Slashdot Mirror
A 'Star Trek' Economic System May Be Closer Than You Think
HughPickens.com writes: Anna North writes about "Star Trek'"s "post-economic" system, in which money no longer exists and anything you want can be made in a replicator, essentially for free. According to Manu Saadia, the author of "Trekonomics," a forthcoming book about the economics of the "Star Trek" universe, when everything is free objects will no longer be status symbols. Success will be measured in achievements, not in money: ""Instead of working to become more wealthy, you work to increase your reputation," says Saadia. "You work to increase your prestige. You want to be the best captain or the best scientist in the entire galaxy. And many other people are working to do that, as well. It's very meritocratic."
In a time of rising inequality and stagnating wages, a world where everyone's needs are met and people only work if they feel like it seems pretty far away but a post-scarcity economy is actually far more within reach than the technological advances for which "Star Trek" is better known. If productivity growth continues, Saadia believes there will be much more wealth to go around in a few hundred years' time. In general, society might look more like present-day New Zealand, which he sees as less work-obsessed than the United States: "You work to live rather than the other way round." Wealthy retirees today also already live an essentially post-money existence, "traveling and exploring and deepening their understanding of the world and being generally happy." According to Saadia we're beginning to get a few hints of what the post-money, reputation-based economy might look like. "If you look at things like Instagram, Vine, places where people put a huge amount of work into basically just gaining a certain amount of reputation, it's fascinating to see. Or even Wikipedia, for that matter. The Internet has begun to give us a hint of how much people will work, for no money, just for reputation."
In a time of rising inequality and stagnating wages, a world where everyone's needs are met and people only work if they feel like it seems pretty far away but a post-scarcity economy is actually far more within reach than the technological advances for which "Star Trek" is better known. If productivity growth continues, Saadia believes there will be much more wealth to go around in a few hundred years' time. In general, society might look more like present-day New Zealand, which he sees as less work-obsessed than the United States: "You work to live rather than the other way round." Wealthy retirees today also already live an essentially post-money existence, "traveling and exploring and deepening their understanding of the world and being generally happy." According to Saadia we're beginning to get a few hints of what the post-money, reputation-based economy might look like. "If you look at things like Instagram, Vine, places where people put a huge amount of work into basically just gaining a certain amount of reputation, it's fascinating to see. Or even Wikipedia, for that matter. The Internet has begun to give us a hint of how much people will work, for no money, just for reputation."
The Star Trek economy only works with no scarcity. And while there is a surplus of labor, there is NOT a surplus or resources or energy. And energy is the big one here, as everyone keeps telling us. Sure there is solar, and wind, but they run up against some rather hard resource limitations. (Especially plastics which depend on oil...)
Post scarcity is a fictitious concept. The wants, needs and desires of the human race will expand to use up all available resources until scarcity is achieved. There will always be some material wealth that will be scarce relative to demand. This will be the limiting factor on human expansion. When the scarce resources are necessary to our survival, then people die off and growth is limited. When the scarce resources are not necessary to survival, then the poverty level rises. Simple as that.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
That journalists are the ones arguing about 'not having to work to live'?
I never see economists or machinists or retail workers espouse this philosophy. I mean really, just because a tiny fraction of the planet doesn't have to work (the 1-2 per centers including the wealthy retirees she touts), it does not follow that the people who make life possible for those economic elite are going to suddenly find what amounts to a pot of gold somewhere.
The Post Replicator fantasy economy is just that - a fantasy. Better to wish for a warp drive. At least it's useful.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Scarcity is a limiting factor, but human greed is even more of a limiting factor. We will never reach anything resembling a utopian society where everyone's basic needs are met, regardless of the means, because of human nature, not because of available resources.
In a society as described (with essentially unlimited resources and energy) what will you do about the population explosion? Without warp drive to get to other star systems we'd end up like the Moties. Another Crazy Eddie utopia, not well thought out. Also, I doubt the vast majority of people would suddenly fulfill their potential and become rock star artists & scientists, achieving Great Things. Some would, but most will just partake of all that instantly available everything and disappear into the Holodeck, which presumably is also free. That future is more like Wall-E.
Unfortunately, with the lack of need for work, there is also a lack of need for workers. So you'd better hope you own some robots, because we only have to look around at the current situation to recognize that those controlling the wealth are willing to do everything in their power to avoid sharing it. For now they need our labor, and so share a few crumbs with us to acquire it. What makes you think they'll share even that much wealth, when we have nothing of value to offer in return?
Technologically we've been more than capable of providing everyone in the world with a life of comfort and leisure (say a 20-hour work week) for several decades, at least. The problems are not technological, they're cultural and political. Further advances in technology are only likely to exacerbate the existing situation.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I used to be left wing and a socialist in my youth thanks to Star Trek TNG. No poverty, happiness, people doing what they want because they want too, no pressure on bills, technology to give you everything you want etc.
Then I grow up and took economics in college and tried living out in the real world and putting up with things.
Here is why it can never happen: ... ... not what is best for themselves.
1. We are in a service economy today. While the Chinese are actually working making things, we count on plumbers, starbucks baristas, help desk weenies, airline baggage handlers, military personnel, construction workers, and so on. How many would work for free because they want too? Seriously? Most humans would sit on their butts and watch TV all day. Those who would want to work to get out of the house won't work as long as if they had a boss and deadlines and bills to pay. Which brings me to point number 2
2. How do we divide scarce resources when no money is involved? Yes with services we have scarce resources again replicators or not. In a free market if there are no large hoard of people desperate for any job and a skill or sucky work is required the price will go up. Someone needs to go out in 110 degree temperates in Phoenix to make that apartment ready for the rest of us to live in. If they worked based on the goodness of their hearts WE WOULD HAVE A HOUSING SHORTAGE. Basically if people did what they wanted and make paintings all day and tried to do IT work then no one would do the crappy work that no one wants. In a free market people work for money and the money will work itself out and have people work for what is best for society
3. It takes a lot of work to become a doctor, lawyer, cisco architect, and so on. Seriously it takes years of tests, certifications, work experience, and blood, sweat and tears.
4. People with free food would become rabbits and reproduce and take over the whole world lowering the amount of opportunities for everyone else.
5. What would society be like if we did this? People would have less services, homes, electronics, etc. Reality it would be like the Soviet Union. Even if you remove fascist elements you would have 10 year waits for cars, starvation (or maybe not with replicators), no where to go, high unemployment and so on.
Ask any eastern European on here or Russian what they think about this? They will be flabbergasted and say you have no idea what you are preaching? I remember life in the Soviet Union ... etc.
So it is sad but a cold hearted reality that our childhoods are over. We need to all work our butts off and be punished for not being the best or persuing the most economically sound path which society is willing to pay more for.
Unless someone can come up with some better ideas? My idea if I were king based on the free market would be to give condoms to poor countries and with less oversupply of workers consuming resources live will be better for everyone :-) The only way Europe left the dark middle ages was the bubonic plague. As horrible as this was with 1/3 of the population gone the middle class and freedom started where people didn't have to be a surf anymore and Paris and London had jobs again that paid something.
http://saveie6.com/
Just out of sheer boredom, what makes you classify this as an "SJW" story?
Or do you have an uncontrollable urge to post anti-SJW snark on Slashdot at least once a day.
Who's going to cut your grass? Who is going to fix the sewer when things get backed up? Some folks who do it just for the "reputation" as the best sewer jockey?
load "linux",8,1
There are lots of reasons why we need to pay people to do things.
There are and always will be jobs that some people are very good at - but they DO NOT WANT TO DO. Just because you are the best at something doesn't mean you will like to do it. Prime examples are sexual - just because you are the best at giving blow jobs in the entire world, does not mean you want to spend your life giving blow jobs. But the same goes for many other jobs - garbage man, crab fisherman, and Wall Street drone. etc. etc.
Many jobs pay more note because of scarcity but because of unpleasantness. Almost no one wants to be a Wall Street Drone - working 15 hour days unless they get paid huge amounts of money. There is no scarcity involved - lots of people are smart enough to do it. But the job requires such ridiculous hours that the only way to convince people to do it is to pay them gobs of money. Even then, most get burnt out and quit.
More importantly, scarcity can never vanish - instead what happens is that once very rare luxury items become somewhat rare necessities, and specialization differentiates types. At one point in time the average person owned less than 5 outfits. Clean clothing was a rare luxury. Now, most people own 20 to 100 outfits. It has become a commodity. Has clothing switched to a 'trekonomy?" No - cut and style, has taken over, with certain types of clothing - namely hand made by famous people - becoming extremely rare.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
So in the Star Trek universe where money doesn't exist, how does one acquire, say, a collectible item like the badge that Wyatt Earp wore, or a rare tea set once owned by Andrew Carnegie?
Absolutely, while this may be the dream of Democrats, Communists and Roddenberry (and Slashdot editors), it is absolute BS.
First of all, we already have replicators, but it is illegal to use them! There is a warning on every DVD that I have that tells me this (and even though I supposedly own the DVD and the DVD player, the player will not skip past that warning. Similarly, while it is perfectly fine for the music labels to cheat the artists, it is not fine to cheat the music labels. And with the stated intention by big industry including Disney to subvert the U.S. Constitution, no copyrighted works will ever pass into public domain again. So if you want to see a movie, listen to music or pay that ever increasing cable bill you are going to need money.
Also, there are finite resources like real estate. Unless your ideal world is one where the party bosses and their pals get to live in big estates and everyone else gets put in a small cell in an undesired location that is deemed perfectly adequate for them, then the Slashdot editor economy doesn't really work. Similarly for any personal service, from a gardener to calling the plummer to domestic help. The fat cats will have all of the body guards (i.e. private mercenaries) that they want, as well as servants (paid slaves) but it will be wrong for you to expect any or not want to wait five to ten years while you go on the list for the plummer.
Even if we had real viable perfect replicators for all physical items and free unlimited energy, this system would never work. In a world where we don't have these, it is ignorant to even suggest that such a system is "closer than you think".
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Hmmm... Not really.
Greed is your way of saying "people should limit their desires to what is collectively obtainable within the existing scarcity".
I mean... fine... but you're admitting scarcity is an issue.
If there were no scarcity then how could there be greed? I mean... imagine a world where you could have as much of everything as any sane person... even a really greedy one... could possibly want?
in Startrek did you ever look at the population numbers? That people skip over that one is always baffling to me. Whole planets get blown up and they'll say stuff like "there were 3 million people on that world"... Three fucking million people... on an entire planet... and not a shitty one... a giant green/blue idealized paradise planet. Three million. Which means every douchebag on that planet could have a scale reproduction of the French Sun Palace staffed with nympho holograms that bear you on a litter about your palace whilst your dick is being sucked at all fucking times.
That is startrek.
That is what it means to be a post scarcity economy. And we are no where near that on old planet earth.
We'd need about a thousand more planets, probably a few million starships, and of course replicators, the infinite power of however that matter/anti matter reactor works... and computers so powerful that they can create sapient life on a whim just by saying "make a hologram smart enough to match wits with Data.
The untapped idiotically overpowering technology of that show is astounding.
If you think about half the crap they have and then think about the way they do things... it makes no sense.
Take their stupid wars against whomever. Why do they fight that way? That's completely insane.
First, they don't need to have crew compliments of those sizes on those ships. They clearly could automate just about everything. Maybe put one person on each battle wagon. But more to the point, why don't they have specialized warships and why are their specialized warships so completely shitty? They keep closing to knife range and firing ineffectual "phasers" at targets that are clearly best dealt with in other ways.
Their torpedoes seem like they're pretty nasty. Okay... why are they so under powered? In WW2, we had torpedoes that could cripple a ship... ONE torpedo. And for big nasty battleships... maybe you could sink them with four or five of them. But in startrek they're firing dozens of the fucking things at each other. Maybe take the torp size and increase it by a factor of ten or a hundred. Fucking fire a warp core at someone. Eat it. The Borg or whatever shows up with their big ship... You have a big torp ship that has nothing on it but big fuck you torp launchers. It warps into point blank range... fires its entire weapon's compliment in .01 seconds... then immediately warps away. Borg goes boom... everyone returns to their orgies on the holodeck.
Think of the way real war works. You don't just sit there poking at each other like that. It suppose that happened in WW1 but that was more owed to people not understanding the technology. So machine guns pinned people down and tanks were not understood to be the counter to that. By WW2, a big machine gun line just meant you had to bring in a tank column and over run the area.
On and on and on and on... so many things didn't make sense in that show.
But the point is... we don't have any of that stuff. And we're not going to get any of it any time soon.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Scarcity is a limiting factor, but human greed is even more of a limiting factor. We will never reach anything resembling a utopian society where everyone's basic needs are met, regardless of the means, because of human nature, not because of available resources.
Well, "human nature" is somewhat malleable by social constructs. So I wouldn't say "never." But there are significant roadblocks.
For example, John Maynard Keynes predicted that only workaholics would be working over 15 hours per week by 2030. We don't really seem to be on that path, despite the fact that worker productivity has basically quadrupled in the U.S. since 1950. (I know some people are going to argue over how accurate this claim is -- but the exact numbers don't matter so much. It's undisputed among economists that worker productivity has gone up significantly over the past 75 years.)
We could all be working 10 hours per week and living with a similar economic standard of living to 1950. Personally, I'd be fine with that, though I know many people wouldn't.
Or we could be less contentious and go back the productivity of 1975 or so... and basically keep our current standard of living for middle classes, but just pay rich people less. Alas, we've chosen greed over spare time.
If there were no scarcity then how could there be greed? I mean... imagine a world where you could have as much of everything as any sane person... even a really greedy one... could possibly want?
Greed isn't a question of absolute amounts. It's about having more than others, whether or not you can actually use/consume/enjoy it. It's about status and power -- limiting what others can have so that you get to have something special.
Of course, a sane person will care little about status. If your neighbour has a faster computer, you can still be a better programmer, which is something no amount of greed will ever take away.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Consider that what we are may not remain static; that's where I get my hope from.
Most people are good some of the time, even saintly (secularly considered). We're not just , you know, totally divorced from goodness.
But as we are, we have brains created under evolutionary pressures which are effectively a bunch of hacks, "designed" not for goodness or beneficience but for survival in the near-zero-sum-game we call natural selection.
You have to believe that we can learn enough about ourselves to tweak ourselves, to close the difference between the best person you know and the worst.
Yes, if we just keep on giving ourselves more nad more powerful technology without making our selves the target of that technology in the way I mean, then we're fucked. We're fucked just for the reasons Einstein said:
"Many persons have inquired concerning a recent message of mine that âa new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels.â(TM) Often in evolutionary processes a species must adapt to new conditions in order to survive. Today the atomic bomb has altered profoundly the nature of the world as we know it, and the human race consequently finds itself in a new habitat to which it must adapt its thinking. In light of new knowledgeâ¦an eventual world state is not just desirable in the name of brotherhood, it is necessary for survival. ..Today we must abandon competition and secure cooperation. This must be the central fact in all our considerations of international affairs; otherwise we face certain disaster. Past thinking and methods did not prevent world wars. Future thinking must prevent wars."
Just substitute "future brains" for "future thinking"
Greed is infinite, and is ultimately about power and control. If it were possible, I am sure there would be those who would own the entire galaxy, if for no other reason that to say it's theirs.
Even now, you have executives that earn multi-million dollar salaries, with super yachts and homes that they use for a fraction of the year. What's the point? There is little additional benefit from having a 100 ft yacht compared to a 200ft yacht, but there is a huge difference in the money you have to have to pay for them.
All those dollars have been paid to a single executive to afford such things has been done so instead of making goods and services cheaper for the customer, or by paying better salaries to the rest of the company's employees.
Executive salaries in the 60s were typically 25x the average salary.
Now they are more than 200x the average salary. More efficient production is not going to change this.
You underestimate just how corrupt some people are. There are those who enjoy destruction, there are those who enjoy killing, there are those who enjoy making other people suffer. A dedicated destructive person can break much more than hundreds of people can make, and if robots do all production, the only difference will be the destructive person will have more to destroy.
No. It is based on the concepts of justice and personal worth. You only deserve to receive if you contribute. Otherwise, you are a waste of protoplasm, an abandonment of human potential.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate