Watch Part 2 Here: ruclips.net/video/lDFDmk0hoUw/видео.htmlsi=vGziE97eERt_IIXg P.S:- I probably should have gone into more detail about replicators. As many are pointing out in the comments, replicators making their own fuel would violate the laws of thermodynamics. I know that which is why that's not what I meant. As long as there is a ready supply of raw materials to feed the replicator (Star Trek Discovery suggested using human waste which is pretty clever IMO) then a replicator would be able to create the fuel for a small reactor - which itself can be built from replicated parts - or simply build a solar panel or some other means of power generation. That's what I meant. P.P.S:- I find it interesting that many Trekkies are perfectly fine with the many other technologies in Star Trek which overtly break the laws of physics, but apparently replicators don't get a free pass the same way gravity plating does. P.P.P.S:- I also should have clarified the purpose of this video series: This is not a lore video. My goal is not to explain the world presented to us in Star Trek, but merely to use Star Trek as a jumping-off point to imagine how a world LIKE Star Trek would function. Hence the headcanon stuff and references to other media like The Culture Series. I say this because I'm seeing a lot of comments like, "Um actually in [SHOW/MOVIE/EPISODE] [CHARACTER] says [THING] which contradicts what you just said." I know that, but Star Trek's universe isn't consistent so I'm choosing to mostly talk about the setting in broad strokes. Thank you for engaging with the video though. If you want to see the next video in the series early and ad-free, join me on my Patreon: www.patreon.com/rowanjcoleman
Well thanks for your thoughts. However I think it's a version of utopian communism, in a not so subtle way. As for asking your friends what they would do if money wasn't a problem..... (1) perhaps you have noble intelligent friends. (2) You haven't got out and about enough to really know 75% of humanity
Many questions remain unanswered in theory. The first repicators also have to be produced first, but where do the raw materials come from? The earth is plundered by then. Should the first colonies provide raw materials, or worse, they have to. But when the replicators are everywhere, there will be no need for labour for factories or production. What about the many people who have no jobs? Otherwise, why go through years of training or study if you can't use it? And let's be honest, for most people, "being needed" is also fulfilment. After all, "doing nothing" and just pursuing your hobbies is nice for a while, but unsatisfying in the long run. The result would be a massive population decline. (Would the colonies have to be abandoned again?) Perhaps even forced to some extent in order to pre-empt the dissatisfied and bored population. Many questions and a long way to Utopia.
Your views on powering a replicator is 100% wrong. The Energy and matter equation proves that Star Trek glosses over it. The hidden message of Star Trek is that marxism finally works which is why you know it's fantasy. You can't get something from nothing
4:23 - whoa there! Replicators need energy. If replicators could replicate the hydrogen needed for a fusion reactor to work, that would be creating energy out of nothing. But they don't. Instead you have bussard collectors to top up the reserves. This was even a major plot point of Voyager where replicator access had to be rationed. They're a miracle device, but not _that_ much of a miracle device!
There's also things a replicator just apparently can't make, complex "minerals" like dilithium seems to be one of them - though synthetics seem to come into play at one point - as well as deuterium apparently if memory of that episode serves.
It can't magic up a battery or a fusion reactor in my head canon, or the laws of physics. Deuterium, anti-matter and other resources are always mentioned as being required inputs for Star Ships. We know the toilets feed into the replicators, even in the 31st century, so an input of matter/ energy is always required to make any complex device made by a replicator to function. (Although self-replicating cloaked mines somehow get around this at a small scale...)
Replicators either change energy into matter or rearrange matter into new forms. So you need either stored energy, or stored matter. Although this may explain what happens in the bathroom on Star Trek. Maybe the sewage goes into the replicator for molecular rearrangement.
Since there's millions of people who want everything for free, we have basically 2 options, one are replicators the other one is slavery. Hopefully we will do the right thing and not use the old method again.
You're absolutely right that the replicators need outside energy to run. Indeed, the tech manuals mention that the replicators have raw material reserves to draw on for the purpose of making food, clothing, tools etc. While technically you can make matter from pure energy, the fuel/energy cost of doing so is prohibitively expensive; so with regards to stuff like latinum and dilithium, it's cheaper just to dig it out of the ground, so to speak. And like you say, the energy needed to replicate a deuterium atom would likely exceed the energy equivalent of said atom, meaning, replicating fuel like that would result in diminishing returns
For me, it still raises the question: Who gets the penthouse in the newly built apartment? Who gets the land by the beautiful river, and who has to settle for the first-floor apartment by the highway? There seems to be some corruption or nepotism at play, granting better options to some while leaving others with less desirable choices.
I have always headcannoned it as this: parcels of land or residences are awarded to people based on levels of service. If all you want to do is just be a bum and not contribute to society, you are awarded a Class D apartment. If you have been a Starfleet officer for 40 years, or an esteemed scholar or artist or some such, you might get a Class A homestead. OR something like that. So, because we primarily see Starfleet officers and not "regular folk," an example might be this- In Star Trek II and III, we see Kirk's apartment. It looks pretty damn nice! He's a well decorated Starfleet Admiral though. A brand new ensign might have to share a 2 bedroom apartment with another ensign.
A perfect example of this is Raffi. When Picard goes to recruit her in Picard, she's living in a pathetic hovel. Why? She's clearly not happy living there and likely would move somewhere else. So why doesn't she? What's stopping her from packing up and moving to the penthouse somewhere, or living on that land by the river?
@@tilarium2looking back over the show, it was possibly because she was punishing herself, living poorly while leaning heavily on depressive intoxicants.
It's fairly consistent in Star Trek that service has perks, because so many writers were ex-military. Nobody on Earth is poor or hungry if they don't want to be. But when there is scarcity, like the Holodeck can only hold so many people at a time, then rank makes a de facto currency. Like maybe the captain and engineer can commandeer the holodeck anytime for various reasons. And an ensign might find the holodecks are so overused you have to rank up before you'll ever find an open slot. Or if an ensign saves the ship thanks to some quick thinking, they get a holodeck credit. Just because Starfleet doesn't have money, doesn't mean holodeck slots aren't a form of currency.
@@tilarium2Raffi explains quite clearly that she’s done with Starfleet and wants to be off the grid and off their radar. Accepting base housing etc. would put her back under their thumb.
Couple quibbles. Replicators weren't invented yet, or at least weren't available on starships, in the TOS era, which was still post-money enough for the crew to be unfamiliar with using it. However, they did have synthesizers. We've seen TOS-era synthesizers create food and clothing. It seems likely that the difference is a synthesizer is specialized for a particular type of good, while a replicator can produce effectively anything just using a software update. Synthesizers would still have led to the post-scarcity era, but only if they could be powered at effectively no cost. Cheap and readily available fusion power was probably the first step down that road. Second point: replicators can't produce enough fusion fuel to be self-powering. Star Trek doesn't claim to have broken thermodynamics. That's why starships have Bussard collectors to gather hydrogen fuel for fusion. Likewise see Voyager, where crewmembers had "replicator rations" -- the replicators had to be rationed because Voyager was outside Federation space and not getting regularly refueled and resupplied. On a planetary scale, though, it certainly seems like energy was readily available enough to be basically free.
Well said. I personally tend to focus on that last sentence. Also, I wonder how long it takes a young adult to have free access to the family's replicator before they get tired of just piling up random toys, and start paring their collection down to the ones that really matter? That's probably a period of every child's life in the Federation, one that trains them to only replicate what will have meaning for them.
Yes, as others pointed out in these comments, thermodynamics would forbid creating more matter from energy than that amount of energy the replicated matter can release in complete annihilation (M/AM reaction) I saw somewhere I think on Reddit that Enterprise already mentions (or implies) they were post-scarcity before replicators or even protein or other resequencers. A lot of this doesn't even need to come from technology, just the allocation of resources. We *already* have the resources today to meet the basic needs of all humans on earth but we grossly misallocate them. This is at this point a social problem, not a technological one
@@vinapocalypse That's a *great* point! We sci-fi fans tend to get hung up on post-scarcity as a term for being able to generate near-infinite resources via replication tech, renewable energies, and so on. Post-scarcity really just means having more than we need. It's more logistics than physical technology. Nobody would starve anywhere on Earth today if enough people in leadership positions cared to cooperate and spread the food around. _That's_ the first thing Earth found a solution for in Star Trek: valuing people as more than resources for other people to exploit.
The replicators must use some store or supply of matter and/or energy. In Voyager they often speak of replicator rationing... you can't create something out of nothing...
In one episode, Sisko mentioned that he used all his transporter quota when he started the academy when going home every night. I don't think Replicator can be completely "free". Somewhere I read that the replicator have some raw matter stored, that the can convert in something useful. So you would need to "feed" with matter. And each machine would create waste heat when operating so also a replicator would run out of energy after a while. For fusion the enterprise has the bussard collector to mine interstellar hydrogen. On Voyager they introduced replicator ration, to converse energy. That implies that replicator use a lot of energy, but that is that an issue when in Federation space.
The Sisko example gets used often but they never defined what the quota was exactly. Was it just for cadets using transporters to leave campus for personal use or is it for all citizens for general transporter use? Was it cos he beamed directly to the location (been years but I think he said he beamed right into his living room) rather than to a transporter hub in New Orleans and taking a taxi to the house?
Yes, replicators may use a lot of energy, but I still think that if you were to find a way to power it through different processes then yes we would still need the power grid and essentially we would have to figure out how to power that power grid so that everybody can use the replicator whenever they want to And once you’ve got it charged up yeah it would run down, but you hook it back up to the power grid or you leave it hooked up to the power grid and it only collect enough power, but you would still have to buy the wrong materials to use it so the idea of an entirely self-contained unit is Beyond the realm of possibility at this point because you’re not just using pure energy. The energy is used to create the object, but you still need the raw materials so the replicator would need those materials and that might be where money comes in so you might still need money for some things butessentially you could eliminate the need to work more than a few days a month if you’re fortunate enough
Seems like something a school would implement to ensure their students don't just take off every chance they get... socializing with your peers and being around other cadets seems like a critical bonding period that would be lessened if they could just take off whenever... especially when they were new.
@@kabobawsome it's not free but if they are feeding large crews of 200-300+ people on replicator food, the energy density and cost of replicating food must entirely outweigh the cost of transporting food in space.. it just takes slightly more energy to start moving and slightly more to stop moving considering the ship would weigh in the realm of megatons while the food in maybe a thousand tons for a years long expedition... so there is that to consider.
The question I didn't hear you address here for me is why the particular plots of land go to specific people. Chateau Picard and Sisko's appear to both be on prime land for their products. Surely there are other cajun/creole chefs who would love to run a restaurant in the French Quarter, and likewise with vintner's looking for prime French winemaking land. What is it that gave Sisko and Picard the "right" to use those prime locations over others? Money or no, it still seems like there is a system of "value" that gives priveleged options to certain people/families. So there may well no longer be money or monetary classes, but there still seems to be some sort of hierarchical class system that allocates limited resources like prime land. If t's based on historical claims, then it just replicates the old class system, but even if it's based on "contrinutions" opr other social capital type structures, it still amounts to a class system the gives more privelege to people like the Sisko's or Picard's than family's that may want the same areas they do "business" in.
This is where I think social status comes in. Assuming property can be owned and inherited, what use would a property be if inherited by someone who didn't plan on using it? They can't sell it, they can't charge rent, the only thing they could do is give it to someone who plans on using it. That would mean property would tend to be put to use by people with the highest social status and desire to use it. It would also mean families who own property have a motivation to maintain the traditions required to put the property to use.
@@DeanRockne Ya, agreed ... that was sort of my point. While Trek is often portrayed as a fully egalitarian society because of the replicators and the like, there are still CLEARLY "social classes" of various kinds who are awarded extra privileges as a result of their class. Now, in the Trek world we largely see that being done through "social contribution" such as Star Fleet service or things like past status as "landowners" transferring forward as long as they use it. But I also wonder, for example, if the Picards had just wanted a nice acreage in France and left the wine-making in the past, would the land have been seized from the family to be given to a wine-maker? Or would the Picards be able to do whatever they wanted on it until they voluntarily gave it up? I think there are quite a few unanswered "class" questions in Trek that aren't obvious at first glance, but come up when you think more about the details. Does Joeseph Sisko get to keep his prime New Orleans location if all he wants is a nice house in the French Quarter?
@@MotherShipMedia it's also possible there are more specific historic preservation laws that apply to some of these situations. If future France has an interest in maintaining the wine making tradition, maintaining an active vineyard might be a requirement attached to those land deeds. Same goes for the French Quarter. These desirable properties then become an obligation to run living museums of a kind. When you get outside of Earth, there's much more available property and probably less of a public interest in controlling it's use. To your point, there would still be classes and privilege, but it would either be earned through accomplishments, or come with societal obligations (owning a restaurant).
What leads you to think there are chefs or vintners who were not able to acquire the storefront or land they requisitioned? This is a world where you can terraform and colonize planets, I think they can build more storefronts and till more fallow land. There's about 2,000,000 acres of french vineyards today. There would need to be a LOT of people with a very specific desire for an archaic lifestyle for them to even start crowding up that land! And it's not like he's doing all the hard labor himself, there are robots tending to the larger vineyard. I doubt he even "owns" any of it, they probably could just use replicators to plop houses down willy-nilly until the retiree dies and then they erase it and replant. All the harvests would be free-for-all as well, since the harvest bots can scan every single fruit bunch for later direct replication. They're not going to be shipping grapes across the universe ofc, they'll be replicating them. Need more areas for restaurants in the French Quarter? You can literally build them for free... Now they probably wouldn't let you take up the entire island of Australia to be your personal suntanning bed if you just don't do anything. But calling that evidence that there's still "class" distinctions would be absurd. Because NOBODY is allowed to do that. There's one set of rules that everybody follows that prevents people from taking more than they need for their self-actualization.
@@fez-._.-zik Sure, you can terraform all sorts of planets, but There's only one true French Quarter. Not everyone who wants a French Quarter restaurant can get one ... Doesn't matter how many copies you make elsewhere, they aren't "The French Quarter" in New Orleans ...
Love the inclusion of a reference to Banks' Culture series. Those books really explore a post scarcity society much more than Trek ever does. There's a bit in one of them where a character from outside the Culture is touring a ship and meets someone waiting table at a cafe, and the waiter explains why they do the job that could easily be handled by an automated drone: basically because it's a good way to meet new people and the recognition that there is a satisfaction to be had from a job well done, even if that job is as simple as bringing people coffee and then wiping up the table when they're done.
@@localhearthian2387 It depends. For example, Darrell from 'Sci-fi Odyssey' (a great YT channel) refers to the Culture series relatively often (he's read all the books), and therefore I happen to come into contact with it on a semi-regular basis.
Long time since I read that. I might point out that the man could meet people just as easily by sitting in the cafe and NOT waiting tables. And it's not like his efforts are saving the cafe anything: the drone would be free. His efforts are to no purpose, so would he really enjoy an achievement that has no value?
@@davidchambers8697 there is a bit of a nihilistic bent to what the waiter says - something along the lines of: i could spend my time trying to compose great works of literature,, but ultimately even the greatest literature will eventually be forgotten. The Culture itself will one day die. As will the universe itself. So what is the point? The point would ultimately be *in the doing* and not the goal itself. I said nihilistic, but really it's kind of a zen thing. But it's up to the individual to decide whether that would be a meaningful existence. Indeed, that is kind of the whole point writing about a utopia. It's asking the question "is life worth living without struggle?" Banks' books don't actually come down cleanly on one side or another, really. As to whether he could meet people by just going to the cafe... That's true in a sense, but even in that one facet of why he does what he does, you can make the case that if he just did it at his leisure, he'd be guided by his own biases. He'd choose who he'd interact with. By binding himself (however loosely given he can quit at any time) to the social contract of agreeing to provide a service, he's forcing himself to interact with whomever happens to come in. Are all those interactions going to be pleasant? No. But in a utopia where you *can* only have pleasant experiences if you want, I think people would recognize the value in subjecting yourself to unpleasant experiences. If anything, it gives you stories you can tell your friends.
P.S. - Rowan, you're forgetting about one relatively important thing. Replicators require energy (and a LOT of it; as well as transporters and holodecks, they are VERY power-demanding) to turn it into a matter. So it is not any magical "perpetuum mobile". There are therefore pre-set LIMITS on how many things one can create via the replicators. Hence the implementation of the 'criminally underused' replicator rations on USS Voyager when she got stranded in the Delta Quadrant. Y'know, because 'finite amounts of available energy'!
Actually I didn't forget that. As I said in the video, replicators can produce their own fuel so energy becomes abundant. On a starship resources are finite, but on a planetary scale energy is virtually limitless.
@@RowanJColeman This assumes that replicators are lossless, which is pretty much unthinkable. If they're even 99% lossless, you still lose material and energy so it's not a 1:1 infinite system. They're going to need some rather significant input. On a starship they have a massive M/AM reactor plus secondary fusion plants to supply power. On the civil scale they'd need substantial power infrastructure since no one is likely to have a warp reactor in their garage. :) So, I can see cities having that, small homesteads would probably have to have a very small replicator unit with limited capability running on stored power like a battery system that's charged via other means.
Not just energy, you will also need a supply of basic elements and feedstock, carbon ect, to draw upon to actually provide the matter required for the item you want. You can't replicate something out of nothing.
One thing I've learned over the course of my life is that no matter the job, there's somebody out there who finds fulfillment in it. Describing it as menial dismisses that person. So yes, somebody loves welding that panel on. Somebody is proud to work construction. Meanwhile, what people say they'd do if not burdened by work is often not what they would do. The Office would not want for viewers in such a society. More likely though, many would simply sit and seeth about their lack of purpose, and be drawn to radical causes that promise to give them purpose. We can see that today. Work keeps us sane. Gives us perspective. Gives us meaning. And while some can surely provide themselves those things under their own steam, most cannot, and will always be drawn to those who will provide it for them. So let that be work.
Pretty sure the lockdowns were a test run for not having to go to work and you are right, there have been no explosion of flourishing anything but whiners, rioters and looters. When is enough enough? To many, NEVER!
It reminds me of my dad. He has money and is a landlord of a couple properties. He still goes out and does most of the landscaping on his own though. Trimming trees, cleaning it up and making everything look nice. Hard physical work. I asked him why he doesn’t just hire people to take care of all that. He has the cash and really doesn’t *have* to do any of it. He told me that he enjoys the hard work. Doing it himself and then looking over at all he’s accomplished with his own hands is satisfying and fulfilling to him. I’m assuming it would be no different for many 24th century humans on earth in Trek.
I don't know that you can extrapolate your final conclusion from current society. A world in which money doesn't exist is so alien that we simply don't know how people would behave in it. How do we know that the lingering feeling of purposelessness isn't rooted in the industrial myth that our worth as people is equal to our productivity? What happens if you erase that?
I have often pondered this conundrum myself, particularly the thorny and difficult to mention aspect that not all people have either the wherewithal nor the inclination to be 'creative'. The old phrase about the devil finding work for idle hands could become a real problem in a society where people do not have to work and there could be a real uptick in self-destructive behaviour. The Mouse Utopia experiment is definitely something to consider. When I was unemployed for quite a while after a near fatal motorcycle accident, I read a lot and, as I recovered more, went for gentle strolls in the countryside. But eventually the urge to *do* something did grow and I spent untold hours creating a fantasy world with maps, histories, religions and so on for a table-top RPG. Now you can buy those settings quite readily and for not that much considering the work that goes into them but making my own was very satisfying. But it is a true problem to resolve how a society can cope if that urge to *do* does not find a creative or useful outlet.
As someone who is a woodworker in his spare time I can tell you that someone doing manual construction can be very fulfilling. Work like space ship repairs would absolutely be something someone would do in their spare time, just like Lt Paris does in Voyager when he builds the Delta
Well sure, while any activity requiring manual labor (physically working with your hands) can have "hobbyists", how many people could there be for such a specialized activity, requiring you to live in only a few locations in the entire Alpha Quadrant? And since they're only doing it just for the "love of it", they can pretty much come and go as they please, working at it for one or two days, then just taking a couple of days off to go to Riza for a couple of "free" days. How do you find another "volunteer welder" or "warp-core installer" or "plasma relay adjustor" if someone just up and quits to go do gardening (all those non-replicated foodstuffs that Sisko Sr. uses has to be grown SOMEWHERE) or opening a Bed and Breakfast somewhere else? Doesn't seem like that questionable labor supply (labor scarcity?) would be able to support any commercial activity (ship building, Dilithium mining, long-haul freighter crewman, Waste extraction, Ore processing)!
@@wendellcoleman1137 just because money isn't involved, especially when money isn't needed, doesn't mean people wouldn't agree to work at a place for a period of time (like a few years). Just like in the real world people do volunteer work. People generally value a good day's work whether money is involved or not. And also learning new skills takes time, which is a great incentive to stick at a job for a decent amount of time instead of just a couple of days.
@@wendellcoleman1137 humans cant really function without doing something. some people find fun in manual labor and with more people there's more chances for this
@@robertagren9360 it's interesting you say that. You know the falcon heavy rocket. I saw a documentary on how it was made. A lot is done with CNC and stuff, because why wouldn't it be. But there is 1 part, bending the sheet metal, which is done by hand. They tried it a few different ways, some worked better than others, but even with all the technology that we have now, human hands are giving the best results.
The problem with work for enjoyment, is that it has a very high chance of being valueless work that no one would consider worth paying for - because it gives them nothing that matters to them. Employment typically aligns humans with the needs of others - even if the individual task isn't very glamorous.
I imagine that for an engineer or a starship enthusiast, welding panels onto the flag ship would be a dream come true. Just think of how many futuristic "train guys" there must be in a universe with warp capable starships.
Plus, those are likely Starfleet jobs. Just as plenty of volunteer servicemen today do whatever they are assigned, I assume the same applies to enlistees in Starfleet. It's an entirely different working environment than the wider world of civilian life. Rather than for just a paycheck, you might be doing it as a matter of family tradition, to serve your country, to see the world, or to "defend freedom and democracy".
@@PongoXBongo I find it strange that in such an enlightened society that anybody would "have" to go enlisted! Shouldn't everybody get decent education, so everybody can be an officer? So why would anybody become a crewman (so basically somebody all the officers dump on - seriously, if you aren't Chief O'Brien (who should have been fast tracked into an enlisted officers program, as it's a waste of his potential to not allow him command down the line! I mean the guy could give Geordie La Forge and even Scotty a run for their money!) you are basically "trash" as a crewman!)
yeah, for some people welding panels might actually be fun, and getting it right, might well give them more fulfillment than some other job. It might also be a training job, to give you the right to a more creative job in the same field...
Very disappointed Rowan missed the Enterprise episode where the damaged ship gets to a repair bay, and its industrial replicators completely replace the damaged parts with replicated replacements, installed by automated machines. Its a lot like getting an oil change, if by oil change we meant complete replacement of large parts of a spaceship ! The older episodes don't show this, I presume because OUR technology wasn't good enough to show this happening on screen, but it makes a lot of sense for spaceships to be entirely built by machines, since they can repair large pieces of ships, why not do ALL the initial heavy lifting ?This actually leaves only the internal maintenance of the ship, which I suppose Emergency Repair Holograms will take care of, once they become standard issue for all ships, like the Doctor on Voyager.
10:52 there are actually a lot of people who enjoy welding and construction and it would be a point of pride to be someone who welds star fleet ships together.
Not to mention that if you want to be chief engineer on a starship someday, you probably start out doing some pretty basic jobs and work your way up as you demonstrate competency and reliability. Even today, money isn't the only motivator for why people work or what they choose to do.
Humans would be much slower and far less exact than an advanced robot (like right now with many roles in car manufacture), so humans would not perform such tasks except on hobby projects and definitely not on important projects like starfleet ship construction.
@@michaelbone6894 Whilst I don’t necessarily disagree, there are still roles where you might need a human. E.g. if welding a star ship is more like welding a car than you’re right. If it’s more like a submarine, and no robot has been produced that can do the job, than a human will do it. Given they have the android Data in the setting, it’s likely a robot does do the bulk of not all of this work.
Eh, the primitive/advanced paradigm has been exercised from cultural anthropology since 1940, and they don't use some terminology. Cultures aren't based on the development of technologies according to the likes of Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, Malinosky or Graeber, but on their geography and spread of information. Plus, there's an economic system that societies such as the Trobian islanders, Zomia, Khalahari bush folk and Indigenous Chapias utilize with no money, and it's called mutual aid.
To be honest I don't actually see there being bad apples in the way we usually see them aka stealing for profit since as stated in the video, replicators have essentially removed that need. And yes as Quark said to Nog that without creature comforts we devolve into past versions of ourselves. But at the same time hearing of all people a Ferenghi say that coming from a society still governed by the acquisition of wealth, is funny since I'm sure certain murders for profit and status are quietly covered up on Ferenghar. Anyway bad apples do exist, they are just driven by different reasons such as revenge. And if they are driven by wealth, they tend to rule over civilisations that still economic based or live outside Federation space like those seen in season 3 of Picard.
Maddox in the Picard continuity went outside of the Federation to continue his research, and fight an unclear shadow conflict with the Romulan secret secret police with his own sleeper androids...
@@DarkLordDiablos Is it possible for two parties to mutually profit from a deal they voluntarily entered into that doesn't involve anyone else? Really, just asking if you feel that all profit is or must be a result of theft.
Because, firstly, they are still greedy buggers 🙂 and, secondly, the replicators still require a LOT of energy to turn it into the baryonic matter. Hence the implementation of the 'replicator rations' on USS Voyager when the ship got stranded in the Delta Quadrant. P.S. - I know you from OrangeRiver. 🙂
@@subraxas Hi. I still don't like the replicator; it seems like it exists solely to get rid of capitalism. If you're saying that capitalism is so strong that the only way you can end it is to invent something that needs made up science to work, are you really anti-capitalist?
@@subraxas So the commie federation has a monopoly on kindness in the galaxy? Money based races like the Ferengi are irredeemable? Oh yes only if you're connected to the commie hive then you have free energy. Because having free energy on voyager would have ruined the entire show. Weird how you can just seesaw around this depending on what you want that show to say. The federation seem like greedy buggers in Kurtzman trek.
Love this video 🎉 My head cannon for starship production not being fully automated is the societies need to not loose a skill base. For example, Utopia shipyard and starfleet may mandate a need for manual welders to keep the manual skills up. Perhaps it's even part of an engineers academy work before being assigned to a ship, if the automation ever failed in deep space, the skills would still exist to perform maintenence and repairs 👌
@@Varitok1 If you didnt need to pay for food, housing, etc then an internship system that seperates the skilled/motivated from rest makes sense ... time is still somthing that is not limitless so its the only thing that actually has value. So for both the trainer and the trainee ... both sides of that equation need to be able to know if this is the path for you
@@michaelgrant4867 “Time is still something that is not limitless, so it’s the only thing that actually has value.” Excellent observation. 👍🏼 I need to think about that more. 🤔 Thanks.
Very true! And Star Trek has really shown that society places great value on the artistry/efforts/decision making of humans/living beings being the centre of technological systems, so it makes sense that highly skilled trades like welding would be a worthwhile and fulfilling way to spend ones time (ideally with the futuristic tools to make it easier)
There are numerous mentions in TOS to "credits" as a unit of currency, and I believe that Quark says at one point that he will accept Federation credits as payment in his bar, meaning that they are around at this point. While you could argue that credits are only used when dealing with people outside of the Federation, in The Trouble with Tribbles, Uhura paid 10 credits for a Tribble on Deep Space Station K7, which was obviously a federation station. Also, Cyrano Jones, in the same episode, is obviously driven by a desire to make a profit, as is the guy who runs the bar. Also at one point in TOS Kirk jokingly tells Scotty that he has earned his pay for the week. This would seem to indicate that Star Fleet personnel earn some kind of salary.
And one of the crimes Harry Mudd is wanted for is selling technology patented by Vulcans without paying them their royalties. This no money thing didn't start until Star Trek IV, when they say the people in 1986 are "still using money" and Kirk had to pawn his antique glasses to get some. But even here the line could just mean that they don't have 1986 US currency.
TOS is influenced by Roddenberry's experiences during WW2. The military takes care of its men, almost all of it is just logistics to keep the bodies warm and mobile. So there is no need to worry about money within Starfleet, but there is little mention of how anything works in the Federation outside of Starfleet. In Mudd's Women, the protagonist (not Mudd) is a prospector mining lithium to become rich. (That's the gold rush myth, of course; the people selling the picks and shovels and the assayers were the ones who became rich(er), not the prospectors.) That episode was written by Roddenberry himself, and my impression is that it was a meditation on his relationship with Majel Barret. (And Roddenberry was still looking for ever new enterprises to make money with back then.) So yes, money is a thing in TOS, but Starfleet personnel don't need to worry about it. By TNG, money has explicitly become obsolete within the Federation, as explained in The Neutral Zone. DS9 is very, very different from any previous Star Trek.
And, in the first episode of TNG, Beverly Crusher charges a bolt of cloth on Farpoint Station to her "account." So there must have be some vestigial system in place for using money, maybe on bleeding edge frontier systems or brand new member worlds that haven't been fully updated or integrated into the Federation economy. It is also worth noting that money doesn't need to be totally gone for it not to be the main driving force in society to the point it is rarely used or thought of. Maybe there was just a mass realization near the end of the post atomic horror, or as humanity started to recover from it after first contact, that once you have the first two or three layers of Maslows Hierarchy of Needs covered for life, or even just the foreseeable future, Having more money/stuff wouldn't make them happier, and, consequently, the definition of wealth and focus of society shifted to mean working toward a attaining a higher degree of self-actualization, not things, which gave people a path forward and hope for a better future. Given that every scene on Vulcan screams minimalism, I can imagine that they would have strongly agreed with and encouraged this point of view if not preached it outright. Maybe it was not the ending of poverty that ended war and hopelessness, but the ending of the war, the regain of hope, and the quest for self-actualization that ended poverty. Just me rewriting my head canon again.
@@rdtradecraft The Federation is a lot like the Soviet Union or like China used to be back then in that they do trade with foreign powers, but don't use their domestic currency to do so. To that end it would make sense that Crusher has an allowance in foreign money to spend while on Farpoint. That doesn't mean that the Federation uses money internally. Crusher not carrying any money on her even suggests that she is not used to needing to. (Or maybe it's because the uniform has no pockets, although that's what purses are for.) She isn't carrying a credit card or debit card either, or any personal identification. When she asks to charge her account on the Enterprise, it is not clear how the salesman is supposed to do that. (But the episode does suffer a lot from stilted dialogue.) Maslow's hierarchy is not normative, it is descriptive, not of human behaviour or needs, but of how the humans he surveyed felt about their needs. As a description of actual human needs, it is dead wrong. Not only wrong, but manipulative: It suggests that depriving people of things reduces their needs for other things. (How convenient.) As money is still a thing in TOS, abandoning it could not have been a result of the Eugenics Wars. The difference is indeed the replicators: TOS doesn't have them, in TNG they are omnipresent. It could be argued that a money-based economy would not allow replicators to be developed. In that case, the abandoning money would have had to precede the proliferation of replicators. Unfortunately we don't have any data on societies abandoning money permanently, and no records, only artefacts, of pre-money societies. (The earliest written records are debt tables. Book money in today's parlance, although not yet currency as we understand it today.) So there is no template for how that would or could come to pass. The Vulcans could be an important influence in that, their society being organised around principles of pacifism and logic as explained and shown in The Savage Curtain. (And in stark contrast to Amok Time. TOS struggled a lot with understanding the concept of logic at first. And DS9, VOY, and ENT even portray the Vulcans as utterly irrational and warlike.)
The question I have isn't why someone would go to a restaurant in the Star Trek universe, it's why would anyone work at a restaurant in that universe if they didn't own the restaurant or have some connection to it? How would you convince someone who has everything they need to take food orders and buss tables.
I always thought that replicators were limited by their memory capacity. It takes massive amounts of memory to save the patterns for a lot of items. So there are basic replicators that have limited patterns stored in memory.
@@greyfade But there seems to be different qualities, a replicaor never gets the same taste, close but not the same. I dont think the ai can just make stuff that tastes up, it has to probably thrioughly programmed and tested by human scientists. I take that like people say nmothing against the real cooked food, it has to be a lot of testin gby human to get even close. And AI dont have human tastes so, cant really do that and it tastes somewhat right. Its probably also why fod might still a prevalent hobby/job as cooks do experiments with tastes that seem to hard to do with a replicator. And have that much value. As that experimenting and tasting and varying a replicator just isnt great at. And fun of course.
@@marocat4749 There's a lot to food that is purely psychological. And, there's a lot to food that is in the cooking and preparation. It's entirely likely that the complaints people have about replicated food are entirely because they *know* it's replicated. (Though I know Scotty pegging synthehol in an instant and being disgusted by it; that's probably just something he's sensitive to, so there's probably also a physiological sensitivity to some artificial compounds.) I don't think it has anything to do with "a replicator never gets the same taste," but rather the uniformity of the taste it produces.
In response to the question "Is that guy welding the hull panel really enjoying his job?" I have a suggested answer. First it's important to recognize there's people who do in fact enjoy welding and fabricating. All you have to do is look at metal sculptures to recognize that. But perhaps you're referring to the supposed monotony of the job and why wouldn't it be automated anyway? My answer is we don't have the full context. It may very well be most of shipbuilding is automated, but perhaps manual labor is allowed because it's considered an honor for both the worker and the shipyard to have these particular people working on it. Like in a world where people do things that give them great satisfaction or joy, somebody practicing welding would more likely than not be a master of their craft. So it would be like today sure you can get a chef's knife from anywhere, but you know there's Michelin star chefs using knives made by some artisan who hand folded the steal like a samurai sword. Same sort of relationship - there'd be stories of how some famed master welder personally welded this beam or bulkhead so you know only the best people build this ship.
Creators love to create, most want to do it with their own hands to there is a certain joy that comes from building something, there is a sense of accomplishment and pride.
You also have to take into account that 24th century humans are supposed to be better educated, more mature and less selfish overall. *Far* more people in the 24th century would step up and do what needs to be done for the betterment of humanity and the greater good than people in our world today. Knowing that you are contributing in some way to the advancement of mankind is it’s own reward. Different priorities, different way of thinking.
Throughout history we've had people who voluntarily go to march over grueling distances, eat poor food, live out of tents or worse, and all for the privilege of getting into mass combat where, if they're lucky, they won't be one of the guys butchered on the ground by the end of it all. Some have done it for pay, some because they were coerced. There have always been some that did it because they believed in the work, and their parents and grandparents believed in the work. Just as there have been generational Starfleet families, there have probably been generational spacedock and construction yard families.
A good example, I think, is the Solar Sailer that The Sisko builds. He COULD have replicated everything he needed, but he didn't want to. He wanted to make everything by hand, using the same types of tools that the original makers would have used. He replicated the tools, sure, but he made that sailer on his own because it was rewarding to him. Just because I would find building a solar sail boring and not worth the time, doesn't mean others won't enjoy doing it.
I rather like what Orville adds to this idea: people earn a reputation as well. What that translates to is unclear except in trust with things like captaining a spaceship. Possibly everyone gets a large ration of energy to spend. They may apply to get an extra ration for large projects. So, if you make good gumbo and run a good restaurant, you get likes that could be used as support for a renovation that may exceed what most people can spend. edited to add an additional comment.
@palmercolson7037 That's exactly what I wanted to comment. It's clear that not everybody on a starship gets the same privileges as the high-ranking officers. Most crew don't seem to have large private cabins just for themselves. Okay, but that's on a starship, where there is limited space and a clear hierarchy. What about on an Earth-like planet? Well, quite likely it will still be similar. Space is still limited, even though less so than on a spaceship. There would still be hierarchies, as various jobs that require multiple people, would require organization. Some people's positions would inherently be more critical. Some people would be more skilled and experienced than others. At minimum, a single person living by themselves might receive a small room in an apartment block, with a shower and toilet, and an "internet" terminal. They might not have a personal replicator, but have to go to a cantina. They would get free access to basic clothing, but if they want more interesting designs, would have to earn access to them. So if they wanted more, they would have to work for it. Perhaps people with good jobs have software access to give the people working for them various material benefits. Perhaps there is an official social hierarchy in the civilian (non-Starfleet) life, and advancement in it is similar as advancement in the Starfleet hierarchy. I'm just speculating here, of course. *Edited because I forgot to write some lines.
In Trek on Earth - Reputation means not extra rations (as these are free), but people wanting what you do ... Sisko's restaurant is popular because he has a good reputation On a starship resources (space and power) will always be limited and so different rules apply ... you get to be on the starship, by wanting to be, and by earning a reputation for being reliable and good at a job that is needed onboard
@@icecold9511 Because, on an isolated little ship with no guaranteed resources for resupply, the crew of _Voyager_ were no longer in a post-scarcity situation. VOY should never be used as an example of how things normally work in the Federation or Starfleet, because they had to operate as an independent unit for those seven years. It occurs to me that VOY would have made a lot more sense if they'd had a scene early on talking about "emergency orders in the event of extended isolation from outside support." A lot of the show could have been explained as the result of Janeway struggling to thread the needle between Starfleet's ideals and the first-draft-y, inadequate emergency guidance.
I like your video. And you hit the most important issue, it is the absence of scarcity. Enough doctors, enough food, enough medicine and so on. That more than anything makes the Star trek ideal possible.
Replicators don't create matter from energy. They reorganize matter. The ultimate 3D printing. There are limitations depending on replicator size and sophistication. Specifically resolution for placing atoms. The is a lot of data in a single object. So you want to reduce it to similar functional patterns as the original without it being exactly the same. Scanning an item for replication is a lot like a Fourier transform used to compress music. It's approximates the original to a certain degree that you might not be able to tell. Recipes for food replicators I imagine would be manually tweaked. Some compounds you may not be able to replicate such as explosive compounds because the replication process would ignite or otherwise affect the compounds.
Replace “replicator” with “magic spell” and it would better describe this non scientific foolishness. Physical laws require conservation of energy and that means it is simply impossible for an isolated replicator to replicate itself.
Presumably a replicator could not create its own fuel though. Or at least, a perfectly efficient replicator would only be able to create the same amount of fuel as it consumes to do so? Its converting energy into matter and vice versa, but it doesn't 'create' energy, or is that overlooked in the star trek universe (which is fine, I just assumed the whole idea revolved around the conservation of energy)
Yeah We repeatedly see groups in star trek quarrel over things like dilithium the universe's primary power source, if a replicator could replicate fuel why would we have dilithium mines
No it takes energy some kind of fuel and base matter is needed. In Voyager they rationed replicator usage at times was having to look for fuel or energy so it does have a cost and it doesn't work on everything it has limits. Would image that people would want the real thing as well, in several shows there is mentions of people wagering authentic goods such as spirits or steaks.
DS9s self replicating cloaked minefield somewhat breaks this, unless they contain a surplus of matter-antimatter in the original mines, and over time the ability to self-replicate diminishes. One strategy the Dominion could have tried was exhausting the mines power by continuously bombarding the whole minefield....
@@Aphfaneirein golf, when there is a tree between you and the whole, the common advice is to just shoot through the tree because it is mostly air. Shooting mines is much the same even on Earth, let alone in 3D space. But yes, I think given enough time and space superiority around the wormhole the Dominion would eventually just exhaust all the mines and their ability to replicate.
Like the Warp drive - "By authorial fiat!" The trouble is when they run into other societies that do use money they find they need it too - not just on a personal level (To conclude that Jake/Nog dialogue: "Well, if you don't need money, you certainly don't need mine!") but also on a Geopolitical (Stellarpolitical?) level in episodes like "The Price" (where they are bidding over the Barzan wormhole). It's clear there are some limits on what Replicators can do. But even if resources can be replicated, people can't be. There are only 30 (or whatever) seats in Jake Sisko's restaurant, so what does he do if 40 want to eat there? Sure, he can ration on a non-monetary basis (serving the customers he likes or just first come first served) but that's a large part of how we use money today.
I would guess Jakes restaurant is meant to be a social thing he enjoys, and he keeps 30 seats to not have stress there and that its fun. The reserving might just be that ther isnt too much at one time. But steady. and organized. He has to cook it too and that could grow out of control. He had to hire more people, I just assume thats the limits he enjoys and isnt stressed out with. Also jake seems a prettty stubbern guy who wants to do what he wants and no one tells him otherwise, the 30 seats are probably him keeping it how much customers he wants, and the reserving, to organize that peoplre arent afraid to come, and prevent chaos. Relics seem to be on the black market , there can be all nessesarities met and still be one, and reliques and cross cultural stuff, might need some, or like shady bklack market that deals with stuff. Maybe the feseration is only really cracking doen on the black ,market if its dangerous? That were antiques that, werent dangerous on ds9. And ds9 has the credits to have a currency that people can engage in inter galaxy trade, because they are that kind of station.
Federation Credits have been mentioned several times. There is some form of trading slip or I.O.U backed by the Federation for trade of certain goods or as a exchange with outside currencies.
Another point about the replicators that can help factor into figuring this stuff out is that there are clearly limitations to the replicators. First, i'm pretty sure there are some items that the replicators are capable of making, but are prohibited from doing so. I think DS9 mentions that weapons are in that category. Second, there are things that the replicators can make, but what the replicators make is different from the real thing, mainly food and drinks. That's why things like resturants and vineyards would still have a reason to exist, the food and wine from those real sources would taste different, and to some far better, than anything that can come out of the replicator. Finally, we're told that there's at least 1 thing, that being latinum, that the replicator flat out can't make. That's basically the justification behind the entire Ferngi civilization. We're never even told if latinum has a use, but it's a limited resource in an otherwise limitless world and therfore has a potential use as a currency
The things banned... are for good reasons, on a Starship - Alcohol vs Synthahol, the food has all toxins removed, some of these add flavour ..and weapons without authorisation Elsewhere, probably weapons .. Latinum and Dithium were both made unreplicatable so that it was possible to have scarcity in a post scarcity society so that stories could happen... it's hard to comment on things that don't exist anymore ...
Gold's only actual use was "it looks pretty" until electricity, which it is a good conductor of, was discovered. Yet, it's considered incredibly valuable and has been the standard of currency. Latinum could easily be the same.
@@matthewpatrick7263 Gold isn't a particularly good electrical conductor It had four properties it was valued for 1 it's pretty - and so easily recognised 2 it's rare - and so expensive 3 it's very malleable, and so easy to work 4 it's very corrosion resistant Most of the uses today, are to do with the combination of its corrosion resistance, and its electrical or thermal properties Latinum has only one property that it is valued for, it's inability to be replicated making it the *only* rare substance
I remember reading a short story called “A is for Anything” that essentially takes on the role of a cautionary tale. It starts with the first replicator like technology being shared, probably by some rogue scientist, and of course society collapses because who wants to be a police officer or pick up trash and so the world descends into a new age of serfdom built upon threats of violence. I think it typifies the outlook of people who can’t imagine people still doing work because they love it. And while I do understand the perspective I’d say the 7 years I lived in Denmark showed me a world that was already moving in the direction we see in Star Trek. With health care and education no longer being reserved for those who could pay, people’s obligations simplify. And by providing healthcare that isn’t attached to your job meant more freedom in job selection. Also, the Danish tax system is progressive so the wages for jobs are more averaged out. IE the gap between the highest and lowest paid is much smaller. What I witnessed was more people who were content. Content with their lives, content with their work. This isn’t a pipe dream or some utopian futuristic nonsense. The people selling that are the ones who continue to leverage their negotiating power to keep wages down and profits up. Which I will admit won’t work so well if and when we can change. I think it will take time and a change in perspective to achieve it. But we could at least start now with seeing what kind of perspective makes this kind of economy possible. I’ve been training my eye on the Danish education system which definitely plays a role in establishing these kind of mutually beneficial points of view. No place is perfect but we need to look around and see how our current disastrous trajectory can be shifted to something that benefits us all.
It's so sad to think people can't think of a world without money, but a world where we travel faster than light, can move asteroids with a tractor beam, synthesize whatever food you could desire at a molecular level... All these things but we can't imagine valuing ourselves without money.
It's important to keep in mind that the Federation's education, culture, and values are very different than current day world. When we ask the question of why anyone would want to be a waiter, we assume that being a waiter in the Federation is like being a waiter today. We assume that it's a bad job where they get treated like crap by their customers and their bosses, they're disrespected and looked down upon, they're constantly under stress, they have to work long hours for little pay, and they have to do the job or they'll lose their home. But I would bet that being a waiter in the Federation is not a bad job because of their different culture. Customers are not rude jerks. Restaurant managers don't overwork or mistreat them. Their livelihoods are not dependent on the job. People are respected for doing a job and doing it well because they are contributing to society. They aren't mistreated or looked down upon for the type of job they do like in our world today.
I think waiters in Trek are future restauranteer. They are apprentice learning how to run a restaurant before trying it themslves. When there is no need for money, every job becomes an educational opportunity to choose from. This is why I think despite having automation tech, the culture in Trek will always be open to menial task as a way for people to learn the basics or fundamentals before moving on to more difficult subject.
Yeah , it can be fun, the are plenty chatrity or just club funding events, wher epeople are waiters, and its voluntary and a lot do it, or ccompany. Or selling on a flea market, can be fun, and fulfilling. Or at a farm, most farmers dont make nearly enough money to justify the work if they didnt like the work. Dunno there are probably enough weirdos who love cleaning. And sure enoughdo free charity work for people . Feeling good and doig good can be its own reward, orr whatevetr people love about cleaning.
So humans aren't humans anymore. La Tabula Rasa gommies have always sought. Even before there was $ there wasn't this magic. You don't see it in nature. There is always a hierarchy. You are forlorn that humans are human and not borgs.
@@Drak976 Borg literally also has a hierarchy dude. Also for Fs' sake prime ST timeline literally has some Vulcan "helping hand" for quite some time before UFP is a thing.
@@palmercolson7037There's also the fact that the quantity of energy involved in atomic transmutation is comparable to the energy released by the fission of a similar mass of uranium. As such, the energy needs of a replicator making a meal are similar to those of a small atomic bomb.
Sure Rowan, your family _say_ they would do all those enrichment things if they didn't need money because of replicators, but I think the past few years have shown that for all their Grand Plans, we'll just watch "The Office" for the millionth time. I come back to "Necessity is the Mother of Invention." If it wasn't for us being forced to work for our survival, we wouldn't have gotten out of the caves.
I think there is some truth to that. People think if they only had more time then they'd go travel or do a project or whatever. But people don't think of the time cost and challenge of writing a novel, say, or rather, they have and that's why they're not writing NOW. The pandemic forced a lot of people to live off a dole at home, and when you can't even enjoy going out to a restaurant or go anywhere without a mask on, you would naturally resort to TV and movies to fill in the time. (The pandemic did little to change my life at all, except that I lost my job and immediately got rehired to do something else - I was working full-time throughout the pandemic). Now, I'm unemployed, and yes, I watch a lot of TV and RUclips - but that's mostly because it's there and it's habitual. I'm not in the habit of writing, especially something challenging like a novel. And the same thing that has held me back for writing online or making my own YT videos - my own self doubt - has not changed. And the pressure to go get a job is near-constant, so I'm worried all the time about that and about money, not fulfilling my dreams. Honestly, I'd love to go travel the world or go back to school right now, but I don't have the money to do it. It's not a lack of a job that's holding me back, although it sure would make a lot of my life easier - it's simply the lack of capital, and being saddled with debt on top of that. Also bad timing - I missed the deadline for program applications for Master of Library and Information Sciences which is probably the degree I'd go back to school for, so now I have to wait until this fall to apply for next year. And hope I can get a decent job or two in the meantime. Being unemployed in today's society is really the pits. Being unemployed in Star Trek society - sure I'd be spending a lot of time Holodecking, but I'd also crave doing *something* in the real world, and I bet getting a job to just be productive and earn a reputation isn't nearly as hard as it is now. You'd still be able to do poorly at the job and get fired, but you likely wouldn't be competing against hundreds of applicants just to get the same job opening in the first place.
@@DataLal Computer make a chair with a face sized hole in it. Next make a 2x as large as normal Deanna Troi right after she's had 3 Chocolate Sundays in 10 Forward and she is extremely lactose intolerant and needs to sit down. Computer disengage safety protocols. -Barkley probably
I’m telling you for a fact I loved my job. I welded,fit metal,did complex calculations, engineering, rigged and placed components, fabricated whole items and parts , metallurgy, repaired the largest machines on the planet , and directed crews ect. I loved every minute of it even though it was hard,dirty and unhealthy. If I could have afford to done it for free I would have especially if I knew my work was a value to all mankind. If I lived in a post scarcity world I would have done that same job I did for a living for free. I think I loved the noise and the smell of burnt ozone as I heliarc pressure tubes together. I might take more time off but yes I would love to build a star ship or a giant space station.
I love how this mirrors everything I’ve said about Trekonomics for years. Right down to the “small fusion reactor for power and a replicator for water and sewage” off-grid cabins, and the stuff about how and why Sisko’s restaurant works. Love the example from The Culture too, I’ve had many discussions about people sharing holiday homes and so on in the Federation.
Something in the real world that serves as an example of value of items. That today we can readily recreate many works of art very exactly and cheaply, but original works of art still have great value, both sentimentally and intrinsically.
...Most of the worth of works of art and other unique items are in their provenance, not in the object itself a painting by Leonardo da Vinci that nobody can prove is by him, is worth only as much as a good painting of the era, even though it's an original If you had a painting that is an exact replica at the atomic level, and is indistinguishable by any means, why is it worth any more than any other copy, and why is "the original" worth more when you can't tell which one is the original ....
@@anon_y_mousse Interesting that you set a time limit on your view. In truth, art should not have worth in a monetary sense, but it should have value, which you may interpret in any number of ways, from insight into the human condition to an evocation of the world around us. A video all of it's own I suspect.
@@wowmanhaha It's not a time limit, but a time frame of when art has sucked. Prior to the current period we're in, and then some depending on how you count periods, art wasn't nearly all garbage. I'd say art got good around the late 1300's, and most was great until the early 1900's when it started to suck donkey balls.
Art, like everything else, has exactly as much market value as you can sell it for. Artworks therefore have to preserve or increase their value if they are to keep functioning as devices for tax avoidance, or for storing wealth through times of war or hyperinflation. There's also the sentimental value of owning a historical artefact. Or just the pleasure of enjoying the art, but for that, a replica would also do in most cases.
Nicely done. I think there's an overlooked element though. Trek is showing us an energy economy. They don't need currency to buy goods, but they need energy to replicate goods or travel, which at the macro level means they still have a recognizable economy just with some form of energy placeholder as the medium of exchange. We see that most directly with Voyager and their rationing of replicator and holodeck use (which the crew accepted quite readily as though it weren't an alien or archaic concept) but the power limit is always subtly there throughout the franchise. It's clearly not a direct energy-backed Federation Dollar or something like that, but there is some relationship between work and available power to use for replicators, transporters, etc. Which could mean that working at the shipyard gives you way more matter-transmuting mojo than painting landscapes.
This! I was thinking the exact same thing. The true "currency" of their society is energy. Energy is converted to power or matter depending on the need. Their technological breakthrough was developing energy sources so efficient and cheap that energy could effectively be given away (Fusion, Matter/Antimatter, etc). This translates to people pursuing "passions" as main motivator. My guess would be there is still a hierarchy of what passions "earn" what respective levels of energy use even if the "accumulation" of energy isn't the primary motivator for work.
Compared to the energy they burn for just crossing interstellar distances, a holodeck would not even be a rounding error. Time slots would still be limited.
Except that there is no mention anywhere in the Star Trek franchise that people are working for energy as payment, nor energy incentives. Reminds me of the Decepticons constant thirst for energon cubes. But that's just not Star Trek. That's Transformers. I think Rowan Coleman explained it well. There are personal replicators, and there are industrial replicators. The industrial ones will go to large groups of individuals and institutions, probably granted by the government after filing a request form. And the personal replicators go to family households. Star Trek's society has figured out how to collect this energy, one would figure from mining planets and asteroids, which are plentiful. But who will do all that work? An army of refurbished Emergency Medical Holograms. Free, never-ending energy. Shame Megatron never thought of that.
4:40 - I've also wondered of this in the past. My conclusion was that *common replicators' standard database is limited, not everything could be relayed through 'specifying' voice commands, and therefore there have to exist additional programs for numerous/countless 'non-standard-issue' things AND, this is the deal-breaker, someone has to create these programs first. Not everyone would possess the knowledge and/or skills and/or means to do so. And here we have something that could be considered a 'commodity' (replicator programs) . . . . with a potential of feeding an entire market and industry. 🙂 * - Non-Starfleet replicators; no access to the "all-knowing" super-computers of theirs.
And i would add, i dont trust computers to do food right, so scientists and hopefully some cooks did make the formulas how to make it and taste good enough and close enough. So its not easy to create the formula easy, and tempering preobably taste awful. So for nutritian, probably fine, but to make food taste it needs a formula like 3d printer premade. Probably why cooking is still very much values as, no computer can get that right over people decent at making food, and the cooking provesses. Yes its luxiority, but, food is insanely creative, i just dont think computers could get it right without a human testing process before making it a formula.
You keep leaving out that they have the technology to scan something atom by atom with their transporters. A replicator can also scan an item and copy it. @marocat4749 For that reason food might be one thing it was good at you. You could recreate that perfect bowl of soup over and over again down to the last flavonoid molecule. What I want is an anti entropy fridge to keep food preserved forever. Not nearly enough scifi has that.
@@Drak976 OK, that is correct, BUT first you need to get hold of the given item in order to scan it up. In lots (MOST) of cases that would not be possible. It is basically the infamous "hen and egg" problem. 🙂
If I had no issues regarding money- I would own a coffee shop and book store-lots of seating , art from local artists , music on the weekends - cool location by a river in a historic renovated building...
Even if we eliminated money and achieved limitless resource replication with infinite energy, scarcity would still exist. Real estate, for example, will always be limited. As long as scarcity exists, some form of economic system and a unit of exchange would be necessary to allocate these scarce resources. Additionally, undesirable jobs would likely require an incentive system beyond just a social credit system. After all, without money, what motivates someone to take on an unpleasant and thankless task? In essence, you'd likely end up recreating a system remarkably similar to money.
It's not just artistic expression - it's also the joy of learning and the satisfaction that comes from a job done well. The pride a homeowner can take in their property being well taken care of by themselves. Neighbors coming together to help each other is something you can find even now in small insular communities or rural areas (there's lots of videos online of Amish people building barns for each other).
Okay, but when it comes to neighbours coming together to help each other there's an understanding that the favour may one day be returned. Especially in small communities were everyone knows each other if you don't turn out to help it's going to be noticed. Social capital becomes important in that environment.
I'm sure most people would take care of their homes if they COULD, but the resources are just not there. That's the ULTIMATE crux of the problem with scarcity. We simply can't give everyone everything.
I'd quibble with two points: the first, conservation of energy has been pointed out by others here. The second is that star trek isn't a truly post-scarcity society. Not to get too Georgist, but land will always be a scarce resource. Moreover, it'll always be a scarce resource with differing levels of value. How does a benevolent, non-monetary society allocate land that sits next to a beautiful lake or that's close to a vibrant city core?
You can terraform planets and ther are always adventerous people wanting to explore the galaxy. Ther are conflicts in the galaxy, but you vcan make planets habitable, that would create a lot new land. More than enough for people. And who knows maybe federation citizens are just taught to get along better and be less likely to have the current , ok have less needless social conflict.+ Ther is confloict that just exists , but the social pressure competetive capitalism would decrease, a lot, and stress. And people just probable are friendlier to each other.
@@marocat4749 I certainly acknowledge your point about creating new land, and certainly we've seen plenty of examples of people choosing the colonist life in canon, but one can't argue that even in that case, there's still a differential desirability of land. How many humans would prefer to live on the home planet, for example? And of those living in any place, there will always be land that would be considered more desirable by enough people to induce a competitive desire to live there. In the modern world, we engage in work because we have differential values: I value my time and effort less than the goods and services I can procure with that time and effort. But how does it work when a widely desired, but scarce good like high-value land exists in a world in which there's no obvious mechanism to distribute that good? I'm not saying I have an answer, but it does throw a wrench in Rowan's argument.
It seems Generational Wealth. Picards family was rich so he gets to keep his wealth. Meanwhile everyone else can sod off to the new world like maro says. Go live in the Cardassian Neutral Zone and watch the Federation turn a blind eye as you get war crimed.
@@WinstonSmith0824 I mean, with orbital habitats being so easy to build, almost anywhere on and above earth or any planet (and underwater) is habitable. With teleportation being a common travel method habitable land becomes far easier than we would think. It IS an issue, but less than we would think based on our mindset. I'd personally imagine that issues over prime land use would be decided democratically, with easy access to verifiable information and a high degree of education I could see it being put to a local vote whether something like the Picard vineyard land is being put to good use as is or if a change is necessary. (Edit for display)
As someone who's revising a novel right now, I can tell you it'd be far too easy to "sit on the couch" rather than sit in front of my laptop 6-8 hours at a stretch. Similarly, those relatives who said they wanted to learn an instrument or learning a language could be doing that right now. Thirty minutes a day would be all it'd take. "Utopia" breaks down really quickly when reality is applied.
3:52 -- "Now, fusion does require fuel, but once a replicator is powered up, the fuel needed for fusion is now in infinite supply, because the replicator itself can make more of it." They repealed the conservation of energy. You could also replicate a perpetual motion machine. Or print a "Title of Ownership Of Everything" stamped onto each person's birth certificate.
one thing to think about in terms of "post scarcity" is that with a sufficiently ubiquitous method of orbit and de-orbiting materials. We wouldn't even need warp, or replicators to achieve functional post-scarcity. The Solar systems own asteroid belt contains as close to unlimited material resources as we could want. Enough to keep up with human needs for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years. Once cheap space flight or orbital elevators become relatively common, industrialization of space would supply us with all the raw materials needed to build as many orbital habitats as we'd need or want. We could begin mass cultivation of plants like trees for lumber, farms and ranches for food, land for people to build houses and live on. The only major bottleneck being the development of a shipping infrastructure large enough to get everything to where it needs to go.
As much as I love sci-fi our solar system has more than enough resources to support our civilization until the end of time essentially. we really don't need to leave for anything.
@@MrChickennugget360not really. The coastline of the US is less than 15% of the total landmass of the continent but nearly half of the population of 300M lives along coastal areas. The three largest states in the union by population are NY, CA and FL. China and India are the most populous countries on Earth, guess where most of their people live.. That being said, there is major evidence that the asteroid belt and the moons of our sister planets have all the mineral wealth and water we could possibly need not to mention our current science doesn’t allow for breaking the light barrier so we can’t leave the system anyway so it’s a good thing we don’t actually have to.
@@Obsydian2k7 Technically we don't need to break C to leave the solar system, we just need colony ships and a means to protect them from radiation and being hit by stuff.
You can't do away with scarcity. For example, how do you decide who gets to live in the penthouse, or who gets first row seats at a concert, or who gets to have a beachfront house, or... you get the idea. There will always be things that exist in less supply than the demand for them, and you will need money to allow people to prioritize what they want more. So one person might value first row concert seats more than living on the beach, while someone else could have the opposite priority. People must sacrifice things they don't care as much about in order to get the things they really do care about, and money is the most efficient way to do that. You can't replicate fuel. Or at least you can't replicate more fuel than it took to fuel the replicator to replicate the fuel. It always must be a net loss. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is a thing.
Came to say something like this. The concept of "post scarcity" cannot exist outside fiction, because scarcity is itself relative: it moves with the alternative uses that exist for resources, which change with new advances in technology.
Except money has not existed for most of human existence, only a few thousand years, and still doesnt exist in some societies today. Labor for things beyond survival/sustenance were and are still performed in those societies. A post scarcity society is possible but requires a shift in thinking along with removing scarcity. such a society may also be smaller in population as fewer people are needed, we've seen this happening already as birth rates drop in many places around the world. This could also reduce the competition for the same things.
@@adrianwebster6923Those societies were also smaller, less sophisticated, and most importantly, could support *FAR* fewer people. Specialization is what allowed civilization to progress, and money allows specialization to work. The only way to reduce competition for things is to not have scarce things people want. That means all you can have access to is a very limited selection of common items. So sure, if you want to destroy modern society, kill billions, and have people revert to only having what they and their close friends and family could produce by themselves, then you can do away with money. Otherwise, you need it.
@@KenMathis1 When your means of production can support large numbers without needing money those factors stop mattering. the point is that scarcity would be a thing of the past with a replicator. It is a revolution like agriculture and the industrial revolution. societal organization changes. The sacrifices you describe are no longer necessary thus motivation will be based on other needs and desires. Creativity, curiousity etc. things which exised in human society regardless of the existence of money or levels of scarcity.
I feel like there's a lot of social credits in the Federation. Picard still has the biggest quarters on Enterprise; the lower deckers sleep in the hallway. Everyone gets the basics, but if you want more, you have to contribute to the greater good, not just to yourself. I think that's why a lot of people join Starfleet: if you do, opportunities open up.
I guess that in the StarTrek society, to conduct a huge event at a restaurant, is probably as cheap as for a kid to bake a cookie nowadays. And, I mean, when your kid gives you a cookie they baked, it's not like he or she is going to say "Oh, why did you JUST say "thank you"!? I expected you to pay me 5 dollars for this!!". And if he or she gives you a cookie as a gift, you won't just say "Oh, it's worthless! I can't even sell it FOR MONEY, duh!" No, you're just going to eat a cookie and say thank you to you kid. The same is probably true of a restaurant owner on the Star Trek Earth. The very act of different guests visiting his or her restaurant would probably already give great joy to the owner. In the Star Trek, they probably also have some system of redistributing land. Maybe something similar to what we used to have in the USSR, where all the land of the Capitalist oligarchs was confiscated and given to every citizen for free if a citizen would use it productively. Some people had built a little summer house on the little patch, or what most people did, they started growing their own fruits and vegetables to share with their families (some also sold the little things on the market, because the Soviet Union was a Socialist society, and not Communist, like the Earth from Star Trek, but still, the land was mostly used for personal use). Just to show to you how valuable it can be, even after all these decades and the restoration of Capitalism in Russia, my grandmother is still obsessed with the garden that she created on the little patch of land that Soviet government had given to her, and she works there every year, growing lots of fruits, vegetables and berries. Even after her land became her private property in the 1990s, she never sells the vegetables, she just gives everything away for free to her relatives and friends. I am quite certain, that in the Star Trek society, they have a whole culture of giving away food and even some more complicated items just like that, for free.
I take it that some menial labors are a form of education/mentorship others are traditions. The welders and other builders are in the process of understanding how starships are built before moving up to a position that oversees that aspect of construction. Similar to the waiters at a restaurant. It isn't just about learning how to cook, but how to create an atmosphere, present the food, take up the food, and how to treat patrons. Then there are menial task that are traditional, to keep the cultural heritage and knowledge of the past alive. Take it to the extreme, if there are no menial task in Trek and everything is automated, then it would be very easy to bring civilization into a dark age like Warhammer 40K. In 40K, humanity used to have fully automatics society but no one learned how things were made, so when technology failed, the entire civilization fell. With the preservation of menial tasks in Trek, if every replicator failed, people still retain the skills and knowledge to help society self sufficient.
Well humanity in 40k kind of lost due to the machines AI being possessed by demons and turning on them and cutting off all planetary space travel. But yeah they did have machines where if they gathered the necessary materials it would form them from you but it isn't really stated that they were lazy just understood that everyone is not gonna know everything there is to know, served more as a vast library of human knowledge.
I'm glad you brought up Player of Games, not only for the Culture / Federation similarities. I had the book recommended to me by it being described as an excellent episode of TOS.
For some manual labour, the DOT droids we see in discovery and probably in SNW help complete the picture. Although not mentioned by the same name, Geordi references droids loading the photon torpedoes in Picard season 3. Honestly, droid assistance that we never see helps explain how Voyager stays so squeaky clean through most of its journey. Humans might do welding, etc, work for pride, self fulfillment, etc, but it seems necessary to shift 99% of the work onto robots/droids.
"Droid" is the word they use in Star Wars for robots. I haven't seen Picard and don't plan to, I wouldn't be surprised if it is actually Star Wars dressed up as Trek. Interior maintenance can be done by replicators. Farscape bothers to explain the concept, in a way that very apparently made it into Harry Potter
I hold that a moneyless society cannot work, because literal "post-scarcity" is impossible. We live in a finite, bounded universe, which makes it simply impossible to completely fulfil the material desires of every human. At some point we will have to compromise with each other. And at that point, we will naturally re-invent value and pricing, to quantify our economic priorities. Luckily, post-scarcity does not advocate for the literal end of *all* scarcity of goods and services. It simply advocates for the end of necessities being scarce. Food, water, shelter, healthcare, education, and so on. The state should guarantee these things to its citizens, and invest resources into ensuring those guarantees are met. This would leave luxury goods and services scarce. But that's okay - human desires for luxuries are fickle and elastic. Humans can go without many kinds of luxuries, so long as their survival needs are met. Indeed, humans don't necessarily need any assets outside of their own bodies, in order to enjoy themselves. I have ADHD, so I know how it feels to crave stimulation. But if you shut me in a grey room with no toys or other entertainment, and only fed me plain rations, I would just lie on the floor and daydream. If my survival needs are met, I will find a way to amuse myself. But people will still want luxuries, even if their survival is assured. So how do we decide who deserves access to luxuries, given their scarcity? I think it would have to be based on the idea of "contributing to society". The foundation would be essential workers. The people growing all the food, cleaning all the water, building and maintaining all the housing and infrastructure, staffing all the hospitals, keeping all the power-plants running, and so on. These are people choosing to spend their labour - some of their finite lifetime - supporting the existence of everyone else in society. Therefore, they are the most deserving of luxuries. The government could quantify that "deserving" status by paying these essential workers. Let's call this currency "Lux". Lux would only be used in luxury markets, because no-one would have to pay for essentials. The state guarantees them, so anyone trying to sell access to food or housing in return for Lux would have to compete with the state, which is offering both to its citizens for free. The essential workers couldn't produce their luxuries themselves, as most of their labour would be tied up in essential work. So other humans would have to provide the luxuries. These luxury workers would also want Lux, so they could access each others' luxury goods and services. Therefore, the essential workers would have to spend their Lux to recieve the products of the luxury workers. Good old supply and demand would eventually settle luxury prices at a level people were happy with. This would form the foundation of the economy - essential workers supporting luxury workers, who provide luxuries to essential workers and each other. With the state levying taxes on luxury industries, to pay its essential workers. The ownership of productive assets would depend on the work being done with them. All assets involved in essential work would be owned by the state, with the state maintaining the right to seize any other asset if it was deemed necessary for essential work. Ergo, if state-owned farms were destroyed, the state would have the right to seize arable land from luxury farms to make up the difference. On the other hand, all assets used in luxury work would be owned collectively, by worker cooperatives. Workers would decide their business policy collectively, elect their own managers, and share the profits of their business. This system would arise naturally, because without the threat of poverty hanging over them, no citizen would willingly submit to capitalist domination. Business owners would have to concede more and more power to their workers, until they were effectively peers. Utilizing market forces is the only way that luxury production could work. Essentials can be centrally-planned, because they can be easily quantified. A human needs X calories and Y nutrients a day to survive, so you need to produce enough food in the right ratios to serve the needs of every citizen. A human home needs a floor-space of X-by-Y metres to feel comfortable, so you need to build enough housing to meet the space needs of every citizen. And so on. But human desires for luxuries are fickle. Far too fickle for a government to keep up with changing trends. A free market of cooperative businesses would be much more agile, and able to address shifts in consumer tastes in a timely manner. This is one of the big failures of the Soviet model, by the way. They tried to centrally-plan luxury production, and the result was a complete mess. If the Federation operated like I described, it would explain a lot of apparent oddities like Chateau Picard and Sisko's. These would simply be luxury businesses operating cooperatively, and providing luxury foodstuffs to citizens whose essential food needs are already guaranteed. They may be operated by families, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. So long as they're not refusing to hire people from outside their families, and are conducting their businesses democratically and sharing all profits among their workers, it doesn't matter if all the workers involved are close relatives. And the Picards could own so much land, simply because there would be enough demand for Picard-brand wine, and therefore enough income from selling it, to cover the costs of maintaining so much land. While Sisko's is a small cafe, either because there's not enough demand (read: income) to support a bigger venue, or because it's as big as the workers involved want it to be. The guarantee of essentials to all citizens would produce the ultimate level playing field, and bring society much closer to true economic meritocracy.
I think those welders are probably passionate craftspeople who are taking part in the construction of a starship probably a very fulfilling experience.
There are people who would, if there was no need for money, kill to personally build with their own hands the greatest scientific and engineering feats of the age assuming the safety and work culture of the 24th century. I think that robots definitely do a lot of automation but the personal touch is essential in fostering a sense of common purpose and striving for fulfillment. When the flagship defends humanity from an incomprehensible threat, there are thousands of people on Earth who share in that accomplishment and have given their time, expertise and labor to make that feat possible.
Sorry to interject, but "personal" property is an anti-concept (An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept, in this case, Private property.) as all Property is Private property regardless of what it is the case is. My personal theory is that, since we only see a moneyless society from Star Fleet personnel i.e. a wing of the government, there could be some other forms of currency used for items that replicators can not make for one reason or another, so they don't need money. So it is not a moneyless society; it's just reserved for things that humans value over their basic needs. But to understand this, one needs to fully understand the true nature of Money.
"all Property is Private property" Did you mean "all personal property is private property"? Because "public property" is a thing and it's certainly not "private property".
@@JannPoo Absolutely not! The term 'personal property' is an anti-concept crafted to undermine the true essence of private property. Regardless of whether you utilize a piece of property for personal use or economic gain, it unequivocally remains your private property. Furthermore, 'public property' is a misnomer; it should rightfully be termed government property, and its legitimate scope of ownership is far more limited than commonly perceived.
Oh hey, you got the music from New Romulus playing in the background! Such an excellent choice. Very glad you made this honestly, it's an excellent video.
What if you want to own something "extra"? Like a cottage in the mountains (ST:Generations), a personal space shuttle (let alone some spacious warp-capable *yacht), or a "simple" hover-car? And let's say that you want to pursue a hobby that is more "expensive"? Like for example, whilst speaking of the hover-cars, you want to become a racer? In that case you'd "need" more than just a "simple" hover-car, ain't it right? And what about the process? You'd waltz into some local **office/institution and brashly announce to them that you want all those things and they would then simply provide you with them? Well, I do not think that this would be that easy. Among others, the society does not owe you 'these' things. Maybe you "have to" work certain jobs for a certain amount of time (like 'years') in order to earn the right to be "allotted" such non-essential stuff. Like doing something mundane and uninspiring (welding panels all day long) or do something dangerous (joining Starfleet; especially as a "redshirt" 😀). * - Over the decades, we've seen on Star Trek examples of people who at least seemed to be.... ehm.... "rich". ** - Once again, why would anyone want to willingly work on such a 'dorky' job; like long-term or permanently? One could potentially come up with hundreds of such examples.
It's excellent. I've studied this for a long time, and written books about it. Here are the basics for understanding and explaining how it is possible to achieve a free world: The means of production, the social contract, the cultural practices that flow from it, the spirit of service to others according to one's abilities. If replicators are the basis of the industry, that obviously makes things a lot easier. Today's 3d printers are the premise. Theoretically, with sufficient energy, space can be bent to produce mass. But before we get to that, which solves a lot of problems, the questions that arise are, as you pointed out, infrastructure-related. It is infrastructure that makes possible the evolution that leads to these innovations. Today, these innovations would be opposed to the existing infrastructure. What it boils down to is: how do we assess things? This is the question of the entire economy, and of human society as a whole. How can we measure, concretely and objectively, what is good or bad? Certainly by introducing concepts currently ignored by our system: the long term, and the search for quality.
Replicators do not conjure material out of nothing, they are more like transporters that beam raw materials from over here into an assembled product over there. Someone has to feed inputs in somewhere. They also consume an enormous amount of energy. Utopia plenasia has assembly yards producing almost all of the shuttlecraft for Starfleet. This is cheaper by far in terms of energy cost than replicating them. Replicating a shuttlecraft or something you would do in a dire emergency not if you had any alternative because of the energy costs
"The fuel needed for fusion is now in infinite supply because the replicator can make more of it." Fun fact: Gene Roddenberry fell asleep during thermodynamics. >> "We'll just use a replicator to replicator new replicated laws of thermoreplicatordynamics. Replicators."
I'm a musician and I feel so privileged to earn my money by doing, what i love. Sure, there are days, when work is still work and not fun, but overall i would still do, what i do even if i wouldn't have to worry about money anymore. Keep up the good work. You make the best Star Trek video-essays on RUclips!
@@Apple2-ux8uo Does it matter? His base needs are taken care of meaning he can make whatever music he wants. If he craves prestige and recognition for his work he will act accordingly.
The problem with Star Trek is that almost ALL manufacturing and logistics occurs off-screen. And there's a new planet or new culture-of-origin every week. Meanwhile, its a deliberate caricature of mythologies and ideas, dodging core questions, YET MOST of separately-evolved species can naturally mate. (I know, Galen's Adamic Ancestral Species, but that was AFTER over 300 episodes, movies, books.)
I'm glad you said that the ward drive is powered by an matter/antimatter reactor, which is my understanding from the beginning of Trek. Dilithium was not a power source. It existed between dimensions and when enough power from the matter/antimater reactor was applied, the ship could warp through space.
Dilithium is a regulator. A regulator of the following. The 'power source' injected into the nacelles is 'high-energy plasma' (sometimes also called 'warp plasma'), created as a by-product in warp cores through mutual annihilation of the matter and anti-matter. In most Starfleet vessels, the fuel for the warp cores is usually Deuterium (matter) and Anti-deuterium (anti-matter).
Just from a pure physics point of view, you wouldn't be able to use a replicator to produce the fuel for the fusion reactor that powers it. That would either break the second law of thermodynamics if there are no energy losses or the first law of thermodynamics if there are energy losses but the replicator would produce enough fuel to fuel the fusion reactor. Perpetual mobile is not allowed.
Something to note, as someone who was unemployed but completely stable for a while during COVID, not working is fucking MISERABLE. It sucks, it drains on you to just be in your home, achieving nothing. I also have a friend who is fairly wealthy from inheritance but you'd never know it because the dude works as a line cook in a restaurant. He always told me that, yeah, he didn't HAVE to work, but he watched his father, who spent all day hanging out at country clubs and high society clubs, spiral into depression and drug addiction from the stress of not doing anything meaningful. He felt himself going down that same path and instead moved out, got a modest but nice apartment, and lives like any random guy expect way happier because he has no financial concerns.
Funny, I just had a conversation about this topic recently. This video really helps fill in the gaps to that conversation. I love your concept "that when money is no object, that people want to learn". Unfortunately, there is still the human "condition" where there is evil and greed (yes, even with everyone not needing money). So instead of money driving greed, it would be replaced with something else...like Power. Thank you for the video.
That was something I appreciate about how The Orville explained future society. It directly references how in the future, people pursue social capital and prestige rather than money.
Yeah and that when horrible. I remember the episode where he was going to jail because of something and they had to make it up by convincing people he was a good person. Imagine that in today's society.
The psychology of this will be a matter for any post-scarcity society: You will not need to work to live, but what do you want to live for? The fulfillment of mastering a craft, or satisfying your curiosity with exploration of STEM subjects, archaeology or traveling to new frontiers? This will also be a question that needs to be answered with longer lifespans, what will you do if you have perfect health and live for 400 years?
I don't think we'll ever get rid of money or some form of social debt/payment system, which is basically what money is. As there will always be scarcity with certain things (land/artwork/one off creations/desirable people as mates/etc.). But there are ways we could reduce our dependency on money. By covering things like basic housing, healthcare, food, water, and even transportation, electricity, and communication. Which we already do to some extend or another in most first world countries. Though we could certainly improve it and create less stigma around people using it.
The welder example is key. I know welders who would like nothing better than to lay bead all day. Not having to think about the input cost would allow for this, also any imperfections could be instantly revealed (through tech in the helmet) to the welder whom could correct immediately, or corrections could be made by a replicator. These corrections could even be subsurface leaving the handiwork of the craftsman visible yet the subsurface molecularly "perfect". As for the "property" question, we already have individuals and groups who value their digital property above most physical property, therefore a holodeck can provide any property to any individual or group as they wish.
Ummm my dude. You cant fuel replicator by replicating fuel. Its in the lore btw. Replicators turn energy into matter just like transporters do or holodeck, but you cant create more energy out of energy.
Laws of thermodynamics - replicators are matter energy converters, we have this today with particle colliders, but you can’t make more energy out of nowshere
Memory Alpha: Replicating large numbers of items could require significant amounts of power to be diverted from the warp core. (TNG: "The Child") Complex elements such as anicium and yurium also required large amounts of energy to replicate. (TNG: "Night Terrors") During emergency situations, the use the replicators might be restricted to save power for vital systems or because they were unreliable; requiring rations to be replicated instead of more elaborate food (TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise"; VOY: "Year of Hell", "The Killing Game", "Demon"; DS9: "The Siege"), rationing of replicator usage (VOY: "The Cloud", "Real Life", "The Void"), or the use of traditionally-prepared food. (DS9: "Covenant"; VOY: "The Cloud") It was sometimes necessary to take the replicators completely offline to conserve power. (DS9: "Covenant"; VOY: "Dark Frontier", "Demon"; PRO: "Terror Firma") Looks like replicators were consistently depicted as a non negligible energy consumer. A pass? Well. If you assume the newer series are a new continuity you can ignore all that old stuff and it would match pretty well with the insanely jacked up technology level. My limited Sci-fi repertoire actually has something like you suggest. Mr. Fusion on the upgraded DeLorean. It's fed by whatever crap Doc Brown deems worthy to throw in there. It literally says Fusion Home Energy Reactor on it. Almost nothing said about how it does or doesn't work.
We arent even close to achieve Star Trek technology, but with our stage today, we can make our factories and most of our jobs AI and robot powered and replace 80-90% of human needs. We could replace our governments with liquid democracy, we could achieve something like Star Trek...the only barrier is the human greedy for power and money.
I think you need to start thinking of tradesman as artist who take a lot of pride in their work and passing on their knowledge to an apprentice.(we see this often in Star Trek with other professions) and if you spend any time on social media following tradesmen you will find they take pride in being good at their craft if not the best. That welder gets to tell everyone he built that Star ship with his two hands and next may lead the team that builds a space station(it may sound corny to us but I think in the Trek future people are very supportive of everyone’s chosen occupation or passion). You also have to notice that that welder is probably not an independent contractor but a member of Star fleet and that maybe his first post on the way to being a chief engineer(remember the engineers we see in series work on everything on the Star ship: replicators and holodecks to the warpcore and weapon systems. Star fleet engineers are appliance repairmen and nuclear technicians and literally everything in between.
The only criticism I have about this theory is it's not so much replicator technology but transporter technology, transporter technology gave way to replicator technology transporters breakdown matter and store them as patterns. These patterns are stored as data. Replicators take existing matter and reorganize it into whatever components are demanded. In Voyager it stated human waste products are reconfigured into building materials for example.
Actually, this whole idea-set was explored quite handily in George O. Smith's "Venus Equilateral" Stories I2 or 3 short stories (there were no VE novels) take care of it, IIRC, maybe 4 if I've forgotten one), written in the 1940s. Roddenberry was almost wholly derivative. Add "Forbidden Planet" to "Venus Equilateral" and you have "Star Trek:. Given that Roddenberry was a pilot (both civilian and military) and flew many long hauls ( WW2 bombing missions and later the longest routes in the Pan-Am catalog) during the 1940s and, since it is clear the he was a science fiction fan, it seems the obvious inference that her read Smith's stories pretty much as they came out in "Astounding" magazine. I'd be flabbergasted to find that he never packed reading material for a flight leg/mission. Give the VE stories a read, they're well worth the time.
I can easily imagine star trek because I don't live for money myself, it's not my motivation, my motivation has more to do with my leading passions, skills and talents.
This is a subject that doesn't get talked about enough the ideas of replicators is one that people don't really understand the amounts of energy that would be used to replicate something the idea that everyone would have their own replicator is amazingly crazy unless they had already enclosed the sun in a Dyson sphere we're talking that much energy needed for everyone to have their own replicator and make just an apple for breakfast everyday
One of the handwaves about 'Star Trek tech' is that with all their fancy subspace physics and such, they can do a lot more with a lot *less* energy than our physics would demand. Otherwise every space battle would level sectors.
0:17 -- Considering in one episode they try to get Jake's dad a 1951 Bowman Willie Mays rookie card...they should know that there will always be the need for money. After all, it is impossible to replicate antique/vintage items/collectibles, because if you did it wouldn't be antique/vintage anymore!
Matter = Energy = Matter. Federation citizens get energy credits. For dealing with exterior space nations, they can use energy reserves to replicate precious materials for exchange. The more they mine, the more energy they have, the more they can make. Within the Federation most of what they need is provided because their fusion unlocks enough energy for that level of civilization. On top of that, there never were laws prohibiting accumulation of personal wealth, although most don't worry about it. On DS9 for example, it would have been crazy for those officers to not save some latinum even from their own energy credit allocation. Or, like Chakotay, make a pocket watch as a gift.
I actually don’t believe that money has been abolished. What we are told is that the acquisition of wealth is no longer a driving force. What has changed is the mindset of people. I feel certain that I heard in an episode somewhere along the line the use of the word “credits”. Therefore they are being paid in terms of credits. Somehow there has been a big shift in the distribution of wealth, however goods and services have to be paid for, this has happened since the beginning of time starting with simple bartering. So in my opinion, money still exists, it’s the mindset that is different..
Our capitalist-poisoned brains literally can’t comprehend a system that doesn’t require money. Even though it’s how humanity functioned before money came along. All members of a community would help each other. With the given understanding being that when you were in trouble, others would come help you.
We kind of see this already with software, there is a giant ecosystem now out there of only open source software. These days you can run a business and never pay for a single license (except if the government is forcing you to, because you needs some cash grabbing BS software to file your taxes). Another interesting idea is that most people got lazy and now are stored in pleasure cubes, but the people outside are the crazy adventurists, who do all this stuff and would pay for this work. I think "credits" are just an inconsistency because some writers got lazy. I don't think renaming money to credits is an interesting solution.
Watch Part 2 Here: ruclips.net/video/lDFDmk0hoUw/видео.htmlsi=vGziE97eERt_IIXg
P.S:- I probably should have gone into more detail about replicators. As many are pointing out in the comments, replicators making their own fuel would violate the laws of thermodynamics. I know that which is why that's not what I meant. As long as there is a ready supply of raw materials to feed the replicator (Star Trek Discovery suggested using human waste which is pretty clever IMO) then a replicator would be able to create the fuel for a small reactor - which itself can be built from replicated parts - or simply build a solar panel or some other means of power generation. That's what I meant.
P.P.S:- I find it interesting that many Trekkies are perfectly fine with the many other technologies in Star Trek which overtly break the laws of physics, but apparently replicators don't get a free pass the same way gravity plating does.
P.P.P.S:- I also should have clarified the purpose of this video series: This is not a lore video. My goal is not to explain the world presented to us in Star Trek, but merely to use Star Trek as a jumping-off point to imagine how a world LIKE Star Trek would function. Hence the headcanon stuff and references to other media like The Culture Series. I say this because I'm seeing a lot of comments like, "Um actually in [SHOW/MOVIE/EPISODE] [CHARACTER] says [THING] which contradicts what you just said." I know that, but Star Trek's universe isn't consistent so I'm choosing to mostly talk about the setting in broad strokes.
Thank you for engaging with the video though. If you want to see the next video in the series early and ad-free, join me on my Patreon: www.patreon.com/rowanjcoleman
As well done as your video are, I am confused by the fact that you don't have like 500k subscribers
Well thanks for your thoughts.
However I think it's a version of utopian communism, in a not so subtle way.
As for asking your friends what they would do if money wasn't a problem.....
(1) perhaps you have noble intelligent friends.
(2) You haven't got out and about enough to really know 75% of humanity
Many questions remain unanswered in theory.
The first repicators also have to be produced first, but where do the raw materials come from? The earth is plundered by then. Should the first colonies provide raw materials, or worse, they have to.
But when the replicators are everywhere, there will be no need for labour for factories or production.
What about the many people who have no jobs?
Otherwise, why go through years of training or study if you can't use it? And let's be honest, for most people, "being needed" is also fulfilment.
After all, "doing nothing" and just pursuing your hobbies is nice for a while, but unsatisfying in the long run.
The result would be a massive population decline. (Would the colonies have to be abandoned again?)
Perhaps even forced to some extent in order to pre-empt the dissatisfied and bored population.
Many questions and a long way to Utopia.
Your views on powering a replicator is 100% wrong. The Energy and matter equation proves that Star Trek glosses over it. The hidden message of Star Trek is that marxism finally works which is why you know it's fantasy. You can't get something from nothing
@@zeddik99 Why does no politician or celebrity promote any MFM?
4:23 - whoa there! Replicators need energy. If replicators could replicate the hydrogen needed for a fusion reactor to work, that would be creating energy out of nothing. But they don't. Instead you have bussard collectors to top up the reserves. This was even a major plot point of Voyager where replicator access had to be rationed. They're a miracle device, but not _that_ much of a miracle device!
There's also things a replicator just apparently can't make, complex "minerals" like dilithium seems to be one of them - though synthetics seem to come into play at one point - as well as deuterium apparently if memory of that episode serves.
It can't magic up a battery or a fusion reactor in my head canon, or the laws of physics. Deuterium, anti-matter and other resources are always mentioned as being required inputs for Star Ships. We know the toilets feed into the replicators, even in the 31st century, so an input of matter/ energy is always required to make any complex device made by a replicator to function. (Although self-replicating cloaked mines somehow get around this at a small scale...)
Replicators either change energy into matter or rearrange matter into new forms. So you need either stored energy, or stored matter. Although this may explain what happens in the bathroom on Star Trek. Maybe the sewage goes into the replicator for molecular rearrangement.
Since there's millions of people who want everything for free, we have basically 2 options, one are replicators the other one is slavery. Hopefully we will do the right thing and not use the old method again.
You're absolutely right that the replicators need outside energy to run. Indeed, the tech manuals mention that the replicators have raw material reserves to draw on for the purpose of making food, clothing, tools etc. While technically you can make matter from pure energy, the fuel/energy cost of doing so is prohibitively expensive; so with regards to stuff like latinum and dilithium, it's cheaper just to dig it out of the ground, so to speak.
And like you say, the energy needed to replicate a deuterium atom would likely exceed the energy equivalent of said atom, meaning, replicating fuel like that would result in diminishing returns
For me, it still raises the question: Who gets the penthouse in the newly built apartment? Who gets the land by the beautiful river, and who has to settle for the first-floor apartment by the highway? There seems to be some corruption or nepotism at play, granting better options to some while leaving others with less desirable choices.
I have always headcannoned it as this: parcels of land or residences are awarded to people based on levels of service. If all you want to do is just be a bum and not contribute to society, you are awarded a Class D apartment. If you have been a Starfleet officer for 40 years, or an esteemed scholar or artist or some such, you might get a Class A homestead. OR something like that. So, because we primarily see Starfleet officers and not "regular folk," an example might be this- In Star Trek II and III, we see Kirk's apartment. It looks pretty damn nice! He's a well decorated Starfleet Admiral though. A brand new ensign might have to share a 2 bedroom apartment with another ensign.
A perfect example of this is Raffi. When Picard goes to recruit her in Picard, she's living in a pathetic hovel. Why? She's clearly not happy living there and likely would move somewhere else. So why doesn't she? What's stopping her from packing up and moving to the penthouse somewhere, or living on that land by the river?
@@tilarium2looking back over the show, it was possibly because she was punishing herself, living poorly while leaning heavily on depressive intoxicants.
It's fairly consistent in Star Trek that service has perks, because so many writers were ex-military. Nobody on Earth is poor or hungry if they don't want to be. But when there is scarcity, like the Holodeck can only hold so many people at a time, then rank makes a de facto currency. Like maybe the captain and engineer can commandeer the holodeck anytime for various reasons. And an ensign might find the holodecks are so overused you have to rank up before you'll ever find an open slot. Or if an ensign saves the ship thanks to some quick thinking, they get a holodeck credit. Just because Starfleet doesn't have money, doesn't mean holodeck slots aren't a form of currency.
@@tilarium2Raffi explains quite clearly that she’s done with Starfleet and wants to be off the grid and off their radar. Accepting base housing etc. would put her back under their thumb.
Couple quibbles.
Replicators weren't invented yet, or at least weren't available on starships, in the TOS era, which was still post-money enough for the crew to be unfamiliar with using it. However, they did have synthesizers. We've seen TOS-era synthesizers create food and clothing. It seems likely that the difference is a synthesizer is specialized for a particular type of good, while a replicator can produce effectively anything just using a software update.
Synthesizers would still have led to the post-scarcity era, but only if they could be powered at effectively no cost. Cheap and readily available fusion power was probably the first step down that road.
Second point: replicators can't produce enough fusion fuel to be self-powering. Star Trek doesn't claim to have broken thermodynamics. That's why starships have Bussard collectors to gather hydrogen fuel for fusion. Likewise see Voyager, where crewmembers had "replicator rations" -- the replicators had to be rationed because Voyager was outside Federation space and not getting regularly refueled and resupplied.
On a planetary scale, though, it certainly seems like energy was readily available enough to be basically free.
Well said. I personally tend to focus on that last sentence. Also, I wonder how long it takes a young adult to have free access to the family's replicator before they get tired of just piling up random toys, and start paring their collection down to the ones that really matter? That's probably a period of every child's life in the Federation, one that trains them to only replicate what will have meaning for them.
Yes, as others pointed out in these comments, thermodynamics would forbid creating more matter from energy than that amount of energy the replicated matter can release in complete annihilation (M/AM reaction)
I saw somewhere I think on Reddit that Enterprise already mentions (or implies) they were post-scarcity before replicators or even protein or other resequencers. A lot of this doesn't even need to come from technology, just the allocation of resources. We *already* have the resources today to meet the basic needs of all humans on earth but we grossly misallocate them. This is at this point a social problem, not a technological one
@@vinapocalypse That's a *great* point! We sci-fi fans tend to get hung up on post-scarcity as a term for being able to generate near-infinite resources via replication tech, renewable energies, and so on. Post-scarcity really just means having more than we need. It's more logistics than physical technology. Nobody would starve anywhere on Earth today if enough people in leadership positions cared to cooperate and spread the food around. _That's_ the first thing Earth found a solution for in Star Trek: valuing people as more than resources for other people to exploit.
22nd century: Matter Re-sequencer
23rd century: Food/Goods Synthesizer
24th century: Replicator
The replicators must use some store or supply of matter and/or energy. In Voyager they often speak of replicator rationing... you can't create something out of nothing...
In one episode, Sisko mentioned that he used all his transporter quota when he started the academy when going home every night.
I don't think Replicator can be completely "free". Somewhere I read that the replicator have some raw matter stored, that the can convert in something useful. So you would need to "feed" with matter. And each machine would create waste heat when operating so also a replicator would run out of energy after a while.
For fusion the enterprise has the bussard collector to mine interstellar hydrogen.
On Voyager they introduced replicator ration, to converse energy. That implies that replicator use a lot of energy, but that is that an issue when in Federation space.
The Sisko example gets used often but they never defined what the quota was exactly. Was it just for cadets using transporters to leave campus for personal use or is it for all citizens for general transporter use?
Was it cos he beamed directly to the location (been years but I think he said he beamed right into his living room) rather than to a transporter hub in New Orleans and taking a taxi to the house?
Yes, replicators may use a lot of energy, but I still think that if you were to find a way to power it through different processes then yes we would still need the power grid and essentially we would have to figure out how to power that power grid so that everybody can use the replicator whenever they want to And once you’ve got it charged up yeah it would run down, but you hook it back up to the power grid or you leave it hooked up to the power grid and it only collect enough power, but you would still have to buy the wrong materials to use it so the idea of an entirely self-contained unit is Beyond the realm of possibility at this point because you’re not just using pure energy. The energy is used to create the object, but you still need the raw materials so the replicator would need those materials and that might be where money comes in so you might still need money for some things butessentially you could eliminate the need to work more than a few days a month if you’re fortunate enough
Seems like something a school would implement to ensure their students don't just take off every chance they get... socializing with your peers and being around other cadets seems like a critical bonding period that would be lessened if they could just take off whenever... especially when they were new.
Yeah, it likely takes more energy for a replicator to make fuel than that fuel will make, it's not free
@@kabobawsome it's not free but if they are feeding large crews of 200-300+ people on replicator food, the energy density and cost of replicating food must entirely outweigh the cost of transporting food in space.. it just takes slightly more energy to start moving and slightly more to stop moving considering the ship would weigh in the realm of megatons while the food in maybe a thousand tons for a years long expedition... so there is that to consider.
The question I didn't hear you address here for me is why the particular plots of land go to specific people. Chateau Picard and Sisko's appear to both be on prime land for their products. Surely there are other cajun/creole chefs who would love to run a restaurant in the French Quarter, and likewise with vintner's looking for prime French winemaking land. What is it that gave Sisko and Picard the "right" to use those prime locations over others?
Money or no, it still seems like there is a system of "value" that gives priveleged options to certain people/families. So there may well no longer be money or monetary classes, but there still seems to be some sort of hierarchical class system that allocates limited resources like prime land. If t's based on historical claims, then it just replicates the old class system, but even if it's based on "contrinutions" opr other social capital type structures, it still amounts to a class system the gives more privelege to people like the Sisko's or Picard's than family's that may want the same areas they do "business" in.
This is where I think social status comes in. Assuming property can be owned and inherited, what use would a property be if inherited by someone who didn't plan on using it? They can't sell it, they can't charge rent, the only thing they could do is give it to someone who plans on using it.
That would mean property would tend to be put to use by people with the highest social status and desire to use it. It would also mean families who own property have a motivation to maintain the traditions required to put the property to use.
@@DeanRockne Ya, agreed ... that was sort of my point. While Trek is often portrayed as a fully egalitarian society because of the replicators and the like, there are still CLEARLY "social classes" of various kinds who are awarded extra privileges as a result of their class. Now, in the Trek world we largely see that being done through "social contribution" such as Star Fleet service or things like past status as "landowners" transferring forward as long as they use it. But I also wonder, for example, if the Picards had just wanted a nice acreage in France and left the wine-making in the past, would the land have been seized from the family to be given to a wine-maker? Or would the Picards be able to do whatever they wanted on it until they voluntarily gave it up?
I think there are quite a few unanswered "class" questions in Trek that aren't obvious at first glance, but come up when you think more about the details. Does Joeseph Sisko get to keep his prime New Orleans location if all he wants is a nice house in the French Quarter?
@@MotherShipMedia it's also possible there are more specific historic preservation laws that apply to some of these situations. If future France has an interest in maintaining the wine making tradition, maintaining an active vineyard might be a requirement attached to those land deeds. Same goes for the French Quarter. These desirable properties then become an obligation to run living museums of a kind. When you get outside of Earth, there's much more available property and probably less of a public interest in controlling it's use. To your point, there would still be classes and privilege, but it would either be earned through accomplishments, or come with societal obligations (owning a restaurant).
What leads you to think there are chefs or vintners who were not able to acquire the storefront or land they requisitioned? This is a world where you can terraform and colonize planets, I think they can build more storefronts and till more fallow land. There's about 2,000,000 acres of french vineyards today. There would need to be a LOT of people with a very specific desire for an archaic lifestyle for them to even start crowding up that land! And it's not like he's doing all the hard labor himself, there are robots tending to the larger vineyard. I doubt he even "owns" any of it, they probably could just use replicators to plop houses down willy-nilly until the retiree dies and then they erase it and replant. All the harvests would be free-for-all as well, since the harvest bots can scan every single fruit bunch for later direct replication. They're not going to be shipping grapes across the universe ofc, they'll be replicating them. Need more areas for restaurants in the French Quarter? You can literally build them for free...
Now they probably wouldn't let you take up the entire island of Australia to be your personal suntanning bed if you just don't do anything. But calling that evidence that there's still "class" distinctions would be absurd. Because NOBODY is allowed to do that. There's one set of rules that everybody follows that prevents people from taking more than they need for their self-actualization.
@@fez-._.-zik Sure, you can terraform all sorts of planets, but There's only one true French Quarter. Not everyone who wants a French Quarter restaurant can get one ... Doesn't matter how many copies you make elsewhere, they aren't "The French Quarter" in New Orleans ...
Love the inclusion of a reference to Banks' Culture series. Those books really explore a post scarcity society much more than Trek ever does. There's a bit in one of them where a character from outside the Culture is touring a ship and meets someone waiting table at a cafe, and the waiter explains why they do the job that could easily be handled by an automated drone: basically because it's a good way to meet new people and the recognition that there is a satisfaction to be had from a job well done, even if that job is as simple as bringing people coffee and then wiping up the table when they're done.
The lack of appreciation for the Culture series is absolutely criminal
@@localhearthian2387
It depends.
For example, Darrell from 'Sci-fi Odyssey' (a great YT channel) refers to the Culture series relatively often (he's read all the books), and therefore I happen to come into contact with it on a semi-regular basis.
Long time since I read that. I might point out that the man could meet people just as easily by sitting in the cafe and NOT waiting tables. And it's not like his efforts are saving the cafe anything: the drone would be free. His efforts are to no purpose, so would he really enjoy an achievement that has no value?
@@davidchambers8697 there is a bit of a nihilistic bent to what the waiter says - something along the lines of: i could spend my time trying to compose great works of literature,, but ultimately even the greatest literature will eventually be forgotten. The Culture itself will one day die. As will the universe itself. So what is the point? The point would ultimately be *in the doing* and not the goal itself.
I said nihilistic, but really it's kind of a zen thing. But it's up to the individual to decide whether that would be a meaningful existence. Indeed, that is kind of the whole point writing about a utopia. It's asking the question "is life worth living without struggle?" Banks' books don't actually come down cleanly on one side or another, really.
As to whether he could meet people by just going to the cafe... That's true in a sense, but even in that one facet of why he does what he does, you can make the case that if he just did it at his leisure, he'd be guided by his own biases. He'd choose who he'd interact with. By binding himself (however loosely given he can quit at any time) to the social contract of agreeing to provide a service, he's forcing himself to interact with whomever happens to come in. Are all those interactions going to be pleasant? No. But in a utopia where you *can* only have pleasant experiences if you want, I think people would recognize the value in subjecting yourself to unpleasant experiences. If anything, it gives you stories you can tell your friends.
@@davidchambers8697 btw, I am moderately certain the passage is from Use of Weapons
P.S. - Rowan, you're forgetting about one relatively important thing. Replicators require energy (and a LOT of it; as well as transporters and holodecks, they are VERY power-demanding) to turn it into a matter. So it is not any magical "perpetuum mobile". There are therefore pre-set LIMITS on how many things one can create via the replicators.
Hence the implementation of the 'criminally underused' replicator rations on USS Voyager when she got stranded in the Delta Quadrant. Y'know, because 'finite amounts of available energy'!
Actually I didn't forget that. As I said in the video, replicators can produce their own fuel so energy becomes abundant. On a starship resources are finite, but on a planetary scale energy is virtually limitless.
@@RowanJColeman
Fair enough.
@@RowanJColeman This assumes that replicators are lossless, which is pretty much unthinkable. If they're even 99% lossless, you still lose material and energy so it's not a 1:1 infinite system. They're going to need some rather significant input. On a starship they have a massive M/AM reactor plus secondary fusion plants to supply power. On the civil scale they'd need substantial power infrastructure since no one is likely to have a warp reactor in their garage. :) So, I can see cities having that, small homesteads would probably have to have a very small replicator unit with limited capability running on stored power like a battery system that's charged via other means.
Not just energy, you will also need a supply of basic elements and feedstock, carbon ect, to draw upon to actually provide the matter required for the item you want.
You can't replicate something out of nothing.
Another question, sooo Ww3 killed capitalism?
One thing I've learned over the course of my life is that no matter the job, there's somebody out there who finds fulfillment in it. Describing it as menial dismisses that person. So yes, somebody loves welding that panel on. Somebody is proud to work construction.
Meanwhile, what people say they'd do if not burdened by work is often not what they would do. The Office would not want for viewers in such a society. More likely though, many would simply sit and seeth about their lack of purpose, and be drawn to radical causes that promise to give them purpose. We can see that today.
Work keeps us sane. Gives us perspective. Gives us meaning. And while some can surely provide themselves those things under their own steam, most cannot, and will always be drawn to those who will provide it for them. So let that be work.
Pretty sure the lockdowns were a test run for not having to go to work and you are right, there have been no explosion of flourishing anything but whiners, rioters and looters. When is enough enough? To many, NEVER!
It reminds me of my dad. He has money and is a landlord of a couple properties. He still goes out and does most of the landscaping on his own though. Trimming trees, cleaning it up and making everything look nice. Hard physical work. I asked him why he doesn’t just hire people to take care of all that. He has the cash and really doesn’t *have* to do any of it.
He told me that he enjoys the hard work. Doing it himself and then looking over at all he’s accomplished with his own hands is satisfying and fulfilling to him.
I’m assuming it would be no different for many 24th century humans on earth in Trek.
this is a fantastic comment. thank you.
I don't know that you can extrapolate your final conclusion from current society. A world in which money doesn't exist is so alien that we simply don't know how people would behave in it. How do we know that the lingering feeling of purposelessness isn't rooted in the industrial myth that our worth as people is equal to our productivity? What happens if you erase that?
I have often pondered this conundrum myself, particularly the thorny and difficult to mention aspect that not all people have either the wherewithal nor the inclination to be 'creative'.
The old phrase about the devil finding work for idle hands could become a real problem in a society where people do not have to work and there could be a real uptick in self-destructive behaviour. The Mouse Utopia experiment is definitely something to consider.
When I was unemployed for quite a while after a near fatal motorcycle accident, I read a lot and, as I recovered more, went for gentle strolls in the countryside. But eventually the urge to *do* something did grow and I spent untold hours creating a fantasy world with maps, histories, religions and so on for a table-top RPG. Now you can buy those settings quite readily and for not that much considering the work that goes into them but making my own was very satisfying.
But it is a true problem to resolve how a society can cope if that urge to *do* does not find a creative or useful outlet.
As someone who is a woodworker in his spare time I can tell you that someone doing manual construction can be very fulfilling. Work like space ship repairs would absolutely be something someone would do in their spare time, just like Lt Paris does in Voyager when he builds the Delta
Well sure, while any activity requiring manual labor (physically working with your hands) can have "hobbyists", how many people could there be for such a specialized activity, requiring you to live in only a few locations in the entire Alpha Quadrant? And since they're only doing it just for the "love of it", they can pretty much come and go as they please, working at it for one or two days, then just taking a couple of days off to go to Riza for a couple of "free" days.
How do you find another "volunteer welder" or "warp-core installer" or "plasma relay adjustor" if someone just up and quits to go do gardening (all those non-replicated foodstuffs that Sisko Sr. uses has to be grown SOMEWHERE) or opening a Bed and Breakfast somewhere else? Doesn't seem like that questionable labor supply (labor scarcity?) would be able to support any commercial activity (ship building, Dilithium mining, long-haul freighter crewman, Waste extraction, Ore processing)!
@@wendellcoleman1137 just because money isn't involved, especially when money isn't needed, doesn't mean people wouldn't agree to work at a place for a period of time (like a few years). Just like in the real world people do volunteer work. People generally value a good day's work whether money is involved or not. And also learning new skills takes time, which is a great incentive to stick at a job for a decent amount of time instead of just a couple of days.
@@wendellcoleman1137 humans cant really function without doing something. some people find fun in manual labor and with more people there's more chances for this
Impractical to manual labour a spaceship. Too much need to be repaired again and if too big error made it's over.
@@robertagren9360 it's interesting you say that. You know the falcon heavy rocket. I saw a documentary on how it was made. A lot is done with CNC and stuff, because why wouldn't it be. But there is 1 part, bending the sheet metal, which is done by hand. They tried it a few different ways, some worked better than others, but even with all the technology that we have now, human hands are giving the best results.
The problem with work for enjoyment, is that it has a very high chance of being valueless work that no one would consider worth paying for - because it gives them nothing that matters to them.
Employment typically aligns humans with the needs of others - even if the individual task isn't very glamorous.
Take a drink every time Rowan says "replicator"
Drunk in 13 minutes…
Noo, its a trap
I wish i could watch this with someone haha
I dont want to die...
Better do it with synthehol.
I imagine that for an engineer or a starship enthusiast, welding panels onto the flag ship would be a dream come true. Just think of how many futuristic "train guys" there must be in a universe with warp capable starships.
Volunteer-led steam-engine restoration and maintenance is a great parallel to draw from!
Plus, those are likely Starfleet jobs. Just as plenty of volunteer servicemen today do whatever they are assigned, I assume the same applies to enlistees in Starfleet. It's an entirely different working environment than the wider world of civilian life. Rather than for just a paycheck, you might be doing it as a matter of family tradition, to serve your country, to see the world, or to "defend freedom and democracy".
@@PongoXBongo I find it strange that in such an enlightened society that anybody would "have" to go enlisted! Shouldn't everybody get decent education, so everybody can be an officer? So why would anybody become a crewman (so basically somebody all the officers dump on - seriously, if you aren't Chief O'Brien (who should have been fast tracked into an enlisted officers program, as it's a waste of his potential to not allow him command down the line! I mean the guy could give Geordie La Forge and even Scotty a run for their money!) you are basically "trash" as a crewman!)
yeah, for some people welding panels might actually be fun, and getting it right, might well give them more fulfillment than some other job. It might also be a training job, to give you the right to a more creative job in the same field...
Very disappointed Rowan missed the Enterprise episode where the damaged ship gets to a repair bay, and its industrial replicators completely replace the damaged parts with replicated replacements, installed by automated machines. Its a lot like getting an oil change, if by oil change we meant complete replacement of large parts of a spaceship ! The older episodes don't show this, I presume because OUR technology wasn't good enough to show this happening on screen, but it makes a lot of sense for spaceships to be entirely built by machines, since they can repair large pieces of ships, why not do ALL the initial heavy lifting ?This actually leaves only the internal maintenance of the ship, which I suppose Emergency Repair Holograms will take care of, once they become standard issue for all ships, like the Doctor on Voyager.
10:52 there are actually a lot of people who enjoy welding and construction and it would be a point of pride to be someone who welds star fleet ships together.
And if it’s anything like a submarine today, would be a highly skilled and specialised job.
Not to mention that if you want to be chief engineer on a starship someday, you probably start out doing some pretty basic jobs and work your way up as you demonstrate competency and reliability. Even today, money isn't the only motivator for why people work or what they choose to do.
This "is" part of the answer!
Humans would be much slower and far less exact than an advanced robot (like right now with many roles in car manufacture), so humans would not perform such tasks except on hobby projects and definitely not on important projects like starfleet ship construction.
@@michaelbone6894 Whilst I don’t necessarily disagree, there are still roles where you might need a human. E.g. if welding a star ship is more like welding a car than you’re right. If it’s more like a submarine, and no robot has been produced that can do the job, than a human will do it. Given they have the android Data in the setting, it’s likely a robot does do the bulk of not all of this work.
Money is one of our greatest inventions. It is a database for resource allocation. Every advanced civilization would have some form of money.
Eh, the primitive/advanced paradigm has been exercised from cultural anthropology since 1940, and they don't use some terminology. Cultures aren't based on the development of technologies according to the likes of Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, Malinosky or Graeber, but on their geography and spread of information. Plus, there's an economic system that societies such as the Trobian islanders, Zomia, Khalahari bush folk and Indigenous Chapias utilize with no money, and it's called mutual aid.
"How does Star Trek's Future Society Work?", Answer. It Doesn't!
It makes perfect sense. It is called Communism.
It makes perfect sense. It is called Marxism.
"What about the bad apples?"
Cut to Commander Maddox.
Harsh... ;)
To be honest I don't actually see there being bad apples in the way we usually see them aka stealing for profit since as stated in the video, replicators have essentially removed that need.
And yes as Quark said to Nog that without creature comforts we devolve into past versions of ourselves.
But at the same time hearing of all people a Ferenghi say that coming from a society still governed by the acquisition of wealth, is funny since I'm sure certain murders for profit and status are quietly covered up on Ferenghar.
Anyway bad apples do exist, they are just driven by different reasons such as revenge.
And if they are driven by wealth, they tend to rule over civilisations that still economic based or live outside Federation space like those seen in season 3 of Picard.
Maddox in the Picard continuity went outside of the Federation to continue his research, and fight an unclear shadow conflict with the Romulan secret secret police with his own sleeper androids...
@@DarkLordDiablos Is it possible for two parties to mutually profit from a deal they voluntarily entered into that doesn't involve anyone else? Really, just asking if you feel that all profit is or must be a result of theft.
@@DarkLordDiablosOn Ferenginar, murder is only illegal if it fails to turn a profit.
Umm.. if replicators make it so that money is no longer needed, why do other nations in Star Trek still use money while also having replicators?
shhhhhhhhh! You'll ruin the illusion!
Because, firstly, they are still greedy buggers 🙂 and, secondly, the replicators still require a LOT of energy to turn it into the baryonic matter.
Hence the implementation of the 'replicator rations' on USS Voyager when the ship got stranded in the Delta Quadrant.
P.S. - I know you from OrangeRiver. 🙂
@@subraxas Hi. I still don't like the replicator; it seems like it exists solely to get rid of capitalism. If you're saying that capitalism is so strong that the only way you can end it is to invent something that needs made up science to work, are you really anti-capitalist?
I would say because it is necessary but not sufficient
@@subraxas So the commie federation has a monopoly on kindness in the galaxy? Money based races like the Ferengi are irredeemable? Oh yes only if you're connected to the commie hive then you have free energy. Because having free energy on voyager would have ruined the entire show. Weird how you can just seesaw around this depending on what you want that show to say. The federation seem like greedy buggers in Kurtzman trek.
Love this video 🎉
My head cannon for starship production not being fully automated is the societies need to not loose a skill base. For example, Utopia shipyard and starfleet may mandate a need for manual welders to keep the manual skills up. Perhaps it's even part of an engineers academy work before being assigned to a ship, if the automation ever failed in deep space, the skills would still exist to perform maintenence and repairs 👌
That's true but it also relies on a steady stream of engineers. If that ever dips, that means no more ships or incredibly reduced output.
@@Varitok1 Which in and of itself is a good basis for a story, and also fairly representative of some countries around the world at the moment.
@@Varitok1 If you didnt need to pay for food, housing, etc then an internship system that seperates the skilled/motivated from rest makes sense ... time is still somthing that is not limitless so its the only thing that actually has value.
So for both the trainer and the trainee ... both sides of that equation need to be able to know if this is the path for you
@@michaelgrant4867 “Time is still something that is not limitless, so it’s the only thing that actually has value.”
Excellent observation. 👍🏼 I need to think about that more. 🤔 Thanks.
Very true! And Star Trek has really shown that society places great value on the artistry/efforts/decision making of humans/living beings being the centre of technological systems, so it makes sense that highly skilled trades like welding would be a worthwhile and fulfilling way to spend ones time (ideally with the futuristic tools to make it easier)
There are numerous mentions in TOS to "credits" as a unit of currency, and I believe that Quark says at one point that he will accept Federation credits as payment in his bar, meaning that they are around at this point. While you could argue that credits are only used when dealing with people outside of the Federation, in The Trouble with Tribbles, Uhura paid 10 credits for a Tribble on Deep Space Station K7, which was obviously a federation station. Also, Cyrano Jones, in the same episode, is obviously driven by a desire to make a profit, as is the guy who runs the bar. Also at one point in TOS Kirk jokingly tells Scotty that he has earned his pay for the week. This would seem to indicate that Star Fleet personnel earn some kind of salary.
And one of the crimes Harry Mudd is wanted for is selling technology patented by Vulcans without paying them their royalties. This no money thing didn't start until Star Trek IV, when they say the people in 1986 are "still using money" and Kirk had to pawn his antique glasses to get some. But even here the line could just mean that they don't have 1986 US currency.
TOS is influenced by Roddenberry's experiences during WW2. The military takes care of its men, almost all of it is just logistics to keep the bodies warm and mobile. So there is no need to worry about money within Starfleet, but there is little mention of how anything works in the Federation outside of Starfleet.
In Mudd's Women, the protagonist (not Mudd) is a prospector mining lithium to become rich. (That's the gold rush myth, of course; the people selling the picks and shovels and the assayers were the ones who became rich(er), not the prospectors.) That episode was written by Roddenberry himself, and my impression is that it was a meditation on his relationship with Majel Barret. (And Roddenberry was still looking for ever new enterprises to make money with back then.)
So yes, money is a thing in TOS, but Starfleet personnel don't need to worry about it. By TNG, money has explicitly become obsolete within the Federation, as explained in The Neutral Zone.
DS9 is very, very different from any previous Star Trek.
Humans don't need money, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't still like it.
And, in the first episode of TNG, Beverly Crusher charges a bolt of cloth on Farpoint Station to her "account." So there must have be some vestigial system in place for using money, maybe on bleeding edge frontier systems or brand new member worlds that haven't been fully updated or integrated into the Federation economy.
It is also worth noting that money doesn't need to be totally gone for it not to be the main driving force in society to the point it is rarely used or thought of. Maybe there was just a mass realization near the end of the post atomic horror, or as humanity started to recover from it after first contact, that once you have the first two or three layers of Maslows Hierarchy of Needs covered for life, or even just the foreseeable future, Having more money/stuff wouldn't make them happier, and, consequently, the definition of wealth and focus of society shifted to mean working toward a attaining a higher degree of self-actualization, not things, which gave people a path forward and hope for a better future.
Given that every scene on Vulcan screams minimalism, I can imagine that they would have strongly agreed with and encouraged this point of view if not preached it outright. Maybe it was not the ending of poverty that ended war and hopelessness, but the ending of the war, the regain of hope, and the quest for self-actualization that ended poverty. Just me rewriting my head canon again.
@@rdtradecraft The Federation is a lot like the Soviet Union or like China used to be back then in that they do trade with foreign powers, but don't use their domestic currency to do so. To that end it would make sense that Crusher has an allowance in foreign money to spend while on Farpoint.
That doesn't mean that the Federation uses money internally. Crusher not carrying any money on her even suggests that she is not used to needing to. (Or maybe it's because the uniform has no pockets, although that's what purses are for.) She isn't carrying a credit card or debit card either, or any personal identification. When she asks to charge her account on the Enterprise, it is not clear how the salesman is supposed to do that. (But the episode does suffer a lot from stilted dialogue.)
Maslow's hierarchy is not normative, it is descriptive, not of human behaviour or needs, but of how the humans he surveyed felt about their needs. As a description of actual human needs, it is dead wrong. Not only wrong, but manipulative: It suggests that depriving people of things reduces their needs for other things. (How convenient.)
As money is still a thing in TOS, abandoning it could not have been a result of the Eugenics Wars. The difference is indeed the replicators: TOS doesn't have them, in TNG they are omnipresent.
It could be argued that a money-based economy would not allow replicators to be developed. In that case, the abandoning money would have had to precede the proliferation of replicators. Unfortunately we don't have any data on societies abandoning money permanently, and no records, only artefacts, of pre-money societies. (The earliest written records are debt tables. Book money in today's parlance, although not yet currency as we understand it today.) So there is no template for how that would or could come to pass.
The Vulcans could be an important influence in that, their society being organised around principles of pacifism and logic as explained and shown in The Savage Curtain. (And in stark contrast to Amok Time. TOS struggled a lot with understanding the concept of logic at first. And DS9, VOY, and ENT even portray the Vulcans as utterly irrational and warlike.)
The question I have isn't why someone would go to a restaurant in the Star Trek universe, it's why would anyone work at a restaurant in that universe if they didn't own the restaurant or have some connection to it? How would you convince someone who has everything they need to take food orders and buss tables.
I always thought that replicators were limited by their memory capacity. It takes massive amounts of memory to save the patterns for a lot of items. So there are basic replicators that have limited patterns stored in memory.
The AI can program them on the fly for the requested item, probably. They also probably require a powerful computer to function.
There's also probably a whole category of patterns that are regulated and don't get preprogrammed into most replicators.
@@greyfade But there seems to be different qualities, a replicaor never gets the same taste, close but not the same. I dont think the ai can just make stuff that tastes up, it has to probably thrioughly programmed and tested by human scientists.
I take that like people say nmothing against the real cooked food, it has to be a lot of testin gby human to get even close. And AI dont have human tastes so, cant really do that and it tastes somewhat right.
Its probably also why fod might still a prevalent hobby/job as cooks do experiments with tastes that seem to hard to do with a replicator. And have that much value. As that experimenting and tasting and varying a replicator just isnt great at. And fun of course.
@@marocat4749 There's a lot to food that is purely psychological. And, there's a lot to food that is in the cooking and preparation. It's entirely likely that the complaints people have about replicated food are entirely because they *know* it's replicated. (Though I know Scotty pegging synthehol in an instant and being disgusted by it; that's probably just something he's sensitive to, so there's probably also a physiological sensitivity to some artificial compounds.)
I don't think it has anything to do with "a replicator never gets the same taste," but rather the uniformity of the taste it produces.
@@greyfade Like weapons for civilians.
In response to the question "Is that guy welding the hull panel really enjoying his job?" I have a suggested answer. First it's important to recognize there's people who do in fact enjoy welding and fabricating. All you have to do is look at metal sculptures to recognize that. But perhaps you're referring to the supposed monotony of the job and why wouldn't it be automated anyway? My answer is we don't have the full context. It may very well be most of shipbuilding is automated, but perhaps manual labor is allowed because it's considered an honor for both the worker and the shipyard to have these particular people working on it. Like in a world where people do things that give them great satisfaction or joy, somebody practicing welding would more likely than not be a master of their craft. So it would be like today sure you can get a chef's knife from anywhere, but you know there's Michelin star chefs using knives made by some artisan who hand folded the steal like a samurai sword. Same sort of relationship - there'd be stories of how some famed master welder personally welded this beam or bulkhead so you know only the best people build this ship.
Creators love to create, most want to do it with their own hands to there is a certain joy that comes from building something, there is a sense of accomplishment and pride.
You also have to take into account that 24th century humans are supposed to be better educated, more mature and less selfish overall. *Far* more people in the 24th century would step up and do what needs to be done for the betterment of humanity and the greater good than people in our world today. Knowing that you are contributing in some way to the advancement of mankind is it’s own reward. Different priorities, different way of thinking.
Throughout history we've had people who voluntarily go to march over grueling distances, eat poor food, live out of tents or worse, and all for the privilege of getting into mass combat where, if they're lucky, they won't be one of the guys butchered on the ground by the end of it all. Some have done it for pay, some because they were coerced. There have always been some that did it because they believed in the work, and their parents and grandparents believed in the work. Just as there have been generational Starfleet families, there have probably been generational spacedock and construction yard families.
A good example, I think, is the Solar Sailer that The Sisko builds. He COULD have replicated everything he needed, but he didn't want to. He wanted to make everything by hand, using the same types of tools that the original makers would have used. He replicated the tools, sure, but he made that sailer on his own because it was rewarding to him. Just because I would find building a solar sail boring and not worth the time, doesn't mean others won't enjoy doing it.
@@SingularityOrbit
Another great example that proves your point: volunteer fire departments.
I rather like what Orville adds to this idea: people earn a reputation as well. What that translates to is unclear except in trust with things like captaining a spaceship. Possibly everyone gets a large ration of energy to spend. They may apply to get an extra ration for large projects. So, if you make good gumbo and run a good restaurant, you get likes that could be used as support for a renovation that may exceed what most people can spend.
edited to add an additional comment.
@palmercolson7037
That's exactly what I wanted to comment.
It's clear that not everybody on a starship gets the same privileges as the high-ranking officers.
Most crew don't seem to have large private cabins just for themselves.
Okay, but that's on a starship, where there is limited space and a clear hierarchy.
What about on an Earth-like planet?
Well, quite likely it will still be similar.
Space is still limited, even though less so than on a spaceship.
There would still be hierarchies, as various jobs that require multiple people, would require organization.
Some people's positions would inherently be more critical.
Some people would be more skilled and experienced than others.
At minimum, a single person living by themselves might receive a small room in an apartment block, with a shower and toilet, and an "internet" terminal.
They might not have a personal replicator, but have to go to a cantina.
They would get free access to basic clothing, but if they want more interesting designs, would have to earn access to them.
So if they wanted more, they would have to work for it.
Perhaps people with good jobs have software access to give the people working for them various material benefits.
Perhaps there is an official social hierarchy in the civilian (non-Starfleet) life, and advancement in it is similar as advancement in the Starfleet hierarchy.
I'm just speculating here, of course.
*Edited because I forgot to write some lines.
To oversimplify your point into an easy-to-remember statement: In the Federation, they trade in trust.
In Trek on Earth - Reputation means not extra rations (as these are free), but people wanting what you do ... Sisko's restaurant is popular because he has a good reputation
On a starship resources (space and power) will always be limited and so different rules apply ... you get to be on the starship, by wanting to be, and by earning a reputation for being reliable and good at a job that is needed onboard
But then that ration then becomes.....money. As shown in voyager, it was treated as money.
@@icecold9511 Because, on an isolated little ship with no guaranteed resources for resupply, the crew of _Voyager_ were no longer in a post-scarcity situation.
VOY should never be used as an example of how things normally work in the Federation or Starfleet, because they had to operate as an independent unit for those seven years.
It occurs to me that VOY would have made a lot more sense if they'd had a scene early on talking about "emergency orders in the event of extended isolation from outside support." A lot of the show could have been explained as the result of Janeway struggling to thread the needle between Starfleet's ideals and the first-draft-y, inadequate emergency guidance.
I like your video. And you hit the most important issue, it is the absence of scarcity. Enough doctors, enough food, enough medicine and so on. That more than anything makes the Star trek ideal possible.
Replicators don't create matter from energy. They reorganize matter. The ultimate 3D printing.
There are limitations depending on replicator size and sophistication. Specifically resolution for placing atoms. The is a lot of data in a single object. So you want to reduce it to similar functional patterns as the original without it being exactly the same.
Scanning an item for replication is a lot like a Fourier transform used to compress music. It's approximates the original to a certain degree that you might not be able to tell. Recipes for food replicators I imagine would be manually tweaked.
Some compounds you may not be able to replicate such as explosive compounds because the replication process would ignite or otherwise affect the compounds.
Replace “replicator” with “magic spell” and it would better describe this non scientific foolishness. Physical laws require conservation of energy and that means it is simply impossible for an isolated replicator to replicate itself.
@@TimAZ-ih7yb I would disagree. You can replicate the machine but you have to supply your own batteries/fuel.
Presumably a replicator could not create its own fuel though. Or at least, a perfectly efficient replicator would only be able to create the same amount of fuel as it consumes to do so?
Its converting energy into matter and vice versa, but it doesn't 'create' energy, or is that overlooked in the star trek universe (which is fine, I just assumed the whole idea revolved around the conservation of energy)
Yeah
We repeatedly see groups in star trek quarrel over things like dilithium the universe's primary power source, if a replicator could replicate fuel why would we have dilithium mines
No it takes energy some kind of fuel and base matter is needed. In Voyager they rationed replicator usage at times was having to look for fuel or energy so it does have a cost and it doesn't work on everything it has limits. Would image that people would want the real thing as well, in several shows there is mentions of people wagering authentic goods such as spirits or steaks.
DS9s self replicating cloaked minefield somewhat breaks this, unless they contain a surplus of matter-antimatter in the original mines, and over time the ability to self-replicate diminishes. One strategy the Dominion could have tried was exhausting the mines power by continuously bombarding the whole minefield....
@@Aphfaneire your potential explanation is exactly what I assumed myself
@@Aphfaneirein golf, when there is a tree between you and the whole, the common advice is to just shoot through the tree because it is mostly air. Shooting mines is much the same even on Earth, let alone in 3D space. But yes, I think given enough time and space superiority around the wormhole the Dominion would eventually just exhaust all the mines and their ability to replicate.
Like the Warp drive - "By authorial fiat!" The trouble is when they run into other societies that do use money they find they need it too - not just on a personal level (To conclude that Jake/Nog dialogue: "Well, if you don't need money, you certainly don't need mine!") but also on a Geopolitical (Stellarpolitical?) level in episodes like "The Price" (where they are bidding over the Barzan wormhole). It's clear there are some limits on what Replicators can do. But even if resources can be replicated, people can't be. There are only 30 (or whatever) seats in Jake Sisko's restaurant, so what does he do if 40 want to eat there? Sure, he can ration on a non-monetary basis (serving the customers he likes or just first come first served) but that's a large part of how we use money today.
I would guess Jakes restaurant is meant to be a social thing he enjoys, and he keeps 30 seats to not have stress there and that its fun. The reserving might just be that ther isnt too much at one time. But steady. and organized. He has to cook it too and that could grow out of control. He had to hire more people,
I just assume thats the limits he enjoys and isnt stressed out with. Also jake seems a prettty stubbern guy who wants to do what he wants and no one tells him otherwise, the 30 seats are probably him keeping it how much customers he wants, and the reserving, to organize that peoplre arent afraid to come, and prevent chaos.
Relics seem to be on the black market , there can be all nessesarities met and still be one, and reliques and cross cultural stuff, might need some, or like shady bklack market that deals with stuff.
Maybe the feseration is only really cracking doen on the black ,market if its dangerous? That were antiques that, werent dangerous on ds9.
And ds9 has the credits to have a currency that people can engage in inter galaxy trade, because they are that kind of station.
Federation Credits have been mentioned several times. There is some form of trading slip or I.O.U backed by the Federation for trade of certain goods or as a exchange with outside currencies.
@@Aphfaneire But that's like saying "I don't have money, I just have plastic (credit/debit cards)". It's just money under another name.
@@johnpotts8308 Here we're arguing about wealth and all the rdt startrekkers are just talking about how they don't like cash $. Checks out.
Another point about the replicators that can help factor into figuring this stuff out is that there are clearly limitations to the replicators. First, i'm pretty sure there are some items that the replicators are capable of making, but are prohibited from doing so. I think DS9 mentions that weapons are in that category. Second, there are things that the replicators can make, but what the replicators make is different from the real thing, mainly food and drinks. That's why things like resturants and vineyards would still have a reason to exist, the food and wine from those real sources would taste different, and to some far better, than anything that can come out of the replicator. Finally, we're told that there's at least 1 thing, that being latinum, that the replicator flat out can't make. That's basically the justification behind the entire Ferngi civilization. We're never even told if latinum has a use, but it's a limited resource in an otherwise limitless world and therfore has a potential use as a currency
The things banned... are for good reasons, on a Starship - Alcohol vs Synthahol, the food has all toxins removed, some of these add flavour ..and weapons without authorisation
Elsewhere, probably weapons ..
Latinum and Dithium were both made unreplicatable so that it was possible to have scarcity in a post scarcity society so that stories could happen... it's hard to comment on things that don't exist anymore ...
Gold's only actual use was "it looks pretty" until electricity, which it is a good conductor of, was discovered. Yet, it's considered incredibly valuable and has been the standard of currency. Latinum could easily be the same.
@@matthewpatrick7263 Gold isn't a particularly good electrical conductor
It had four properties it was valued for
1 it's pretty - and so easily recognised
2 it's rare - and so expensive
3 it's very malleable, and so easy to work
4 it's very corrosion resistant
Most of the uses today, are to do with the combination of its corrosion resistance, and its electrical or thermal properties
Latinum has only one property that it is valued for, it's inability to be replicated making it the *only* rare substance
I remember reading a short story called “A is for Anything” that essentially takes on the role of a cautionary tale. It starts with the first replicator like technology being shared, probably by some rogue scientist, and of course society collapses because who wants to be a police officer or pick up trash and so the world descends into a new age of serfdom built upon threats of violence. I think it typifies the outlook of people who can’t imagine people still doing work because they love it.
And while I do understand the perspective I’d say the 7 years I lived in Denmark showed me a world that was already moving in the direction we see in Star Trek. With health care and education no longer being reserved for those who could pay, people’s obligations simplify. And by providing healthcare that isn’t attached to your job meant more freedom in job selection. Also, the Danish tax system is progressive so the wages for jobs are more averaged out. IE the gap between the highest and lowest paid is much smaller.
What I witnessed was more people who were content. Content with their lives, content with their work.
This isn’t a pipe dream or some utopian futuristic nonsense. The people selling that are the ones who continue to leverage their negotiating power to keep wages down and profits up. Which I will admit won’t work so well if and when we can change.
I think it will take time and a change in perspective to achieve it. But we could at least start now with seeing what kind of perspective makes this kind of economy possible. I’ve been training my eye on the Danish education system which definitely plays a role in establishing these kind of mutually beneficial points of view.
No place is perfect but we need to look around and see how our current disastrous trajectory can be shifted to something that benefits us all.
It's so sad to think people can't think of a world without money, but a world where we travel faster than light, can move asteroids with a tractor beam, synthesize whatever food you could desire at a molecular level... All these things but we can't imagine valuing ourselves without money.
It's important to keep in mind that the Federation's education, culture, and values are very different than current day world.
When we ask the question of why anyone would want to be a waiter, we assume that being a waiter in the Federation is like being a waiter today. We assume that it's a bad job where they get treated like crap by their customers and their bosses, they're disrespected and looked down upon, they're constantly under stress, they have to work long hours for little pay, and they have to do the job or they'll lose their home.
But I would bet that being a waiter in the Federation is not a bad job because of their different culture. Customers are not rude jerks. Restaurant managers don't overwork or mistreat them. Their livelihoods are not dependent on the job. People are respected for doing a job and doing it well because they are contributing to society. They aren't mistreated or looked down upon for the type of job they do like in our world today.
I think waiters in Trek are future restauranteer. They are apprentice learning how to run a restaurant before trying it themslves. When there is no need for money, every job becomes an educational opportunity to choose from. This is why I think despite having automation tech, the culture in Trek will always be open to menial task as a way for people to learn the basics or fundamentals before moving on to more difficult subject.
Yeah , it can be fun, the are plenty chatrity or just club funding events, wher epeople are waiters, and its voluntary and a lot do it, or ccompany.
Or selling on a flea market, can be fun, and fulfilling. Or at a farm, most farmers dont make nearly enough money to justify the work if they didnt like the work. Dunno there are probably enough weirdos who love cleaning. And sure enoughdo free charity work for people .
Feeling good and doig good can be its own reward, orr whatevetr people love about cleaning.
So humans aren't humans anymore. La Tabula Rasa gommies have always sought. Even before there was $ there wasn't this magic. You don't see it in nature. There is always a hierarchy. You are forlorn that humans are human and not borgs.
@@Drak976 Borg literally also has a hierarchy dude.
Also for Fs' sake prime ST timeline literally has some Vulcan "helping hand" for quite some time before UFP is a thing.
Energy is where this analysis goes wrong. Conservation of energy is sancrosanct and cannot be violated.
Yes, there is no know way to get around that. You can't create an energy source that is just as powerful as the replicator that created it.
@@palmercolson7037There's also the fact that the quantity of energy involved in atomic transmutation is comparable to the energy released by the fission of a similar mass of uranium. As such, the energy needs of a replicator making a meal are similar to those of a small atomic bomb.
A multi planetary civilization that might have pseudo Dyson Spheres has a lot of energy though.
Sure Rowan, your family _say_ they would do all those enrichment things if they didn't need money because of replicators, but I think the past few years have shown that for all their Grand Plans, we'll just watch "The Office" for the millionth time.
I come back to "Necessity is the Mother of Invention." If it wasn't for us being forced to work for our survival, we wouldn't have gotten out of the caves.
I think there is some truth to that. People think if they only had more time then they'd go travel or do a project or whatever. But people don't think of the time cost and challenge of writing a novel, say, or rather, they have and that's why they're not writing NOW.
The pandemic forced a lot of people to live off a dole at home, and when you can't even enjoy going out to a restaurant or go anywhere without a mask on, you would naturally resort to TV and movies to fill in the time. (The pandemic did little to change my life at all, except that I lost my job and immediately got rehired to do something else - I was working full-time throughout the pandemic).
Now, I'm unemployed, and yes, I watch a lot of TV and RUclips - but that's mostly because it's there and it's habitual. I'm not in the habit of writing, especially something challenging like a novel. And the same thing that has held me back for writing online or making my own YT videos - my own self doubt - has not changed. And the pressure to go get a job is near-constant, so I'm worried all the time about that and about money, not fulfilling my dreams.
Honestly, I'd love to go travel the world or go back to school right now, but I don't have the money to do it. It's not a lack of a job that's holding me back, although it sure would make a lot of my life easier - it's simply the lack of capital, and being saddled with debt on top of that. Also bad timing - I missed the deadline for program applications for Master of Library and Information Sciences which is probably the degree I'd go back to school for, so now I have to wait until this fall to apply for next year. And hope I can get a decent job or two in the meantime.
Being unemployed in today's society is really the pits. Being unemployed in Star Trek society - sure I'd be spending a lot of time Holodecking, but I'd also crave doing *something* in the real world, and I bet getting a job to just be productive and earn a reputation isn't nearly as hard as it is now. You'd still be able to do poorly at the job and get fired, but you likely wouldn't be competing against hundreds of applicants just to get the same job opening in the first place.
I know you from OrangeRiver! 🙂
@@DataLal Computer make a chair with a face sized hole in it. Next make a 2x as large as normal Deanna Troi right after she's had 3 Chocolate Sundays in 10 Forward and she is extremely lactose intolerant and needs to sit down. Computer disengage safety protocols. -Barkley probably
I’m telling you for a fact I loved my job. I welded,fit metal,did complex calculations, engineering, rigged and placed components, fabricated whole items and parts , metallurgy, repaired the largest machines on the planet , and directed crews ect. I loved every minute of it even though it was hard,dirty and unhealthy. If I could have afford to done it for free I would have especially if I knew my work was a value to all mankind. If I lived in a post scarcity world I would have done that same job I did for a living for free. I think I loved the noise and the smell of burnt ozone as I heliarc pressure tubes together. I might take more time off but yes I would love to build a star ship or a giant space station.
I love how this mirrors everything I’ve said about Trekonomics for years. Right down to the “small fusion reactor for power and a replicator for water and sewage” off-grid cabins, and the stuff about how and why Sisko’s restaurant works.
Love the example from The Culture too, I’ve had many discussions about people sharing holiday homes and so on in the Federation.
I know you from OrangeRiver. 🙂
@@subraxas and I know _you_ from Tyler’s videos too!
@@kaitlyn__L
🙂❤
Something in the real world that serves as an example of value of items. That today we can readily recreate many works of art very exactly and cheaply, but original works of art still have great value, both sentimentally and intrinsically.
...Most of the worth of works of art and other unique items are in their provenance, not in the object itself
a painting by Leonardo da Vinci that nobody can prove is by him, is worth only as much as a good painting of the era, even though it's an original
If you had a painting that is an exact replica at the atomic level, and is indistinguishable by any means, why is it worth any more than any other copy, and why is "the original" worth more when you can't tell which one is the original ....
@@davidioanhedges Truthfully, most art over the past 100 or so years has had no worth except to people who have more money than sense.
@@anon_y_mousse Interesting that you set a time limit on your view. In truth, art should not have worth in a monetary sense, but it should have value, which you may interpret in any number of ways, from insight into the human condition to an evocation of the world around us. A video all of it's own I suspect.
@@wowmanhaha It's not a time limit, but a time frame of when art has sucked. Prior to the current period we're in, and then some depending on how you count periods, art wasn't nearly all garbage. I'd say art got good around the late 1300's, and most was great until the early 1900's when it started to suck donkey balls.
Art, like everything else, has exactly as much market value as you can sell it for. Artworks therefore have to preserve or increase their value if they are to keep functioning as devices for tax avoidance, or for storing wealth through times of war or hyperinflation.
There's also the sentimental value of owning a historical artefact. Or just the pleasure of enjoying the art, but for that, a replica would also do in most cases.
Nicely done. I think there's an overlooked element though.
Trek is showing us an energy economy. They don't need currency to buy goods, but they need energy to replicate goods or travel, which at the macro level means they still have a recognizable economy just with some form of energy placeholder as the medium of exchange. We see that most directly with Voyager and their rationing of replicator and holodeck use (which the crew accepted quite readily as though it weren't an alien or archaic concept) but the power limit is always subtly there throughout the franchise. It's clearly not a direct energy-backed Federation Dollar or something like that, but there is some relationship between work and available power to use for replicators, transporters, etc.
Which could mean that working at the shipyard gives you way more matter-transmuting mojo than painting landscapes.
This! I was thinking the exact same thing. The true "currency" of their society is energy. Energy is converted to power or matter depending on the need. Their technological breakthrough was developing energy sources so efficient and cheap that energy could effectively be given away (Fusion, Matter/Antimatter, etc). This translates to people pursuing "passions" as main motivator. My guess would be there is still a hierarchy of what passions "earn" what respective levels of energy use even if the "accumulation" of energy isn't the primary motivator for work.
Antimatter makes energy not scarce anymore.
Compared to the energy they burn for just crossing interstellar distances, a holodeck would not even be a rounding error. Time slots would still be limited.
@@davidwuhrer6704 exactly
Except that there is no mention anywhere in the Star Trek franchise that people are working for energy as payment, nor energy incentives. Reminds me of the Decepticons constant thirst for energon cubes. But that's just not Star Trek. That's Transformers.
I think Rowan Coleman explained it well. There are personal replicators, and there are industrial replicators. The industrial ones will go to large groups of individuals and institutions, probably granted by the government after filing a request form. And the personal replicators go to family households. Star Trek's society has figured out how to collect this energy, one would figure from mining planets and asteroids, which are plentiful. But who will do all that work? An army of refurbished Emergency Medical Holograms.
Free, never-ending energy. Shame Megatron never thought of that.
4:40 - I've also wondered of this in the past. My conclusion was that *common replicators' standard database is limited, not everything could be relayed through 'specifying' voice commands, and therefore there have to exist additional programs for numerous/countless 'non-standard-issue' things AND, this is the deal-breaker, someone has to create these programs first. Not everyone would possess the knowledge and/or skills and/or means to do so.
And here we have something that could be considered a 'commodity' (replicator programs) . . . . with a potential of feeding an entire market and industry. 🙂
* - Non-Starfleet replicators; no access to the "all-knowing" super-computers of theirs.
Maybe hooking it up to Star Trek's version of the Internet would help with this quite a bit.
And i would add, i dont trust computers to do food right, so scientists and hopefully some cooks did make the formulas how to make it and taste good enough and close enough. So its not easy to create the formula easy, and tempering preobably taste awful. So for nutritian, probably fine, but to make food taste it needs a formula like 3d printer premade.
Probably why cooking is still very much values as, no computer can get that right over people decent at making food, and the cooking provesses. Yes its luxiority, but, food is insanely creative, i just dont think computers could get it right without a human testing process before making it a formula.
You keep leaving out that they have the technology to scan something atom by atom with their transporters. A replicator can also scan an item and copy it.
@marocat4749 For that reason food might be one thing it was good at you. You could recreate that perfect bowl of soup over and over again down to the last flavonoid molecule. What I want is an anti entropy fridge to keep food preserved forever. Not nearly enough scifi has that.
@@Drak976
OK, that is correct, BUT first you need to get hold of the given item in order to scan it up. In lots (MOST) of cases that would not be possible. It is basically the infamous "hen and egg" problem. 🙂
If I had no issues regarding money- I would own a coffee shop and book store-lots of seating , art from local artists , music on the weekends - cool location by a river in a historic renovated building...
Even if we eliminated money and achieved limitless resource replication with infinite energy, scarcity would still exist. Real estate, for example, will always be limited. As long as scarcity exists, some form of economic system and a unit of exchange would be necessary to allocate these scarce resources. Additionally, undesirable jobs would likely require an incentive system beyond just a social credit system. After all, without money, what motivates someone to take on an unpleasant and thankless task? In essence, you'd likely end up recreating a system remarkably similar to money.
It's not just artistic expression - it's also the joy of learning and the satisfaction that comes from a job done well. The pride a homeowner can take in their property being well taken care of by themselves. Neighbors coming together to help each other is something you can find even now in small insular communities or rural areas (there's lots of videos online of Amish people building barns for each other).
Okay, but when it comes to neighbours coming together to help each other there's an understanding that the favour may one day be returned. Especially in small communities were everyone knows each other if you don't turn out to help it's going to be noticed. Social capital becomes important in that environment.
I'm sure most people would take care of their homes if they COULD, but the resources are just not there.
That's the ULTIMATE crux of the problem with scarcity. We simply can't give everyone everything.
I'd quibble with two points: the first, conservation of energy has been pointed out by others here.
The second is that star trek isn't a truly post-scarcity society. Not to get too Georgist, but land will always be a scarce resource. Moreover, it'll always be a scarce resource with differing levels of value.
How does a benevolent, non-monetary society allocate land that sits next to a beautiful lake or that's close to a vibrant city core?
You can terraform planets and ther are always adventerous people wanting to explore the galaxy.
Ther are conflicts in the galaxy, but you vcan make planets habitable, that would create a lot new land. More than enough for people.
And who knows maybe federation citizens are just taught to get along better and be less likely to have the current , ok have less needless social conflict.+
Ther is confloict that just exists , but the social pressure competetive capitalism would decrease, a lot, and stress. And people just probable are friendlier to each other.
@@marocat4749 I certainly acknowledge your point about creating new land, and certainly we've seen plenty of examples of people choosing the colonist life in canon, but one can't argue that even in that case, there's still a differential desirability of land.
How many humans would prefer to live on the home planet, for example? And of those living in any place, there will always be land that would be considered more desirable by enough people to induce a competitive desire to live there.
In the modern world, we engage in work because we have differential values: I value my time and effort less than the goods and services I can procure with that time and effort. But how does it work when a widely desired, but scarce good like high-value land exists in a world in which there's no obvious mechanism to distribute that good?
I'm not saying I have an answer, but it does throw a wrench in Rowan's argument.
It seems Generational Wealth. Picards family was rich so he gets to keep his wealth. Meanwhile everyone else can sod off to the new world like maro says. Go live in the Cardassian Neutral Zone and watch the Federation turn a blind eye as you get war crimed.
@@WinstonSmith0824 I mean, with orbital habitats being so easy to build, almost anywhere on and above earth or any planet (and underwater) is habitable. With teleportation being a common travel method habitable land becomes far easier than we would think.
It IS an issue, but less than we would think based on our mindset. I'd personally imagine that issues over prime land use would be decided democratically, with easy access to verifiable information and a high degree of education I could see it being put to a local vote whether something like the Picard vineyard land is being put to good use as is or if a change is necessary.
(Edit for display)
As someone who's revising a novel right now, I can tell you it'd be far too easy to "sit on the couch" rather than sit in front of my laptop 6-8 hours at a stretch. Similarly, those relatives who said they wanted to learn an instrument or learning a language could be doing that right now. Thirty minutes a day would be all it'd take. "Utopia" breaks down really quickly when reality is applied.
3:52 -- "Now, fusion does require fuel, but once a replicator is powered up, the fuel needed for fusion is now in infinite supply, because the replicator itself can make more of it."
They repealed the conservation of energy. You could also replicate a perpetual motion machine.
Or print a "Title of Ownership Of Everything" stamped onto each person's birth certificate.
one thing to think about in terms of "post scarcity" is that with a sufficiently ubiquitous method of orbit and de-orbiting materials. We wouldn't even need warp, or replicators to achieve functional post-scarcity. The Solar systems own asteroid belt contains as close to unlimited material resources as we could want. Enough to keep up with human needs for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years. Once cheap space flight or orbital elevators become relatively common, industrialization of space would supply us with all the raw materials needed to build as many orbital habitats as we'd need or want. We could begin mass cultivation of plants like trees for lumber, farms and ranches for food, land for people to build houses and live on. The only major bottleneck being the development of a shipping infrastructure large enough to get everything to where it needs to go.
As much as I love sci-fi our solar system has more than enough resources to support our civilization until the end of time essentially. we really don't need to leave for anything.
that is assuming that minerals are the only scarcity. Land and space are the biggest scarcity. and privacy.
@@MrChickennugget360not really. The coastline of the US is less than 15% of the total landmass of the continent but nearly half of the population of 300M lives along coastal areas. The three largest states in the union by population are NY, CA and FL. China and India are the most populous countries on Earth, guess where most of their people live.. That being said, there is major evidence that the asteroid belt and the moons of our sister planets have all the mineral wealth and water we could possibly need not to mention our current science doesn’t allow for breaking the light barrier so we can’t leave the system anyway so it’s a good thing we don’t actually have to.
@@Obsydian2k7 Technically we don't need to break C to leave the solar system, we just need colony ships and a means to protect them from radiation and being hit by stuff.
I saw a notification for a Rowan video. MUST WATCH!!
You can't do away with scarcity. For example, how do you decide who gets to live in the penthouse, or who gets first row seats at a concert, or who gets to have a beachfront house, or... you get the idea. There will always be things that exist in less supply than the demand for them, and you will need money to allow people to prioritize what they want more. So one person might value first row concert seats more than living on the beach, while someone else could have the opposite priority. People must sacrifice things they don't care as much about in order to get the things they really do care about, and money is the most efficient way to do that.
You can't replicate fuel. Or at least you can't replicate more fuel than it took to fuel the replicator to replicate the fuel. It always must be a net loss. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is a thing.
Came to say something like this. The concept of "post scarcity" cannot exist outside fiction, because scarcity is itself relative: it moves with the alternative uses that exist for resources, which change with new advances in technology.
I posted the same thing, but I think you worded it better.
Except money has not existed for most of human existence, only a few thousand years, and still doesnt exist in some societies today. Labor for things beyond survival/sustenance were and are still performed in those societies. A post scarcity society is possible but requires a shift in thinking along with removing scarcity. such a society may also be smaller in population as fewer people are needed, we've seen this happening already as birth rates drop in many places around the world. This could also reduce the competition for the same things.
@@adrianwebster6923Those societies were also smaller, less sophisticated, and most importantly, could support *FAR* fewer people. Specialization is what allowed civilization to progress, and money allows specialization to work. The only way to reduce competition for things is to not have scarce things people want. That means all you can have access to is a very limited selection of common items.
So sure, if you want to destroy modern society, kill billions, and have people revert to only having what they and their close friends and family could produce by themselves, then you can do away with money. Otherwise, you need it.
@@KenMathis1 When your means of production can support large numbers without needing money those factors stop mattering. the point is that scarcity would be a thing of the past with a replicator. It is a revolution like agriculture and the industrial revolution. societal organization changes. The sacrifices you describe are no longer necessary thus motivation will be based on other needs and desires. Creativity, curiousity etc. things which exised in human society regardless of the existence of money or levels of scarcity.
I feel like there's a lot of social credits in the Federation. Picard still has the biggest quarters on Enterprise; the lower deckers sleep in the hallway. Everyone gets the basics, but if you want more, you have to contribute to the greater good, not just to yourself. I think that's why a lot of people join Starfleet: if you do, opportunities open up.
I guess that in the StarTrek society, to conduct a huge event at a restaurant, is probably as cheap as for a kid to bake a cookie nowadays.
And, I mean, when your kid gives you a cookie they baked, it's not like he or she is going to say "Oh, why did you JUST say "thank you"!? I expected you to pay me 5 dollars for this!!". And if he or she gives you a cookie as a gift, you won't just say "Oh, it's worthless! I can't even sell it FOR MONEY, duh!"
No, you're just going to eat a cookie and say thank you to you kid. The same is probably true of a restaurant owner on the Star Trek Earth. The very act of different guests visiting his or her restaurant would probably already give great joy to the owner.
In the Star Trek, they probably also have some system of redistributing land. Maybe something similar to what we used to have in the USSR, where all the land of the Capitalist oligarchs was confiscated and given to every citizen for free if a citizen would use it productively. Some people had built a little summer house on the little patch, or what most people did, they started growing their own fruits and vegetables to share with their families (some also sold the little things on the market, because the Soviet Union was a Socialist society, and not Communist, like the Earth from Star Trek, but still, the land was mostly used for personal use).
Just to show to you how valuable it can be, even after all these decades and the restoration of Capitalism in Russia, my grandmother is still obsessed with the garden that she created on the little patch of land that Soviet government had given to her, and she works there every year, growing lots of fruits, vegetables and berries. Even after her land became her private property in the 1990s, she never sells the vegetables, she just gives everything away for free to her relatives and friends. I am quite certain, that in the Star Trek society, they have a whole culture of giving away food and even some more complicated items just like that, for free.
I take it that some menial labors are a form of education/mentorship others are traditions. The welders and other builders are in the process of understanding how starships are built before moving up to a position that oversees that aspect of construction. Similar to the waiters at a restaurant. It isn't just about learning how to cook, but how to create an atmosphere, present the food, take up the food, and how to treat patrons. Then there are menial task that are traditional, to keep the cultural heritage and knowledge of the past alive.
Take it to the extreme, if there are no menial task in Trek and everything is automated, then it would be very easy to bring civilization into a dark age like Warhammer 40K. In 40K, humanity used to have fully automatics society but no one learned how things were made, so when technology failed, the entire civilization fell. With the preservation of menial tasks in Trek, if every replicator failed, people still retain the skills and knowledge to help society self sufficient.
Well humanity in 40k kind of lost due to the machines AI being possessed by demons and turning on them and cutting off all planetary space travel. But yeah they did have machines where if they gathered the necessary materials it would form them from you but it isn't really stated that they were lazy just understood that everyone is not gonna know everything there is to know, served more as a vast library of human knowledge.
I'm glad you brought up Player of Games, not only for the Culture / Federation similarities. I had the book recommended to me by it being described as an excellent episode of TOS.
For some manual labour, the DOT droids we see in discovery and probably in SNW help complete the picture. Although not mentioned by the same name, Geordi references droids loading the photon torpedoes in Picard season 3. Honestly, droid assistance that we never see helps explain how Voyager stays so squeaky clean through most of its journey. Humans might do welding, etc, work for pride, self fulfillment, etc, but it seems necessary to shift 99% of the work onto robots/droids.
"Droid" is the word they use in Star Wars for robots. I haven't seen Picard and don't plan to, I wouldn't be surprised if it is actually Star Wars dressed up as Trek.
Interior maintenance can be done by replicators. Farscape bothers to explain the concept, in a way that very apparently made it into Harry Potter
I hold that a moneyless society cannot work, because literal "post-scarcity" is impossible. We live in a finite, bounded universe, which makes it simply impossible to completely fulfil the material desires of every human. At some point we will have to compromise with each other. And at that point, we will naturally re-invent value and pricing, to quantify our economic priorities.
Luckily, post-scarcity does not advocate for the literal end of *all* scarcity of goods and services. It simply advocates for the end of necessities being scarce. Food, water, shelter, healthcare, education, and so on. The state should guarantee these things to its citizens, and invest resources into ensuring those guarantees are met.
This would leave luxury goods and services scarce. But that's okay - human desires for luxuries are fickle and elastic. Humans can go without many kinds of luxuries, so long as their survival needs are met. Indeed, humans don't necessarily need any assets outside of their own bodies, in order to enjoy themselves. I have ADHD, so I know how it feels to crave stimulation. But if you shut me in a grey room with no toys or other entertainment, and only fed me plain rations, I would just lie on the floor and daydream. If my survival needs are met, I will find a way to amuse myself.
But people will still want luxuries, even if their survival is assured. So how do we decide who deserves access to luxuries, given their scarcity? I think it would have to be based on the idea of "contributing to society". The foundation would be essential workers. The people growing all the food, cleaning all the water, building and maintaining all the housing and infrastructure, staffing all the hospitals, keeping all the power-plants running, and so on. These are people choosing to spend their labour - some of their finite lifetime - supporting the existence of everyone else in society. Therefore, they are the most deserving of luxuries.
The government could quantify that "deserving" status by paying these essential workers. Let's call this currency "Lux". Lux would only be used in luxury markets, because no-one would have to pay for essentials. The state guarantees them, so anyone trying to sell access to food or housing in return for Lux would have to compete with the state, which is offering both to its citizens for free.
The essential workers couldn't produce their luxuries themselves, as most of their labour would be tied up in essential work. So other humans would have to provide the luxuries. These luxury workers would also want Lux, so they could access each others' luxury goods and services. Therefore, the essential workers would have to spend their Lux to recieve the products of the luxury workers. Good old supply and demand would eventually settle luxury prices at a level people were happy with.
This would form the foundation of the economy - essential workers supporting luxury workers, who provide luxuries to essential workers and each other. With the state levying taxes on luxury industries, to pay its essential workers. The ownership of productive assets would depend on the work being done with them. All assets involved in essential work would be owned by the state, with the state maintaining the right to seize any other asset if it was deemed necessary for essential work. Ergo, if state-owned farms were destroyed, the state would have the right to seize arable land from luxury farms to make up the difference.
On the other hand, all assets used in luxury work would be owned collectively, by worker cooperatives. Workers would decide their business policy collectively, elect their own managers, and share the profits of their business. This system would arise naturally, because without the threat of poverty hanging over them, no citizen would willingly submit to capitalist domination. Business owners would have to concede more and more power to their workers, until they were effectively peers.
Utilizing market forces is the only way that luxury production could work. Essentials can be centrally-planned, because they can be easily quantified. A human needs X calories and Y nutrients a day to survive, so you need to produce enough food in the right ratios to serve the needs of every citizen. A human home needs a floor-space of X-by-Y metres to feel comfortable, so you need to build enough housing to meet the space needs of every citizen. And so on.
But human desires for luxuries are fickle. Far too fickle for a government to keep up with changing trends. A free market of cooperative businesses would be much more agile, and able to address shifts in consumer tastes in a timely manner. This is one of the big failures of the Soviet model, by the way. They tried to centrally-plan luxury production, and the result was a complete mess.
If the Federation operated like I described, it would explain a lot of apparent oddities like Chateau Picard and Sisko's. These would simply be luxury businesses operating cooperatively, and providing luxury foodstuffs to citizens whose essential food needs are already guaranteed. They may be operated by families, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. So long as they're not refusing to hire people from outside their families, and are conducting their businesses democratically and sharing all profits among their workers, it doesn't matter if all the workers involved are close relatives.
And the Picards could own so much land, simply because there would be enough demand for Picard-brand wine, and therefore enough income from selling it, to cover the costs of maintaining so much land. While Sisko's is a small cafe, either because there's not enough demand (read: income) to support a bigger venue, or because it's as big as the workers involved want it to be. The guarantee of essentials to all citizens would produce the ultimate level playing field, and bring society much closer to true economic meritocracy.
I think those welders are probably passionate craftspeople who are taking part in the construction of a starship probably a very fulfilling experience.
There are people who would, if there was no need for money, kill to personally build with their own hands the greatest scientific and engineering feats of the age assuming the safety and work culture of the 24th century. I think that robots definitely do a lot of automation but the personal touch is essential in fostering a sense of common purpose and striving for fulfillment. When the flagship defends humanity from an incomprehensible threat, there are thousands of people on Earth who share in that accomplishment and have given their time, expertise and labor to make that feat possible.
Sorry to interject, but "personal" property is an anti-concept (An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept, in this case, Private property.) as all Property is Private property regardless of what it is the case is.
My personal theory is that, since we only see a moneyless society from Star Fleet personnel i.e. a wing of the government, there could be some other forms of currency used for items that replicators can not make for one reason or another, so they don't need money. So it is not a moneyless society; it's just reserved for things that humans value over their basic needs. But to understand this, one needs to fully understand the true nature of Money.
"all Property is Private property"
Did you mean "all personal property is private property"? Because "public property" is a thing and it's certainly not "private property".
@@JannPoo Absolutely not! The term 'personal property' is an anti-concept crafted to undermine the true essence of private property. Regardless of whether you utilize a piece of property for personal use or economic gain, it unequivocally remains your private property.
Furthermore, 'public property' is a misnomer; it should rightfully be termed government property, and its legitimate scope of ownership is far more limited than commonly perceived.
Money can't buy me happiness, but it can buy hydrogen to fuel my fusion reactor to power my replicator, and that's practically the same thing.
Oh hey, you got the music from New Romulus playing in the background! Such an excellent choice. Very glad you made this honestly, it's an excellent video.
What if you want to own something "extra"?
Like a cottage in the mountains (ST:Generations), a personal space shuttle (let alone some spacious warp-capable *yacht), or a "simple" hover-car? And let's say that you want to pursue a hobby that is more "expensive"? Like for example, whilst speaking of the hover-cars, you want to become a racer? In that case you'd "need" more than just a "simple" hover-car, ain't it right?
And what about the process? You'd waltz into some local **office/institution and brashly announce to them that you want all those things and they would then simply provide you with them? Well, I do not think that this would be that easy. Among others, the society does not owe you 'these' things.
Maybe you "have to" work certain jobs for a certain amount of time (like 'years') in order to earn the right to be "allotted" such non-essential stuff. Like doing something mundane and uninspiring (welding panels all day long) or do something dangerous (joining Starfleet; especially as a "redshirt" 😀).
* - Over the decades, we've seen on Star Trek examples of people who at least seemed to be.... ehm.... "rich".
** - Once again, why would anyone want to willingly work on such a 'dorky' job; like long-term or permanently? One could potentially come up with hundreds of such examples.
I'll go over this in the video in the series.
@@RowanJColeman
❤
🖖
I know you from OrangeRiver! 🙂
@@subraxas hey there, hope all's well! 🖖
@@grahamturner1290
❤
It's excellent. I've studied this for a long time, and written books about it. Here are the basics for understanding and explaining how it is possible to achieve a free world:
The means of production, the social contract, the cultural practices that flow from it, the spirit of service to others according to one's abilities.
If replicators are the basis of the industry, that obviously makes things a lot easier. Today's 3d printers are the premise. Theoretically, with sufficient energy, space can be bent to produce mass. But before we get to that, which solves a lot of problems, the questions that arise are, as you pointed out, infrastructure-related. It is infrastructure that makes possible the evolution that leads to these innovations. Today, these innovations would be opposed to the existing infrastructure. What it boils down to is: how do we assess things? This is the question of the entire economy, and of human society as a whole. How can we measure, concretely and objectively, what is good or bad? Certainly by introducing concepts currently ignored by our system: the long term, and the search for quality.
Replicators do not conjure material out of nothing, they are more like transporters that beam raw materials from over here into an assembled product over there. Someone has to feed inputs in somewhere. They also consume an enormous amount of energy. Utopia plenasia has assembly yards producing almost all of the shuttlecraft for Starfleet. This is cheaper by far in terms of energy cost than replicating them. Replicating a shuttlecraft or something you would do in a dire emergency not if you had any alternative because of the energy costs
Not having to work doesn't mean not wanting to have something to do. Being idle becomes boring after a while.
"The fuel needed for fusion is now in infinite supply because the replicator can make more of it."
Fun fact: Gene Roddenberry fell asleep during thermodynamics.
>> "We'll just use a replicator to replicator new replicated laws of thermoreplicatordynamics. Replicators."
The second law of thermodynamics only applies in a closed system, but a planet is not a closed system.
Just print more money, problem solved 🤡
STAR TREK is a don't ask to many questions future. Just believe and enjoy. It doesn't bear up under scrutiny.
I'm a musician and I feel so privileged to earn my money by doing, what i love. Sure, there are days, when work is still work and not fun, but overall i would still do, what i do even if i wouldn't have to worry about money anymore.
Keep up the good work. You make the best Star Trek video-essays on RUclips!
But without money giving preference information would you produce songs that match what people prefer?
Money is revealed preference.
@@Apple2-ux8uo Does it matter? His base needs are taken care of meaning he can make whatever music he wants.
If he craves prestige and recognition for his work he will act accordingly.
The problem with Star Trek is that almost ALL manufacturing and logistics occurs off-screen.
And there's a new planet or new culture-of-origin every week.
Meanwhile, its a deliberate caricature of mythologies and ideas, dodging core questions, YET MOST of separately-evolved species can naturally mate. (I know, Galen's Adamic Ancestral Species, but that was AFTER over 300 episodes, movies, books.)
My dad always told me “Find a job you love and you will never work a day in your life”
I'm glad you said that the ward drive is powered by an matter/antimatter reactor, which is my understanding from the beginning of Trek. Dilithium was not a power source. It existed between dimensions and when enough power from the matter/antimater reactor was applied, the ship could warp through space.
Dilithium is a regulator. A regulator of the following.
The 'power source' injected into the nacelles is 'high-energy plasma' (sometimes also called 'warp plasma'), created as a by-product in warp cores through mutual annihilation of the matter and anti-matter. In most Starfleet vessels, the fuel for the warp cores is usually Deuterium (matter) and Anti-deuterium (anti-matter).
Then where do they get the antimatter sweaty? Face it it doesn't make sense. There are no antimatter mines.
Just from a pure physics point of view, you wouldn't be able to use a replicator to produce the fuel for the fusion reactor that powers it. That would either break the second law of thermodynamics if there are no energy losses or the first law of thermodynamics if there are energy losses but the replicator would produce enough fuel to fuel the fusion reactor. Perpetual mobile is not allowed.
...and concerning gifts, I think you pretty well summed it up. It's not the gift; it's the giver, and that's an eternal truth.
it was so obvious it didn't deserve any mention
Looking forward to the next one. Be interesting to consider how Star Fleet would maintain itself in a stable manner given these interpretations.
Something to note, as someone who was unemployed but completely stable for a while during COVID, not working is fucking MISERABLE. It sucks, it drains on you to just be in your home, achieving nothing.
I also have a friend who is fairly wealthy from inheritance but you'd never know it because the dude works as a line cook in a restaurant. He always told me that, yeah, he didn't HAVE to work, but he watched his father, who spent all day hanging out at country clubs and high society clubs, spiral into depression and drug addiction from the stress of not doing anything meaningful. He felt himself going down that same path and instead moved out, got a modest but nice apartment, and lives like any random guy expect way happier because he has no financial concerns.
Funny, I just had a conversation about this topic recently. This video really helps fill in the gaps to that conversation. I love your concept "that when money is no object, that people want to learn".
Unfortunately, there is still the human "condition" where there is evil and greed (yes, even with everyone not needing money). So instead of money driving greed, it would be replaced with something else...like Power.
Thank you for the video.
That was something I appreciate about how The Orville explained future society. It directly references how in the future, people pursue social capital and prestige rather than money.
Yeah and that when horrible. I remember the episode where he was going to jail because of something and they had to make it up by convincing people he was a good person. Imagine that in today's society.
The psychology of this will be a matter for any post-scarcity society:
You will not need to work to live, but what do you want to live for?
The fulfillment of mastering a craft, or satisfying your curiosity with exploration of STEM subjects, archaeology or traveling to new frontiers?
This will also be a question that needs to be answered with longer lifespans, what will you do if you have perfect health and live for 400 years?
I don't think we'll ever get rid of money or some form of social debt/payment system, which is basically what money is. As there will always be scarcity with certain things (land/artwork/one off creations/desirable people as mates/etc.).
But there are ways we could reduce our dependency on money. By covering things like basic housing, healthcare, food, water, and even transportation, electricity, and communication. Which we already do to some extend or another in most first world countries. Though we could certainly improve it and create less stigma around people using it.
The welder example is key. I know welders who would like nothing better than to lay bead all day. Not having to think about the input cost would allow for this, also any imperfections could be instantly revealed (through tech in the helmet) to the welder whom could correct immediately, or corrections could be made by a replicator. These corrections could even be subsurface leaving the handiwork of the craftsman visible yet the subsurface molecularly "perfect". As for the "property" question, we already have individuals and groups who value their digital property above most physical property, therefore a holodeck can provide any property to any individual or group as they wish.
Truly tragic that such a world can only possibly exist in fiction.
Ummm my dude. You cant fuel replicator by replicating fuel.
Its in the lore btw.
Replicators turn energy into matter just like transporters do or holodeck, but you cant create more energy out of energy.
Laws of thermodynamics - replicators are matter energy converters, we have this today with particle colliders, but you can’t make more energy out of nowshere
Memory Alpha:
Replicating large numbers of items could require significant amounts of power to be diverted from the warp core. (TNG: "The Child") Complex elements such as anicium and yurium also required large amounts of energy to replicate. (TNG: "Night Terrors") During emergency situations, the use the replicators might be restricted to save power for vital systems or because they were unreliable; requiring rations to be replicated instead of more elaborate food (TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise"; VOY: "Year of Hell", "The Killing Game", "Demon"; DS9: "The Siege"), rationing of replicator usage (VOY: "The Cloud", "Real Life", "The Void"), or the use of traditionally-prepared food. (DS9: "Covenant"; VOY: "The Cloud") It was sometimes necessary to take the replicators completely offline to conserve power. (DS9: "Covenant"; VOY: "Dark Frontier", "Demon"; PRO: "Terror Firma")
Looks like replicators were consistently depicted as a non negligible energy consumer.
A pass? Well. If you assume the newer series are a new continuity you can ignore all that old stuff and it would match pretty well with the insanely jacked up technology level.
My limited Sci-fi repertoire actually has something like you suggest.
Mr. Fusion on the upgraded DeLorean.
It's fed by whatever crap Doc Brown deems worthy to throw in there.
It literally says Fusion Home Energy Reactor on it.
Almost nothing said about how it does or doesn't work.
Of course if you have access to say, the Solar System, there's plenty of matter and energy for everyone to work with.
We arent even close to achieve Star Trek technology, but with our stage today, we can make our factories and most of our jobs AI and robot powered and replace 80-90% of human needs. We could replace our governments with liquid democracy, we could achieve something like Star Trek...the only barrier is the human greedy for power and money.
Replicators cannot replicate fuel. They would need more energy then they would gain from the fusion reaction...actually, a heft sum more.
This is stuff we should really be considering right now. The time is here.
It makes no sense. I’m the biggest fan. But it’s never made any sense. Don’t care, I love Star Trek.
I think you need to start thinking of tradesman as artist who take a lot of pride in their work and passing on their knowledge to an apprentice.(we see this often in Star Trek with other professions) and if you spend any time on social media following tradesmen you will find they take pride in being good at their craft if not the best. That welder gets to tell everyone he built that Star ship with his two hands and next may lead the team that builds a space station(it may sound corny to us but I think in the Trek future people are very supportive of everyone’s chosen occupation or passion). You also have to notice that that welder is probably not an independent contractor but a member of Star fleet and that maybe his first post on the way to being a chief engineer(remember the engineers we see in series work on everything on the Star ship: replicators and holodecks to the warpcore and weapon systems. Star fleet engineers are appliance repairmen and nuclear technicians and literally everything in between.
Why painty rosy?, "we don't pursuit wealth" can be put in the beginning of any franchise and will fit nicely, that doesn't mean anything at all.
The only criticism I have about this theory is it's not so much replicator technology but transporter technology, transporter technology gave way to replicator technology transporters breakdown matter and store them as patterns. These patterns are stored as data. Replicators take existing matter and reorganize it into whatever components are demanded. In Voyager it stated human waste products are reconfigured into building materials for example.
In a world of dilithium crystals and replicators, our standard economics theory ceases to exist.
Actually, this whole idea-set was explored quite handily in George O. Smith's "Venus Equilateral" Stories I2 or 3 short stories (there were no VE novels) take care of it, IIRC, maybe 4 if I've forgotten one), written in the 1940s. Roddenberry was almost wholly derivative. Add "Forbidden Planet" to "Venus Equilateral" and you have "Star Trek:. Given that Roddenberry was a pilot (both civilian and military) and flew many long hauls ( WW2 bombing missions and later the longest routes in the Pan-Am catalog) during the 1940s and, since it is clear the he was a science fiction fan, it seems the obvious inference that her read Smith's stories pretty much as they came out in "Astounding" magazine. I'd be flabbergasted to find that he never packed reading material for a flight leg/mission. Give the VE stories a read, they're well worth the time.
I can easily imagine star trek because I don't live for money myself, it's not my motivation, my motivation has more to do with my leading passions, skills and talents.
This is a subject that doesn't get talked about enough the ideas of replicators is one that people don't really understand the amounts of energy that would be used to replicate something the idea that everyone would have their own replicator is amazingly crazy unless they had already enclosed the sun in a Dyson sphere we're talking that much energy needed for everyone to have their own replicator and make just an apple for breakfast everyday
One of the handwaves about 'Star Trek tech' is that with all their fancy subspace physics and such, they can do a lot more with a lot *less* energy than our physics would demand. Otherwise every space battle would level sectors.
0:17 -- Considering in one episode they try to get Jake's dad a 1951 Bowman Willie Mays rookie card...they should know that there will always be the need for money. After all, it is impossible to replicate antique/vintage items/collectibles, because if you did it wouldn't be antique/vintage anymore!
Matter = Energy = Matter. Federation citizens get energy credits. For dealing with exterior space nations, they can use energy reserves to replicate precious materials for exchange. The more they mine, the more energy they have, the more they can make. Within the Federation most of what they need is provided because their fusion unlocks enough energy for that level of civilization. On top of that, there never were laws prohibiting accumulation of personal wealth, although most don't worry about it. On DS9 for example, it would have been crazy for those officers to not save some latinum even from their own energy credit allocation. Or, like Chakotay, make a pocket watch as a gift.
I actually don’t believe that money has been abolished.
What we are told is that the acquisition of wealth is no longer a driving force.
What has changed is the mindset of people.
I feel certain that I heard in an episode somewhere along the line the use of the word “credits”. Therefore they are being paid in terms of credits.
Somehow there has been a big shift in the distribution of wealth, however goods and services have to be paid for, this has happened since the beginning of time starting with simple bartering.
So in my opinion, money still exists, it’s the mindset that is different..
Our capitalist-poisoned brains literally can’t comprehend a system that doesn’t require money. Even though it’s how humanity functioned before money came along.
All members of a community would help each other. With the given understanding being that when you were in trouble, others would come help you.
I always saw it like the Warp Drive - we don't know how that works yet either, it's future technology, but we do have some of the pieces.
We kind of see this already with software, there is a giant ecosystem now out there of only open source software. These days you can run a business and never pay for a single license (except if the government is forcing you to, because you needs some cash grabbing BS software to file your taxes). Another interesting idea is that most people got lazy and now are stored in pleasure cubes, but the people outside are the crazy adventurists, who do all this stuff and would pay for this work.
I think "credits" are just an inconsistency because some writers got lazy. I don't think renaming money to credits is an interesting solution.