Did Somebody Say "Star Trek"?

Culture
430

I’m not exactly sure if Star Trek’s socio-economic system is communist or not. I’m still learning about the different branches of Leftist political theory, and I don’t consider myself informed enough to take a stab at answering the question.

But from what we do know about the Star Trek future, it seems to be, for the most part, anti-capitalist and post-scarcity. There is food for all, housing for all, medicine for all, education for all, without the typical “who’s-gonna-pay-for-it” nonsense. Money is still in use for luxury goods or trading across cultures, but it’s no longer the driving force behind, well, most of humanity’s actions.

Whatever that’s called, I WANT IT.

But we could be so much closer to that right now, today. We can already produce enough to feed, clothe and house everyone with our current technology, give or take a few logistical and distribution issues. (Seriously, consider how much food and drink is destroyed by restaurants, groceries and businesses when unsold, instead of being given away to be eaten. Think about how much “fast fashion” winds up in landfills, instead of being used. How many empty buildings exist, which could be rehabbed and used for shelter, schooling, you name it. How many pills and vaccines get discarded because nobody got to take them before they expired.)

Why doesn’t it happen now? Because it might cost somebody money. Because, as a collective, society has decided that hoarding little scraps of paper or digital bits are more important than the survival of our fellow human beings. And Capitalism insists that people are only worth how much they can produce and/or consume, and not amazing individuals of great worth and potential in their own right, deserving of a good, comfortable existence just because they exist.

I have no idea how we get to the Star Trek future from here. I no longer believe I’ll get to see it exist in my lifetime. I do hope we get there someday. If we don’t, I don’t believe we’ll survive as a species.

7 Likes
431

That’s what really gets me.

~50% of food that makes it to the shelf is thrown out. Only about 1/6th to 1/3rd of the food even gets to the shelf, because nobody wants to buy an ugly vegetable or fruit or whatever. And of course, some potential food crops are instead used for bioenergy or other purposes, or even just plain scrapped to keep prices high enough to support the farmers. So at a bare minimum, we could produce about 6x as much food as we eat. Possibly as much as 12x as much. And we have an obesity epidemic.

Yet think back - not far at all. Many of us here had grandparents from the Great Depression or one generation after. Those people knew hunger, famine, starvation. They had to make every bit of food count. And that was just a couple of generations ago. We’ve come so far, so fast, we don’t know how to manage it.

And when you look at the general state of consumer stuff - furniture, appliances, etc. It’s mostly disposable crap. A lot of it is intentionally designed that way. You have to throw it out and buy the new one when it becomes obsolete. The newest stuff even has DRM that actively prevents you from possibly repairing it.

Yet only a couple of generations ago, stuff was made with some lasting quality, and repaired and passed down from generation to generation. And sure, you can say some of that’s survivorship bias - we only see the lasting stuff because the crap didn’t survive. But mostly it’s overall true. ‘Radio repairman’ used to be a good job. Furniture lasted generations. And here’s the kicker - we have better materials science now. We have better tooling and manufacturing ability now. We have better ability to publish and read repair manuals now. And yet we make everything disposable - on purpose.

Better medical tech, we can mass-produce medicine for pennies a dose. But we have to charge thousands of dollars a month so someone can profit off a patent. Plenty of vacant housing, but we won’t allow homeless people to use it. Plenty of room to build more but we make zoning ordinances prohibiting it. We’re fully capable of making and using public transit, but instead we widen the roads and forbid mixed-use zoning so people have to drive.

We even had public-funded education. And it worked. But we didn’t want our government money going to those hippies that might protest the war, so had to create a whole student loan industry instead.

For those of us in the developed world, we are already in a post-scarcity situation. All of it is already here. We’re just handling it in the worst possible way. Creating artificial scarcity for the sake of profit.

8 Likes
432

Obesity is a complex issue. Some areas have food deserts, where healthier options aren’t always available (or are priced beyond what some people can afford.) There’s also the fact that many processed foods have unnecessary sugar and/or high fructose corn syrup added to make them more appealing, upping the calorie count.

Some areas of cities aren’t designed for walking, so we spend more time sitting in cars instead of moving under our own power; “desk jobs” don’t help much either (let alone working multiple jobs to survive and then being too tired to exercise, or cook healthy meals, in whatever leisure time is left.)

And some people have health issues that encourage weight gain, but since medical care is costly and difficult to access, they remain untreated, making it harder to exercise. (I’ve also heard many tales of people suffering from serious conditions, like PCOS or even cancer, that were ignored by doctors because they said “all you need to do is lose some weight”… )

Aside from that small point, I agree with you.

7 Likes
433

I don’t know how WE get there, I was more thinking about how the TV show world got there - and it seemed to be heavy lifting with technology. But again, the transition is the sketchy part where things could go well, or things could go very wrong. Capitalists ALWAYS attempt to benefit off of innovation. Witness where the dollars went around covid vaccines. But at some point there will be innovations that have the potential to make everyone “rich” instead of a few richer. The question is are there individuals at that point in time that will gift it to the world instead of hoard it for the few.

But I’m with you when you say I WANT.

I see capitalism like this: There are a very small percentage of people in the world who are really focused on money as the central focus and goal of their lives. And the rest of us just deal with money because there is no other way to be able to live. Yet somehow we’ve allowed all these money-grubbers to set the system for us all to live by. Imagine if my gardening hobby was imposed on the rest of the world as a requirement for living. You might not give a shit about growing flowers, but if you don’t grow flowers you won’t have any food or a roof over your head. You be homeless and destitute - and you certainly would not have anytime for your own personal hobby of watching the stock market.

5 Likes
434

Well, there is in fact scarcity. However its an imposed scarcity, imposed by capitalism because scarcity is required for it to function.

3 Likes
435

My Trek memory is a bit sketchy this morning, but I do remember that Earth history went through many trials on its way to its benevolent future. There were the Bell Riots in their 2020s, based on the kind of economic inequality we see today. There was a third world war, after which Zephram Cochrane discovered the warp drive that attracted the Vulcans, who introduced humanity to other races, spurring more cultural development for our species. But yeah, Trek was kind of sketchy on how it got there, from a narrative standpoint.

(Which you probably know, but it’s a good way to nudge us gently back to the topic… :wink: :grin: )

4 Likes
436

Star Trek earth does seem more socialistic, in as much as socialism seems less focused on managing resources, and more about equal regard for fellow man. I’d say that lands closer to Picard’s explanation:

We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity

Similar, yet very different from “We work to better ourselves” don’t you think?

3 Likes
437

Another Picard quote is helpful here:

Things are only impossible until they’re not!

:laughing:

2 Likes
438

Socialism-plus? Um…Socialist-Altruist?

2 Likes
439

Regarding post-scarcity and positive societal chaanges, my $0.02…

I often describe my cats as “all instinct, no brain”, but honestly, are people really any different?
We humans like to think of ourselves as intelligent and rational, but animal instinct still seems to have a much larger influence over people than most realize.

Forget technology, “human nature” is the biggest impediment to societal progress.

Knee-jerk reactionaries, driven by sometimes violent instinct, will undermine and attack any societal changes they don’t like. History tells us and current events demonstrate that a disturbingly large fraction of the population can be dangerously, stupidly reactionary against even the most positive changes, while most people just try to ignore the noise and go about their lives.
Animal behavior, all of it, overlaid with human species-arrogance and self-importance.

True progress in ANY area — science, equality, justice, economics, you-name-it — is slow. Most people don’t care about change as long as the status quo is comfy enough for them, and many people will fight tooth-and-nail against change out of fear of loss.

I fear that a true post-scarcity society would prove impossible to create until humans either evolve out of their animal past, or they feel that their backs are to the wall and they have no choice but to accept radical change.

(Sorry, just HAD to post this before the posts drifted back to a new topic.)

5 Likes
440

Alturism suggests a disregard for self - sacrificing for others, where I don’t think that quite fits.

Socialism is closer to capitalism than communism I think where means of production are owned by the people. There is still businesses, jobs, money, marketplaces, all the trappings of capitalism - just the profit or benefits of the ownership of means of production fall to everybody instead of a few.

Communism goes beyond this to common ownership of everything, and allocation of resources by ability and need. A wide difference from socialism which is quite condemning of current politicians who attempt to “lump” them together.

I think we need to coin a new phrase for Star Trek’s model. Post-scarcity describes more the situation than the economics. Calling it post-scarcityism would be a little like calling summer “Sunny”. Articles I’ve read about Star Treks economy describes no scarcity in life’s basics - food, shelter, education, healthcare, but when you think about it - there certainly is scarcity in star ships. And achieving enough to qualify for serving on a starship - those jobs remain scarce. So there would remain some level of marketplace or commerce for certain kinds of things that are well beyond personal needs. But essentials that anybody needs to survive are not scarce, and even available with choice - where do you want to live, what do you want to eat, how do you want to spend your time, what do you want to study - beyond survival level, even what we may consider luxury. But I think the most salient characteristic would be the release from survival based on exchange of personal labor or intellect for means of survival. For me thats the situation that would need to be captured in a new name - Post-survival economy.

I agree - people have shown themselves to be quite stupid, especially recently. But we’re talking star trek, not our sorry reality.

5 Likes
441

knights tale chaucer yes and at same time huge no
knights tale chaucer yes and at same time huge no699×361 70.2 KB

We’ll probably always have to wrestle, individually and on a societal level, with stubbornness and greed and the more negative human instincts… but I’m not so sure it’s only a matter of human nature. We’re taught to value money, we’re educated to follow the system as-is. “Don’t question”, “obey authority”, “that’s just the way it is…” The way we’re living now isn’t innate to our species, we’ve been indoctrinated (for lack of a better word) into believing that This System Is Best. I find that both discouraging (because it strongly reinforces the status quo) and encouraging (because what is learned can be unlearned, with time and effort.)

Star Trek theorizes how people could be and what they could achieve if we shake off that conditioning, that reactionary line of thought… which is probably part of its appeal for so many people, whether they’re fully aware of it or not. (I knew I loved Trek long before I knew anything about Leftist thought, but looking back, the in-depth ethics-of-Trek discussions I had with other Trekkies half a lifetime ago were probably a stepping-stone on that path… :rofl: :vulcan_salute: )

(That’s probably not the best version of that clip out there, it’s just the first one I found.)

7 Likes
442

To bring back something from earlier in the discussion, I’m a Boomer and grew up hearing about the Depression all the time from both parents, who lived through it. We saved everything, and fixed instead of threw out. I had to cook a ‘Depression meal’ every week so we could appreciate being able to afford a more varied diet the rest of the time. I still suffer from a lot of that conditioning, to this day. My (adult) children point out to me how I’m still caught by this way of thinking…but they aren’t. I was able to raise them to not be so scarcity-minded.

Star Trek TOS was written by and acted by Boomers. They knew what they were trying to overcome.

6 Likes
443

Some of the actors and Gene himself served in WWII. Those aren’t Boomers; they’re “The Greatest Generation” or “The Silent Generation” (which are cohorts, demographically speaking, with GG preceding SG).

5 Likes
444

I like in that clip where Oppenhouser says its about Power and controlling your destiny. Picard rebukes him that its an illusion. But I think its not, at least no totally. I think about how people who are not wealthy beyond their need to survive, or even maintain a comfortable life-style - in other words most of us. We have very little control over our destiny relatively speaking - little power. What a better world it would be if all people had that power and it was not unique to the few obscenely wealthy. You don’t have to get that power by giving money to poor people. You can get that power by getting rid of money altogether!

After watching your picard clip, this video popped up -

So they are calling Star Trek a Resource Based Economy.

The city planning aspect is a re-tread of Garden City planning ideas from the post industrial revolution. That part of this is actually not very original or new. Search Ebenezer Howard Garden City

Also similar ideas taken up by Frank Lloyd Wright - Broadacre City.

What is interesting is the point made early on. Once people freed from working for survival, it frees people to pursue learning, interests, challenges that they find interesting and motivation. A small fraction of our people get to pursue a life like that now. Think of the people resources squandered now with geniuses likely toiling in fast food joints. Nurturing a life like this will release an unprecedented jump in innovation and creativity. We would experience more than a 10x increase in innovation by releasing a huge amount of intellectual power against the worlds problems.

3 Likes
446

There’s no money in the Federation, sure, but it’s a lot of handwavey stuff that’s more in line with “the writers decided early on not to deal with it, much”. I don’t see money as capitalist though. And capitalism as a word is just a dodge to avoid saying out loud “the system where the rich get whatever they want”. It doesn’t really have much to do with money, except as a tool to wield. A billionaire could be a billionaire in sequestered production just as easily as it could be a bunch of bank accounts. A warehouse full of refined rhenium ingots would serve the same purpose.

2 Likes
447

So I bought a subscription to Paramount Plus, pretty much based on the first episode of Star Trek: Picard. The first season was great, and I loved it. I’ve watched the first episode of the second season, and I’m disliking it as much as I liked the first season. Does it get any better in the rest of the second season episodes? And if not, is there anything else worthwhile on there? I watched a couple of episodes of some other random ST spinoffs but didn’t see anything I have to watch. I’m probably going to cancel it, and re-subscribe when ST:Picard season 3 is entirely available.

3 Likes
448
3 Likes
449

I think there are a number of problems with the Star Trek future. First, I would say the Star Trek universe still has its share of sociopaths.* What do we do with them? Clearly they haven’t been cured. Second, what about the problem of these individuals having access to limitless power to create mayhem (a problem we already face today – handmade bombs, access to guns, etc.)? Could sociopaths be cured? Of course that would limit antagonists in the stories to aliens who aren’t so advanced. Or maybe humans like Khan who was put in suspended animation before such cures were developed.

I’ve often wished that humans had an analog of self-interest applied to all life instead, instead of the regular self-interest we experience IRL.

*Recently it was explained by a very reliable source (i.e., my gifted therapist) that “psycho” refers to self, whereas “socio” (as one would guess) refers to other people.

2 Likes
450

And then we have narcissists…

1 Like