Star Trek

Well, I think that's what he thought he was doing, in protest. That they would see his example and see the error of their ways. But they didn't. And they kept not seeing it. They still don't see it. And I can believe that was utterly shattering. He almost retired once before, and without his commission, without a ship... So I can believe it. But I can also still see him as no less heroic for it, people being the fragile things they are. But if you don't like it, you don't like it. Like, that's fine. It's not perfect, and it's not the only direction they could've gone. I wouldn't have minded seeing Ambassador Picard or something either.

if star trek discovery actually does get cancelled I have a feeling no one will actually believe it until new episodes stop appearing on their Paramount Plus

Also I'm starting to think some of the people ranting about how picard is "franchise assassination" don't actually like star trek and just got tired of making last jedi videos

At this point the only people on the internet whose opinion on star trek I take seriously are Linkara, some of the what culture guys, and SF debris

Also also, Allow us to make watchlists on your service, Viacom CBS!

For critique and commentary, I only watch Steve Shives and Jesse Gender. For library database type videos, I watch Certifiably Ingame's Star Trek videos (though Ric is more focused on Star Trek Online than I'm interested in), and I've been watching more Spacedock lately but it's starting to feel like maybe he'd be dangerously close to making hatedom videos about the new stuff if that was the scope of the channel. I've tried Shipyards, but they make really dry videos and it's less clear where they're pulling what information from than Certifiably Ingame Ric makes it.

And thank goodness Ryan's Edits popped up last year to fill the "silly recut" void that Grin left when he went all "everything since Nemesis is a personal insult to me".

Edited by TParadox on Mar 8th 2021 at 9:16:07 AM

So how accurate do you think the assessment that "the federation is a communist utopia" is compared to what we actually see in the franchise

I've personally always interpreted the federation as either a post scarcity society where capitalist excanges are completely optional and no longer the only way citizens obtain goods (which seems to be this wiki's interpretation), or that money existed but was phased out by the time of the TOS films, explaining why it only got brought up after the Voyage Home.

Edited by The_MJP on Mar 8th 2021 at 10:08:53 AM

I feel like certain technologies, mainly replicators, automation, and extremely powerful clean energy sources, make economics as we understand them largely obsolete. It's not capitalist, but it's not communist either. It often comes off as similar to real life systems in various ways, but I put that more on the writers not knowing the full ramifications and how different it would be. It'd be like someone from a few hundred years ago trying to predict how economics work after the industrial revolution.

And it probably varies from place to place as well. I doubt the economics of every planet in the Federation are the same.

Edited by FGHIK on Mar 8th 2021 at 11:16:45 AM

Also the whole "Capitalism is optional and allowed as long as it doesn't create socioeconomic disparity" interpretation seems a bit closer to light-social democracy than outright communism, which would probably phase out or destroy private enterprise of any kind. (At least historically)

Also just so we're clear I'm not far-left by any stretch. I've always been more on the side of trustbusting, regulation, and the speration of the private and public sector than strictly and staunchly anti-capitalist.

Edited by The_MJP on Mar 8th 2021 at 10:58:02 AM

Colony worlds seem to be allowed to set themselves up however they want within some loose guidelines and there's a lot of scarcity on some of them especially when starting up, but many of them seem to at least consider replicators as much a basic necessity as we consider indoor plumbing.

I really got Sisko's speech about how Earth is a paradise and Out Here is not paradise and it's easy to be a saint in paradise. The most "communist utopia" places we've seen are on vessels that have been commissioned by the Federation and so all their supplies are taken care of, and Earth. Between those two types of locations, that's most of what we see of the Federation (Vulcan is a distant third but also pretty collectivist). It makes a lot of sense that it's a lot less clean right outside.

The various shows are very uninterested in showing core Federation worlds. Presumably Andoria and Tellar Prime are on the same level as Earth and Vulcan. Betazed and Risa look really nice from what we see too (admittedly the shows never actually clearly say whether or not Betazed is part of the Federation or not for some reason).

So yeah, my guess is that the core planets and worlds that have been Federation members for a while are mostly post-scarcity, but that doesn't really lead to many interesting stories (or at least, that's a common assumption) and we mostly see stuff around the edges or outside the Federation.

An underlying question with this sort of system is not just economic impact but the cultural shift that occurs when all needs are given freely. Even assuming general geological and technology equality, such as quality of living conditions and most up to date medical care regardless of location, the question has always been that if you remove the need for economic advancement will the personal drive to excel be the same. That has been a concern surrounding communism, the suppression of talent and innovation because it doesn't have an apparent benefit to the society as a whole (due to flaws in the bureaucratic management). That is the contrast to capitalism, where anyone can attempt to develop and diversify anything imaginable no matter how stupid or wasteful it may be (don't know why you would want to forge a glass sword, but it's cool I guess).

There was that one episode of Voyager where Janeway went on an away mission with some lower deck misfits, one of whom was basically Born in the Wrong Century and had a difficult time with the science and mathematics that is considered entry level stuff to everyone else. It makes you think a little about the smaller people in such a society who have everything they they need but still fail.

My take on the economical system of the Federation core worlds was that every citizen was granted an average income that corresponds to enough energy use to live a decent life, be it in terms of transportation, food or recreation (Sisko talks about transporter credits at some point). Those who want to do something more (research, opening a restaurant, grow food, join Starfleet...) get an increase to their income that is proportional to what they bring to society. All of this is monitored by the super-efficient computers of Star Trek, so there is little need for currency any more when dealing with businesses inside the Federation. There is probably a credit exchange rate allowing Federation citizens to convert their income into Federation credits when dealing with nonaligned worlds.

Seen from our century this looks like as if nobody would have any incentive for doing anything, but I think it's a case of Values Dissonance, because the Federation people would already be born in this society and not behave like someone who has suddenly won the lottery. I take it as an example that there are a lot of activities we do in our century for leisure (like sailing or skiing) that used to be done for a living (and quite dangerous to boot). Think the "people are running for fun?" line in Back to the Future Part III.

As for colonies, they can probably choose whichever system they want, depending on the type of resources they have available. I'm not even sure if Federation colonies are automatically part of the Federation. It is even possible they would allow colonies to break away from the Federation if they want to set up their own capitalist system.

I tend to lean toward the idealistic interpretation of Star Trek...

I mean, the suppression of innovation that doesn't serve a direct practical benefit goes on under all economic systems. But the need to feel useful and the desire to contribute and innovate are pretty basic human drives, and even if there are those who aren't interested in contributing — there already are, rich and poor. But that doesn't mean the only impetus for civilization to advance is the threat of starvation or stick/carrot of war. Especially when, as we've seen in the past century, the carrot/stick of entertainment and leisure (and potential celebrity) is as powerful as it is. There are other kinds of capital — status through merit and accomplishment. The Federation does still seem to have that. The fame economy still seems very much alive in the 24th Century. And in that sense, innovation, creativity, and exploration do seem very much rewarded.

Not that the Federation is even a perfect example of what it's trying to be. The lack of respect for what people out on the frontier, like the Maquis, were trying to do, what they'd built, why the easy life back in Federation borders was not enough for them — that shows a certain lack of perspective. And I kinda liked the setup for Picard specifically because it shows how just how ingrained that insularity could be. Peace and stability are intoxicating drugs, and an ideal on its own, removed from the actual people it's meant to uplift, is a dangerous thing.

But I think the show does show that we *can* motivate people with things other than money or stability alone, and in the last hundred years there were a few times and places where we saw that happening on Earth. In a lot of ways we've backslid as far showing that community and innovation are valuable in their own right, not just as a byproduct of a prosperous economy.

Edited by Unsung on Mar 9th 2021 at 11:56:06 AM

I do think it's important to note that every time a test in universal basic income has been done, people are a lot more likely to make art or start trying to invent things. Capitalism depends, in part, on a lot of people willing to work shitty jobs for low pay because they don't have much of an alternative, exhausting them and stealing their time, removing the need to work to live actually creates an incentive to...well, create. The idea that humans are just going to sit around staring at the TV en masse if the base survival stuff is taken care of doesn't actually line up with human nature.

We get bored and start wanting to do things, and the idea of someone taking up painting and getting really good at it or trying to innovate is pretty much in human nature. Note that a ton of art and invention (or at least, the funding for it) historically came from people in positions of nobility with very little to actually do day to day, so they either tried to make new things or paid for other people to make new things for them.

Edited by Zendervai on Mar 9th 2021 at 1:18:15 PM

The thing is, in a true post-scarcity society, why does it MATTER if large portions of the population don't want to contribute? Maybe there are whole planets of folks just living in holodecks, fucking their brains out and eating replicated food 24/7, and we never see them because there aren't very many interesting stories happening there.

The ones that aren't happy with that life leave and go join Starfleet or start a frontier colony or do art or science. Or, if they're real kooks, take their six-year-old daughter and go study the Borg.

Well, it wouldn't matter, really, exactly.

And yeah, people get bored, people get curious — art and science are stimulating, and while simple leisure is enough for some, you do hunger for challenge, so instead of watching The Bachelor all day, you take up basejumping or collecting ancient artifacts or fly to Paris or New York for the latest haute cuisine or fashion, ballet or Broadway. And even if you don't keep up with science yourself, maybe you still support someone who does. There is often a meeting of the minds there, between science and the arts. Likely all the more so if it cost less, or if they save the cost of other things. And in that there is further potential, inspiration to be had on both sides. That can drive competition and collaboration rather than just the pure-practical business side.

And also often people are often driven by the desire for influence and acclaim more than money itself. It's just that we continue to tie up so much of people's influence and success in being wealthy. That was never going to be an easy thing to wean oneself off of as a society, but we have started to backslide.

Edited by Unsung on Mar 9th 2021 at 12:11:10 PM

Between "The Neutral Zone" and "Relics", the Enterprise really had a problem with people from the past.

my fear is without a tangible reward or motivation to work hard and contribute, NO ONE would contribute ANYTHING (except for the small handful of die-hard tankies that glorify menial labour), cause of everyone's already provided for, why make yourself useful? Or the opposite happen and indivialism is snuffed out in favor of blind social conformity.

And don't take that as an endorsement of unfettered capitalism, in fact it's precisely because I feel the labour sector isn't properly compensated for the work they do that I believe in a nordic mixed economey.

Also I've always had this idea of introducing a parallel to North Korea in a potential new star trek show.

I know they aren't taken seriously in america, which is kinda the idea, a small isolationist, orwellian society that isn't taken seriously by the federation, but terrifies their neighbors, has a massively powerful army despite their small population, are willing to kidnap and brainwash people from neighboring planets to do anything from making weapons to shooting propaganda films. and always seems on the edge of wiping out everything just to keep their citizens in line. While their people are so opressed they laugh at the very idea of freedom.

I feel that starfleet having to deal with a threat like that could lend itself an interesting debate on interventionism, sovereignty and how the prime directive should be interpreted, especially with the bush years in the rearview mirror and north korea IRL getting closer and closer to developing nukes.

What do you think what other societies and debates should the current shows be tackling.

I also think PIC season 2 should bring the Cardassians out again and have a running plot with them that serves as a metaphor for Xi Jinpeg's China and people here in america destroying their principles to appease them.

Given the state of starfleet in that show, the metaphor would totally fit

Edited by The_MJP on Mar 9th 2021 at 6:16:34 AM

In the real world, things like Universal Basic Income have a lot of variables at play. The closest we have as a reference point is things like welfare, disability, social security and VA benefits: all of which are things that sound great on paper and maybe in isolated experiments but have both seen and unforeseen drawbacks when given broader application. This ranges from the "people will stop working when you give them money" claim to creating artificial inflation to match the higher average income to a decrease in skilled labor because the incentive to work harder for more money is reduced.

In the Star Trek world, they later had to admit that the Federation utopia has its limits, and they basically took the place of the wealthy elite in regional politics despite being above money. DS9 especially ended up having a field day, with Sisko famously saying "It's easy to be a saint in paradise." Even with the concept of post-scarcity due to replicators, there are some things you can't replicate (like dilithium and latinum) and there are other resources that will cause tension. Bajor almost went into a civil war because of infighting over farmland reclamation equipment. And, intentionally or not, Starfleet realized they had gotten complacent after the Borg and Dominion showed up, which saw a shift in technology development and ship design. They don't like to admit it, but they end up making their best work when they need to kick ass.

I think restructuring welfare as a guaranteed minimum income would do a lot to fix the way it's currently a bit of a trap for some people where unemployment either pays more than they would make if they got a job, or their transportation/childcare/prepared food expenses would go up to the point that less of their paycheck is left than what they were getting on government assistance.

Some people, given a government income, will just stop working, but many more people get restless when they don't have something to do, and also a minimum income is... minimum. Can you travel for pleasure on a minimum income? Can you get the shiny new gadget, eat fancier food? The ones who are happy with the tradeoff... I'm fine with it.

Are there people on Star Trek's Earth whose only aspiration beyond a standard-issue apartment, replicator, and link to communication networks is maybe a holoemitter for entertainment they can lose themselves in? Probably. Should the Federation tear down their support structures so people like that have to get out and work? I don't that's a morally, socially, or collectively beneficial move.

I mean, I'm not saying we're going to turn into the Federation anytime soon, and of course there are unforeseen variables for creating even a lower-tier utopia anywhere as soon as 350-odd years from now. But we can't make any progress if we don't try. Any form of UBI is of course going to be experimental and there would inevitably be some growing pains, but we can at least learn as we go and do better if we try. And the only thing really stopping it from being tried is saying that it's unaffordable, which frankly isn't true.

The lack of skilled labour has as much to do with education being unaffordable and the job market being fickle as anything, but I think the point is rather that the incentive to work harder should be about more than just making more money. And I'm not saying we should do away with money, but that should be only one possible incentive out of many.

People yearn for all kinds of things: recognition, and not just fame but the recognition of one's peers and their community — we don't value public service the way we need to. The chance to lead and/or to follow, to be part of something greater, to feel like one is doing something important rather than just, say, another disposable construction project for some faceless corporation. To learn and explore and discover and invent — I think we really need to do some work on branding there. Corporations pay good money for advertising. Maybe it's time to do the same for the sciences. We don't see it in-universe, but I feel that had to be a big part of how the Federation came to be. Winning hearts and minds.

This might all seem like a long way off, and it very much is. But I think there's far too much pessimism at the moment, that leads people to give it all up as impractical before we've even begun.

Edited by Unsung on Mar 9th 2021 at 8:23:31 AM

This is just a hypothetical discussion, we aren't going to be solving the worlds problems in this thread. For Star Trek, they had to say that it took a devastating World War III and First Contact for humanity to get on the right track.

Also fiction should not be a benchmark for the real world it's easy to create a functional socialist utopia on the page where any variable can be explained away by "enlightenment"

Not so much in the real world because sing it with me now

"Communism has failed in most every state that has tried it"

And yes we have china but they ironically have some of the worst working conditions in the world and they barley count as communist anymore

Not to say we should screw the poor but still

And like I said, even when everyone is provided for a good chunk of people will still need to do the thankless menial work that they would otherwise never do if given the choice to keep the prosperity going.

Those menial jobs would be paying *more* than a bare subsistence wage, is the point. If a job is in fact essential, however menial, it shouldn't be thankless. We need to change that mindset. And like T Paradox said, if all that's being covered is just enough to eat and sleep, no entertainment, no luxuries — haven't even gotten into education or healthcare, here — it just means people won't have to choose between food and rent. Most people will probably still want more. And if they don't have to worry about food or rent, maybe they can afford their medical bills. Maybe they can save up and buy a house or go to college. It's just one thing off their plate. Maybe some of them will just go out and buy frivolities, but that still spurs the economy.

And if society is so moribund that the only reason people do anything other than sit on their couches and watch TV is so they won't literally be homeless and starving... I feel like that points to other problems. Which, y'know, are things we can also address.

Like, sure, it's just a TV show, and we're just a bunch of strangers arguing on a forum. We're not going to solve the world's problems here. But if your takeaway from one of the most hopeful franchises around is that there's nothing we can do and we should just wait for World War III to give us the kick in the ass we need to go and ask the Vulcans for help... That's giving up too easily for me. We can do better. We have done better.

Edited by Unsung on Mar 10th 2021 at 4:43:11 AM

I say that because I am talking theoreticals and how it applies to the fiction we are discussing, not about advocating a particular path real life society needs to go. I've found myself drawn into plenty of arguments because I have a "What is the downside?" perspective and try to consider uncomfortable truths that I come across as contrarian rather than just thinking off the top of my head. There are a lot of ideas on how to improve the problems with society, but that doesn't mean we don't agree on what those problems are. This discussion came because of how difficult it is to conceptualize the Federations post-scarcity, cashless society. Wall-E presented a sort of antonym to that concept in showing a society where all needs are provided for and causes stagnation (which has its criticisms too, though definitely also had anti-corporation undertones alongside it).

Because every state that's called itself communist has tried to get there through being totalitarian, and that makes it really easy to let the kleptocrats in.

Plenty of democratic-socialist countries out here doing pretty well.