but let's just assume he won't become a criminal or barbarian over it for now).
Last edited by Atekimogus on Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:36 am, edited 3 times in total.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Atekimogus »

Mikey wrote:Let me add, Atek, that I think you're conflating the 'Trek anti-economy with RL 21st-century obstacles to such a system. The roadblocks you mention certainly would apply if such a 'Trek-style system were just dropped onto our own heads; but in the 'Trek universe, there is no valid reason why Apartment X is more desirable than Apartment Y. Transit and communication have elevated to the point at which distance from work, a lover, a favorite hangout, or whatever is meaningless. There is no need for money to mediate trade because for any mundane material want... if you have it and I want it, I don't trade you for it - I just get my own.

Of course, such a system (obviously in 'Trek, but otherwise as well) must subsume a certain level of technological ability - sanitation, for example. In such a society in which people are free from want and free to pursue their artistic, expressive, and possibly hedonistic avocations; there must (for this example) be a technological ability to manage sanitation. Why would someone take time out of their pleasurable pursuits to be a garbage man when he doesn't need to work?
Good points all around. To what degree this technological problems could be solved is probably open to debate however. Still, personal preverences are still a factor (people are sometimes strange that way) which could lead to someone prefering appartment A to appartment B, which is identical but located on the west side of the building.

And I am not sure all those factors can (or should) be eliminated and it leaves plenty of room for bartering and engage in transactions, all of which are made incredibly more easy if you have something like money in your society.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Mikey »

Atekimogus wrote:Again, money just assigns a numerical value to an utility and makes them comparable and easily exchanged. How is that ANY different than a ranking system which determins the value of a certain need and assigns ressources based on it? Both systems can be used in a totalitarian communist society and in a hyper-capitalist one.
I think this is the sticky wicket. You are still discussing "value." When in a situation such as a post-scarcity Federation, commodities become valueless. What is the value of housing when it is available for all, and there is no preferred location over other locations? That's right, zero... or better, there is no concept of one being of higher value than another. Similarly, no other commodity will have any intrinsic value greater or less than another. There is no ranking system, because the apartment (or clothing, or food, or entertainment options, or whatever) that person A receives is of exactly the same "worth" as every other one.
Atekimogus wrote:I am NOT ALLLOWED to do with as I please with my own RIGHTS? Do you know what follows your implication here?! So what is next, there is no private property anymore? Shame about Ben Siskos father in his restaurant, but the allmighty federation computer decreed, that the need of the society is better served by installing a library in its place so please leave the premises? Poor Picard brother, but seriously how DARE he approbriate means of production just for making his stinking french whine while the almighty UFP computer decrees that his farm would be the ideal place for a snail-farm, go packing Picard!
This sounds right, until you consider the fact that there is no need for anyone to do the aforementioned trading. OK, it sounds like it sucks that you can't trade your apartment rights (or good or service "X") to someone else if you want to... but there would be absolutely no impetus to want to. It's sort of like saying, "I'm outraged because the government took away one of my rights!" when the right the government took from me was the right to bash my head against a brick wall while attaching hungry leeches to my testicles. OK, so my rights are being infringed... but not any rights I'd ever have any impetus to exercise. As far as exercising eminent domain on PIcard's vinyard or Sisko's restaurant... why would that ever happen? There would be no preference to have that library in the location occupied by Sisko's, or that snail farm in the location occupied by Chateau Picard, as opposed to... well, anywhere else at all.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Tyyr »

And yes, money would still be there in the system - for dealing with outsiders only. Just not for everyday life and internal matters.
The problem with this is your money is worthless. Why would I accept your money as it has nothing backing it up? "Oh, we'll replecate you X number of Y's for each Federation credit." Doesn't work since you can just keep replicating Y's, crashing their value and taking your money with it. It's why the Ferengi system is pegged to Latinum, it can't be replicated and therefore can't be devalued like that.
You're assuming it can be traded or that people would want to trade it, though. In terms of how resources are distributed/rationed, I'd imagine it's more along the lines of allocation by the government. Apply for an apartment, make a case for why you should live in a particular area in a particular type of dwelling, the government allocates you one. Something like that.
Three people want an apartment on the banks of the Seine river. There are two apartments. One person isn't getting an apartment on the Seine. "He BillyBob, what if I promised you half my replicator rations for the next five years, then could I get the apartment rather than you?" Welcome back to the free market. The only way to avoid this would be to make replicator rations non-transferable as well as property nontransferable and punishable by law if you do so.

Paging Comrade Picard, Comrade Picard...
That's the point I'm making - money is fine as a way to regulate trades, but to suppose that money will always be needed because of that is to suppose that trading will always be needed. This ain't necessarily so.
Yeah, it kind of it. We've established that the replicator IS NOT a magic "gimme what I want" device. There are things, even some very basic things, that it simply cannot replicate and many things it cannot replicate perfectly. Hell, if it could recreate things perfectly than guys like Sisko's dad and Picard's brother would be fucked because the demand for their good would evaporate. You can't claim a post-scarcity society when there are things that are scarce. Hell, APARTMENTS. You've provided a great example of something that's scarce, territory, land. There is a finite amount of it. There is a VERY finite amount of it in certain desirable locations. So your options are either some kind of market or a totalitarian government with a very striking flag. Maybe solid red but with a golden hammer and sickle right in the middle of it.
But that's the point - in the system I describe they can't trade apartments.
The Glorious leader has determined that your desires are incompatible with the needs of the state and/or our Glorious leader just likes Citizen B more so go fuck off Citizen A or get a 9mm headache billable to your family. Those that we don't send to the gulag.
Let me add, Atek, that I think you're conflating the 'Trek anti-economy with RL 21st-century obstacles to such a system. The roadblocks you mention certainly would apply if such a 'Trek-style system were just dropped onto our own heads; but in the 'Trek universe, there is no valid reason why Apartment X is more desirable than Apartment Y. Transit and communication have elevated to the point at which distance from work, a lover, a favorite hangout, or whatever is meaningless. There is no need for money to mediate trade because for any mundane material want... if you have it and I want it, I don't trade you for it - I just get my own.
Except that you haven't taken care of a basic desire, to actually BE there. I don't want to throw open the doors of balcony and see and really nice holographic representation of Paris. I want to open the doors of my balcony and actually SEE Paris. I don't want a replicated Strativarius. I want one the man actually made himself. Even if you could say the replicated things were identical to the originals there is still going to be value in something original and there's only a finite number of "original" things.
Of course, such a system (obviously in 'Trek, but otherwise as well) must subsume a certain level of technological ability - sanitation, for example. In such a society in which people are free from want and free to pursue their artistic, expressive, and possibly hedonistic avocations; there must (for this example) be a technological ability to manage sanitation. Why would someone take time out of their pleasurable pursuits to be a garbage man when he doesn't need to work?
I've suggested a system before that works for this. Every sapient being in the Federation is guaranteed a subsitence. You will be provided with a home, clothes, food, medical care, utilities, internet (or whatever they call it), and an education (if you want it.) If you want to stay home all day jerking it to Andorian porn, you're allowed to spend your life doing that. You don't need money. You basic needs are taken care of and your wants are all that's left. If you want more resources well we still need plumbers and all that money you make can be spent however you want, say a holosuite weekend with the latest Christy Mack program. Or to buy a nice car, or get an apartment somewhere that you want to live instead of where the glorious people's beaurea of habitation decides to assign you to live.
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Atekimogus wrote:Considering that you propagate a society where every material need is fullfiled both are basically the same. If it is just your need but not your due, you create instant demand...welcome back to the market.
Well, perhaps I should say it's not your desire but your need.
Since money IS the ranking system...... . Fine, don't call it money. Call it ranking system. :roll: Semantics. Again, money just assigns a numerical value to an utility and makes them comparable and easily exchanged. How is that ANY different than a ranking system which determins the value of a certain need and assigns ressources based on it? Both systems can be used in a totalitarian communist society and in a hyper-capitalist one.
And again, what if they AREN'T exchangeable? What if the purpose is to STOP THEM BEING exchangeable?

You are saying that we will always need money because we will always need to engage in the kind of trading/exchange that we do now - that we will always live more or less as we do now. But that's the point; that's an assumption, and not necessarily a good one.

Trek assumes that people of the future are fundamentally different in the way they think than you and me. They think differently, and they live differently, and so they don't need or want to engage in the kinds of activities that require money.

That's why the problem with the approach is not so much that they make that assertion about people and money, but rather that they then never actually follow through on the idea that this would be a different society with different attitudes and ways of living - instead, they just make the claims and then show people living the way they do today anyway.
That's the same as you replacing the alphabet with bitcode and saying, lo and behold our super-society where we don't write things down anymore. And I say, sure you do, you just changed the lettering. Or you wave your creditcard in my face and say, lo and behold, no money anymore, and I say...whatever...
But imagine a society like the Borg. Would the Borg have any need of an alphabet or language? They might... but you can easily see that they might not, too. Writing is a lovely way to communicate for human beings, but there's nothing really fundamental about it.
Jesus Christ......I consider myself a socialist at heart and I would love to see more regulation where it is obvious that the free market ruins the economy and societies but what you are describing is a horror-scenario.

I am NOT ALLLOWED to do with as I please with my own RIGHTS? Do you know what follows your implication here?! So what is next, there is no private property anymore? Shame about Ben Siskos father in his restaurant, but the allmighty federation computer decreed, that the need of the society is better served by installing a library in its place so please leave the premises? Poor Picard brother, but seriously how DARE he approbriate means of production just for making his stinking french whine while the almighty UFP computer decrees that his farm would be the ideal place for a snail-farm, go packing Picard!
It's a horror scenario to you and me, certainly. But that's because we've grown up living a certain way and being taught that certain values are good ones and certain values are bad ones. That's the point I've been making all along - the people of the TNG era are not like you and me. They don't necessarily have our values.

So yes, if Earth government decided that Ben Sisko needed to move out, he probably would. And where you and I might rail against our lack of freedom, Ben Sisko would probably have the attitude of "you know, folks probably do need a Library here more than a restaurant. It serves the greater good of humanity."

You look at Ben Sisko as a drone of the ultra communist tyranny. But he doesn't see it that way, because as far as he is concerned his government is genuinely trying to give people what is best for them.

I've actually had this conversation with people who spend time in China. We in the west often talk about how repressive the government in China is, how rough they are on human rights, etc. But the Chinese themselves actually see it very differently. Case in point - a few years back the Chinese legal system introduced the concept of presumed innocence. The west praised and lauded this move as improving human rights in China. But in China itself, the change was very controversial and unpopular... because in their view it made it more likely that criminals would escape justice and so reduced the human rights of everyone else. We say better than 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be locked up... in China most people beleive the exact opposite, because they genuinely feel that locking up 10 innocent men to get 1 guilty one is a price worth paying because the overall benefit to everyone is more important than how it affects those 11 people.
Point is, every scenario imaginable that functions without money tends to become quite quickly some form of hyper-communism
But that's what I'm saying - you CAN function without money, if you are willing to live under hyper-communism or some other system which allows it.
and this is NOWHERE to be seen in star trek. People still have private property, businesses and means of production. That they maybe have no theoratical need to do so does not enter the equation.
Do they, though? Is there anything at all to indicate that Ben Sisko actually owns his restaurant, or the Picard family actually own that farm? I've seen Ben Sisko talk a lot about the food he makes, but I've never once seen him give anybody a bill or charge them in any way. So far as I can see he cooks because he enjoys doing it and just gives the food away for free.

I freely admit that in many ways what we see in Trek doesn't look like some sort of hyper-communism. But that's the complaint here - it's not that not having money is some sort of fundamental impossibility, it's that it would have all sorts of implications, and the writers clearly never bothered to consider that or try to put any of it on screen. As with many aspects of the show, we're simply told that something is better but never told how or what's so good about the change.
As I said, hyper-communism. It certainly is not a desirable system.
For you.
Now I haven't read it, but the natural human thing to do in a society where everything is scarce and rationed is to immediatly invent something called black market. Do they come up with a solution for that?
Not that I know of. I'm not sure how a black market could function given that they don't have currency to buy and sell with on the side. Fiddling ration books and such is probably a sideline for some, but it would be illegal. It would be a threat to the system, much as counterfeiting money is a threat to the capitalist system, but in both cases you just have to clamp down on it as much as possible and hope that there's enough slack in the system to allow it to continue functioning.

Interestingly, somebody once asked Asimov how he had managed to come up with such a dystopian future. He was astonished, as it had never occurred to him that anybody would object to a world that he thought was pretty ideal. :)
Now my question is this: "How would it have worked if the current owner of that card would have been "drumrolls" another human?"

It seems he would have only two options: First, he trades it for work or favours or other valubles he currently possess. Welcome to bartering 101, you might now as well introduce money again. Second option, he fills out a form with the human government and makes a case that his need for the card is by far the greater one and that therefore it should be assign to him, since it would make his daddy happy and we all know that a daddies happyness is far more important than little things like your basic human right to own something....brave new world indeed.
Yep, probably something like option 2.
Or I am a gourmet and I am feed up with replicated whine and want a bottle of the famous chateux Picard of which there is only a limited amount of. What are my options here? Do I really need to apply for a part time job at the farm or promise a future favour for it? Do I fill out a form stating my need? How does the government rank the needs of one gourmet over another? Are they counting taste buds on their tongues or what? :shock:
I imagine there's probably a waiting list that you put your name down on to get a bottle.

And yes, there will be times when you just can't get something you want. Welcome to reality. There are things I am never going to be able to afford to buy, no matter how hard I work, but which Bill Gates could buy out of his spare change. Is that a glaring fundamental flaw in capitalism that means capitalist systems don't function? Or is it just a case of me having to accept that some thing are beyond me?
Again I admit I am a bit brainwashed in that area but what am I missing, what other choices would he have and how would they be superior to an evolved system which includes money? (I guess a third option would be stealing, but let's just assume he won't become a criminal or barbarian over it for now).
You're really not missing the other options - you're coming up with your own answers here, you just don't like them and what they imply. :)
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Atekimogus »

Mikey wrote: I think this is the sticky wicket. You are still discussing "value." When in a situation such as a post-scarcity Federation, commodities become valueless. What is the value of housing when it is available for all, and there is no preferred location over other locations? That's right, zero... or better, there is no concept of one being of higher value than another. Similarly, no other commodity will have any intrinsic value greater or less than another. There is no ranking system, because the apartment (or clothing, or food, or entertainment options, or whatever) that person A receives is of exactly the same "worth" as every other one.
Not true. It doesn't apply to the federation since we know that ressources there are not limitless and some kind of rationing is in place. But even if it where true, there still would be a ranking system because some commodities have different values. One apartment has the same value as every other apartment. That might be true. But is it the same value as an....apple? How much more or less is it worth than a hoovercar? And that doesn't even BEGIN to factor in the wonderful world of personal preferences.

So having a REALLY limitless society where every material need can INSTANTLY be satisfied (it has to be instantly, otherwise you open the door again for market forces) is one where everything is worthless and people would really be indifferent between utility A and utility B. But doesn't that sound really stupid and like magic?

Honestly, the only society that comes to mind in star trek which somewhat fullfills this criteria are the Q and I grant you, if we develop to the level of the Q, THEN, and only then, do we not have need for money anymore.
Mikey wrote:As far as exercising eminent domain on PIcard's vinyard or Sisko's restaurant... why would that ever happen? There would be no preference to have that library in the location occupied by Sisko's, or that snail farm in the location occupied by Chateau Picard, as opposed to... well, anywhere else at all.
Why would it ever NOT happen? Space is limited, ressources are - in this scenario - administered by the government hopefully guided by maxims to maximize utility for society as a whole and therefore...it can happen all the time as soon as snails become more preferabel than grapes for some reason or the other.

Dangerous, dangerous terrain imho.


GrahamKennedy wrote: And again, what if they AREN'T exchangeable? What if the purpose is to STOP THEM BEING exchangeable?
Fair enough but the question arises why would you WANT to stop it being interchangeble. What purpose would it serve? You basically have money but you are only allowed to use it with the government? I admit I have trouble seeing any advantage whatsoever with this system.
GrahamKennedy wrote: You are saying that we will always need money because we will always need to engage in the kind of trading/exchange that we do now - that we will always live more or less as we do now. But that's the point; that's an assumption, and not necessarily a good one.
Well as far as trade is concerned, the whole couple ten-thousand of years of human history seem a good indicator, but I certainly acknowledge, while not really agreeing with, your point.
GrahamKennedy wrote: Trek assumes that people of the future are fundamentally different in the way they think than you and me. They think differently, and they live differently, and so they don't need or want to engage in the kinds of activities that require money.
Fair enough, but again - and this is one crux of the matter, they didn't really thought through - why wouldn't they? Money isn't evil. Monetary transactions are neither. You can work 24/7 towards the bettermnent of humanity and it's society to the point of self-sacrifice......and still have money. One doesn't preclude the other, as is indicated by Star Trek, I hope we can agree on that.
GrahamKennedy wrote: That's why the problem with the approach is not so much that they make that assertion about people and money, but rather that they then never actually follow through on the idea that this would be a different society with different attitudes and ways of living - instead, they just make the claims and then show people living the way they do today anyway.
Agreed 100%
GrahamKennedy wrote: But imagine a society like the Borg. Would the Borg have any need of an alphabet or language? They might... but you can easily see that they might not, too. Writing is a lovely way to communicate for human beings, but there's nothing really fundamental about it.
They certainly also have no need for money......if their society is a desirable state though, living in a complete stagnant state (like most extreme communist societies) only developing by basically waging war and plundering. In a civilization scale they are probably barley a step above vikings. (As in barbarians, not as in actualy vikings, just to clarify :D )
GrahamKennedy wrote: I've actually had this conversation with people who spend time in China. We in the west often talk about how repressive the government in China is, how rough they are on human rights, etc. But the Chinese themselves actually see it very differently. Case in point - a few years back the Chinese legal system introduced the concept of presumed innocence. The west praised and lauded this move as improving human rights in China. But in China itself, the change was very controversial and unpopular... because in their view it made it more likely that criminals would escape justice and so reduced the human rights of everyone else. We say better than 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be locked up... in China most people beleive the exact opposite, because they genuinely feel that locking up 10 innocent men to get 1 guilty one is a price worth paying because the overall benefit to everyone is more important than how it affects those 11 people.
Fair enough, the difference between china and the west and today and a star trek society in the future without money is a huge magnitude bigger however, I have to say but I see where you are coming from. In Trek however we don't really see that difference in morals and values but we already agreed on that, so yeah...


GrahamKennedy wrote: Do they, though? Is there anything at all to indicate that Ben Sisko actually owns his restaurant, or the Picard family actually own that farm? I've seen Ben Sisko talk a lot about the food he makes, but I've never once seen him give anybody a bill or charge them in any way. So far as I can see he cooks because he enjoys doing it and just gives the food away for free.
Well it's their bloody "family" farm. I would say it is very very strongly suggested that both families are indeed the owners of their premises. As for giving away his food for free, I agree, we have never seen him getting money for it, which makes it kinda strange that he stresses over his restaurant so much to the point of endangering his health.
GrahamKennedy wrote: I freely admit that in many ways what we see in Trek doesn't look like some sort of hyper-communism. But that's the complaint here - it's not that not having money is some sort of fundamental impossibility, it's that it would have all sorts of implications, and the writers clearly never bothered to consider that or try to put any of it on screen. As with many aspects of the show, we're simply told that something is better but never told how or what's so good about the change.
Agreed
GrahamKennedy wrote:
As I said, hyper-communism. It certainly is not a desirable system.
For you.
Well considering how well such systems, or attempts at such systems, have worked in the past......I am not saying it is without benefit but like all extremes it is probably not the end of all wisdom.
GrahamKennedy wrote: Not that I know of. I'm not sure how a black market could function given that they don't have currency to buy and sell with on the side. Fiddling ration books and such is probably a sideline for some, but it would be illegal. It would be a threat to the system, much as counterfeiting money is a threat to the capitalist system, but in both cases you just have to clamp down on it as much as possible and hope that there's enough slack in the system to allow it to continue functioning.
Of course it's illegal, otherwise it wouldn't be called a black market now, would it? :wink:
Point is, given extreme scarity of ressources, something like a black market springs up immediatly and having legal tender to trade with or not doesn't factor into the equation. (Prison economy for example) People find ways, that's for sure.
GrahamKennedy wrote: Yep, probably something like option 2.
Insanity! :D
GrahamKennedy wrote: I imagine there's probably a waiting list that you put your name down on to get a bottle.
I am sure there is. There were waiting lists for basic items in soviet russia. And you could all do away with the need to regulate such minute detail and huge administration which needs to follow by just letting the market work.

Now I get what you are saying and people in the future just don't mind this kind of thing since they are pretty well off anyhow, but to me it really sounds like a huge step down on the cultural ladder with nothing gained in exchange for it.
GrahamKennedy wrote: And yes, there will be times when you just can't get something you want. Welcome to reality. There are things I am never going to be able to afford to buy, no matter how hard I work, but which Bill Gates could buy out of his spare change. Is that a glaring fundamental flaw in capitalism that means capitalist systems don't function? Or is it just a case of me having to accept that some thing are beyond me?
That IS actually a very good point and worthy of further discussion and swings into the complete opposite direction from extreme communism to extreme capitalism. As I said in an earlier post I am of a socialist inclination to a point and I am VERY VERY critical of the free market without regulations and extreme capitalism.

I am just pointing out that regardless of the system, trying to surpress certain market forces by doing away with money is a huge step backwards without any benifit.
GrahamKennedy wrote: You're really not missing the other options - you're coming up with your own answers here, you just don't like them and what they imply. :)
Ah okay then, I can certainly life with that. :D Interesting discussion btw, thanks.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Mikey »

Only time for one quick comment right now, and I think this will sum it up nicely:
Atekimogus wrote:But doesn't that sound really stupid and like magic?
No, what it sounds like is soft sci-fi. Hey, now, wait a minute... what does that remind me of...
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: SFDebris: Booby Trap

Post by Atekimogus »

Mikey wrote:Only time for one quick comment right now, and I think this will sum it up nicely:
Atekimogus wrote:But doesn't that sound really stupid and like magic?
No, what it sounds like is soft sci-fi. Hey, now, wait a minute... what does that remind me of...

Lol, yep you got me there. :D
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
Post Reply