Are you suggesting that the only reason anyone does anything is money? Or that money is necessary (although not always sufficient)?
Let me repeat what I wrote: “Money is not, and has never been, the only incentive for human achievement.”
Examples include everything done for religion, for political ideology, for science, for the purpose of art or aesthetics, and for survival, among others.
(Of course, the economics in Star Trek is contradictory, vague, and hand-wavy. I’m not saying it makes complete sense, just pointing out that it’s not as out there as it may seem.)
This doesn’t wash with the role we’ve seen Starfleet and the Federation Council play. The Council has the authority, for example, to implement Earth-wide curfews and blood screenings and Starfleet has the power to enforce it. If they were seen as nothing but space-happy weirdos, no one would be likely to pay attention to their directives.
Well, to be fair, the citizens of the Federation (in the TNG era) are (mostly) potrayed as thoughtfull and enlightened folk, and seem to come to a consensus fairly quickly when exposed to all the “facts”.
Rarely do they show anything as having a hotly contested or lengthy public/political debate behind it, although the Genesis Program was a notable exception in this regard. (I guess debates wouldn’t make for interesting TV anyway.)
Except that they have repeatedly shown that Starfleet is virtually a government unto itself. It even launched a coup attempt and nearly succeeded, while the citizens apparently just followed, vaguely cow-like.
Now you’ve reminded me of the DS9 episode where Jake and Nog come into possession of an abandoned cargo of self-sealing stembolts and end up wheeling and dealing their way through a series of trades that result in their obtaining the title to a parcel of land on Bajor.
That it’s the only thing which has successfully made people cooperate with one another to achieve something over time. Individually, the Greeks created an amazing array of neato things, but nearly none of it was ever taken up by anyone else for the same reason that there’s thirty different Linux distributions–people can’t be hassled to figure out how other people are doing their thing, and they always think they could do better themselves, starting from scratch.
And note that churches collect dues and give a salary, so this was one of the few “corporations” of olden days and ended up financing most artistic productions. Science never advanced until loan interest became an accepted practice in the 14th Century, but even then it took until the Wealth of Nations for anything but military gear to advance appreciably.
If you’d like to debate this further, though, I’d suggest opening a GD thread.
Yes it is. I can’t buy the whole “humans all work to better themselves” crap. Hey, I enjoy Trek, not as much as I did when I was younger, but I don’t hate it.
They screwed up by putting the “No money we work to better ourselves” jazz in and the “starfleet is not military” thing. In one of the nitpicker books by Phil Farrand he called BS on that.
You’ve apparently just claimed that people didn’t cooperate over time before money. But that’s so ridiculous I’m almost certain I’ve misunderstood you. Could you clarify further?
They don’t pay people to attend church. And yet they attend - instead of working overtime, or a second job.
So it’s also your contention that before the 14th century, no important discoveries or inventions occurred that helped human progress? Not even agriculture? Or music? Mathematics? Philosophy? Either we’re using different definitions, or we inhabit very different worlds.
I can’t buy that they all do either. But I have no problem believing that after the invention of reliable replicator technology, a large number of humans who have virtually every material good that they want will be motivated primarily by abstract concepts.
I already give away vegetables when I can. I like growing them. If all my material needs were taken care of, I’d happily supply the neighbors with fresh produce just for the fun of it. If one of my neighbors down the street started doing the same thing, it would be fun to engage in friendly competition to see who could produce the best stuff.
I wouldn’t need to get paid to do something I enjoy, assuming I didn’t need to get paid at all.
Heaven would be having a stammtisch at papa Sisko’s gumbo place. I’d be there every morning delivering the freshest unreplicated vegetables and herbs in town, and I’d be back every night for gumbo or whatever else his specialty of the day was.
I didn’t say cooperate over time, I said cooperate to create something over time. Find an example that counters it where there isn’t money or lands or something involved.
That’s not productive. I can go watch kids playing soccer anytime, it just means I’m a slacker getting out of work.
It’s my contention that very very rarely would anyone pick up on what was done (developing over time) what others had done or discovered. They’d tend to reinvent the same thing over and over or accept what one guy 800 years ago had invented as the best there could ever be and go on with it in the same or nearly the same form.
I think that a lot of the “You’ve earned your pay for the week.” kind of comments are just figures of speech that have survived into that era, even though nobody really gets paid anymore.
I assume that Starfleet folks “out there” do get some sort of stipend to facilitate dealing with currency based economies.
You gotta figure though that a lot of folks back home make do with replicated chow and holographic super-models but, hey, they’ve pretty much taken themselves out of the equation anyway.
Sure, you can have a coffee shop if you really want one. How the hell are you going to get others to do the grunt work for you without paying them? :dubious:
I worked at fast-food places when I was in college because I needed the damned money, not because I enjoyed it! :mad:
Things found in nature (like gold and real gemstones) will always be of more value than anything synthesized because of (a) their scarcity and (b) the amount of labor needed to mine and process them. There would otherwise be no rational reason for preferring, say, natural sapphires to synthesized ones (and you can always tell a synthesized one because it’s too perfect).
So long as things like gold have practical applications in industry, they will always be in demand.
I listened to a podcast that made the argument we are now (in the developed world) jut starting to see the beginnings of a post scarcity society. The contended that you have a great deal of unemployed people who aren’t being hired and a large section of people who make a living producing almost nothing of consequence (there example was you tube stars) and yet houses are being built, cars are being built, products are being made, food is being produced. Those people are unemployed or idle, because this economy doesn’t need them.
I do seem to recall that some details of the economy did come up on ST-DS9. And again, if memory serves, they did have a “background paper” prepared for the show so they could keep it consistent throughout. But if any of that was ever released, or even used by the writers, is beyond me. I was never anything close to a “Trekkie”.
The publicity material for DS9 openly referred to Quark’s holosuites as holographic brothels, but there was a public outcry and that use was only implied onscreen (with program titles like “Vulcan Love Slave”).
Which would explain how Crusher was able to “charge” a bold of cloth to some kind of “account” she had in Encounter at Farpoint.
Are you suggesting that the only reason anyone does anything is money? Or that money is necessary (although not always sufficient)?
