Will we ever be without currency?
- Thread starter endtherapture
- Start date
Recommended Videos
okay, okay. What about this.
We start using seemingly rational, but ultimately politically incorrect ideas for currency?
but not in the "The government is controlling you! Were being watched!" sort of way.
We use it to control the value of things to some extent.
Like if I made some bread, and you wanted some, I would probably not give it to you unless maybe you were on the verge of dying or something. I was totally going to eat it later.
You are a uh... idk... snail farmer.
So how any snails will you give me for my bread? What if I think that snail over there is better than the one you gave me here? What if we determine that 5 snails is too little, but 6 is too much? What do I do with the snails afterwards?
I'm sure there is someone in need of snails somewhere, but I am busy making bread. I am not a snail salesman. Ever get that feeling snails sounds less and less like a word the more you say snails?
[sub]snails snails snails snails snails[/sub]
We start using seemingly rational, but ultimately politically incorrect ideas for currency?
It is indeed a means of control.Sheen Lantern said:
but not in the "The government is controlling you! Were being watched!" sort of way.
We use it to control the value of things to some extent.
Like if I made some bread, and you wanted some, I would probably not give it to you unless maybe you were on the verge of dying or something. I was totally going to eat it later.
You are a uh... idk... snail farmer.
So how any snails will you give me for my bread? What if I think that snail over there is better than the one you gave me here? What if we determine that 5 snails is too little, but 6 is too much? What do I do with the snails afterwards?
I'm sure there is someone in need of snails somewhere, but I am busy making bread. I am not a snail salesman. Ever get that feeling snails sounds less and less like a word the more you say snails?
[sub]snails snails snails snails snails[/sub]
One person having less than another is not the same as that person starving. I'm simply not talking about minor inequalities, or the philosophical differences between true poverty and other inequalities.Valderis said:
Someone starving to death is not in the same boat as someone who simply has a little less than somebody else. Objectively, we can get the world to the state in which people have enough to eat and ready access to medicine.
It's hugely linked to economics and resource management, as well as technology and society.Valderis said:
In Star Trek's universe there were 3 major wars that destroyed all semblances of society.Dead Century said:
Even in a post-scarcity environment like they had had currency(they make an ungodly amount of references to money and buying things in TOS), both when dealing internally and in the form of barter with other species.
This type of thinking is flawed because it disregards the notion of necessity being the mother of all invention. Satellites were not built because someone liked the idea of nonvisible communication and space travel, they were built because there was a need for them and someone (or many someones) was willing to spend money to essentially convince people to build satellites.endtherapture said:
Penicillin (the first antibiotic) was not discovered by someone genuinely interested in curing bacterial diseases. They were discovered by accident when Fleming forgot to wash his plates. They were weaponized later because there was a need for them.
Regardless, we need to consider the most basic problem of a Star Trek level replicator: namely, someone has to invent such a thing. Let us assume that Robert, a citizen of the USA, builds the first one. What then? In all probability, some large electronics company, maybe General Electric or Philips, will want it and will make him an offer he cannot refuse. They will get it and they will mass produce it for the world- at a price. A price paid in currency. Even if Robert can resist the temptation of easy money for as long as he lives, the USA government can claim eminent domain and take it from him, as any government anywhere can. Either way, I cannot imagine a situation in which replicator tech becomes a 'free' product for anyone, and therefore no situation in which currency (and more importantly, a standardized system of international and domestic trade) becomes redundant.
Captcha: Fatter Wallet. For shame, Escapist. For shame.
He would say that this is so because he is the captain. Which does raise the point that all we ever see of the federation is Starfleet, its military arm. We very rarely get to visit the homes of Riker or Crusher while they're on leave- and the rules of a nations military are never the same as the rules of its society.Blood Brain Barrier said:
If we transcended to a society that could make anything ala Star Trek, and had limitless energy, creativity would become the new currency. Or perhaps fame. As long as someone has something we want and we aren't willing to just take it, currency of some form will exist. I do suspect it will become more abstract though.
Dumb answer. Kirk and Picard are always going on about making a difference and then you see the next captain in the next show making the same old decisions they would have made, along with thousands of underlings. Fact is, if Picard didn't exist things would be the 99% the same. Someone would else in search of personal glory and power would have taken his place and been given the same incentive would have made the same decisions, whether we call that incentive money, power or "love of what we do".Silverbeard said:
But however will we measure our superiority over each other? Humans love capitalism and capitalism will always have a form of currency. Because "I have a Lamborghini and you don't!" sums us up fairly well.
Sure, that is true, but why does that make anything less valid? No-one is indispensable to the world, but does that make the actions of each dispensable person less valid?Blood Brain Barrier said:
Maybe nothing would change if Janeway had command of the Enterprise, but that is certainly no reason to lay aspersions on Picard's head.
Yes. The Star Trek universe is just as competitive as ours and if you fail your test results, someone else who didn't will take your place.Silverbeard said:
But obviously Picard did not fail, ergo he became captain. Does that not qualify him to make the command descisions?Blood Brain Barrier said:
A few people have thrown about the term scarcity and post-scarcity. And kind of wiffed at what that means.
Scarcity in economics means there is a need to economize something. Hence, even if something is plentiful, if it's not so plentiful and readily available that no one wants more than they already have, it is still scarce and therefore needs to be economized.
Even in a future where matter could be replicated at will, all of the following things would be scare - in other words, not enough to go around:
Unique Items - sure you could replicate Action Comics #1, but, people want the original. The history of the item matters to a collector or historian.
Labor and Services - even if there is some means of having disagreeable labor done for you, so no one has to be a garbageman, there's still specialists whose time would be scarce. For example, time with a famous musician (at a concert, meeting fans, etc), political figure (dinner with the President), or actor (paying him to agree to do a movie). The same with any particularly skilled work. Only so many people will be attended by the best surgeon, attend the best university, etc. Or time at a national park - what happens if ten million tourists visiting a park destroys its ecosystem, or too many houses by picturesque lake pollutes the lake and ruins its aesthetic appeal?
Land - More people want to live in Manhattan than in Podunk Town. And only a select few people will be able to get an place that overlooks Central Park. There must be a means of allocating those scarce locations.
So the "post-scarcity" Star Trek economy is nonsense. Some things are scarce in that universe. That society would need a means to allocate those scarce things.
Commodities in Star Trek are not scarce, thanks to replicators. But commodities are things which are essentially interchangeable. For example, crude oil is a commodity in our economies - I care how many barrels of crude I get, not which ones.
The Star Trek economy doesn't make sense, and those economies are not really post-scarcity. They still need a means to divide up those goods - which means either the Federation mandates all those things and is quite totalitarian, or the people still have to enter into a market for them.
There's a decent discussion of unavoidable scarcity in Wikipedia's article on post-scarcity. I still think even with virtually unlimited power and manufacturing capacity, there would still be scarcity (and a needs for economizing - therefore, currency) of things like unique items, locations, and services from select individuals.
Scarcity in economics means there is a need to economize something. Hence, even if something is plentiful, if it's not so plentiful and readily available that no one wants more than they already have, it is still scarce and therefore needs to be economized.
Even in a future where matter could be replicated at will, all of the following things would be scare - in other words, not enough to go around:
Unique Items - sure you could replicate Action Comics #1, but, people want the original. The history of the item matters to a collector or historian.
Labor and Services - even if there is some means of having disagreeable labor done for you, so no one has to be a garbageman, there's still specialists whose time would be scarce. For example, time with a famous musician (at a concert, meeting fans, etc), political figure (dinner with the President), or actor (paying him to agree to do a movie). The same with any particularly skilled work. Only so many people will be attended by the best surgeon, attend the best university, etc. Or time at a national park - what happens if ten million tourists visiting a park destroys its ecosystem, or too many houses by picturesque lake pollutes the lake and ruins its aesthetic appeal?
Land - More people want to live in Manhattan than in Podunk Town. And only a select few people will be able to get an place that overlooks Central Park. There must be a means of allocating those scarce locations.
So the "post-scarcity" Star Trek economy is nonsense. Some things are scarce in that universe. That society would need a means to allocate those scarce things.
Commodities in Star Trek are not scarce, thanks to replicators. But commodities are things which are essentially interchangeable. For example, crude oil is a commodity in our economies - I care how many barrels of crude I get, not which ones.
The Star Trek economy doesn't make sense, and those economies are not really post-scarcity. They still need a means to divide up those goods - which means either the Federation mandates all those things and is quite totalitarian, or the people still have to enter into a market for them.
There's a decent discussion of unavoidable scarcity in Wikipedia's article on post-scarcity. I still think even with virtually unlimited power and manufacturing capacity, there would still be scarcity (and a needs for economizing - therefore, currency) of things like unique items, locations, and services from select individuals.