>The big challenge here is how does society get someone to do the menial jobs that cannot be done in an automated manner. Are there examples of menial jobs in the Star Trek universe? I would imagine by then there simply are no menial jobs. I'm not sure what menial job examples there are that can't be automated. The jobs left over are interesting jobs. I'd imagine the motivation to do so are on par with the same motiv…
The Star Trek Economy
91–100 of 240 posts
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#92Careful, having the capacity to do something does not mean you should do it.
An excellent way to grow a starving population from 80MM people to 800MM people in about 80 years is to feed them (these numbers aren't made up).
Then all you have to do is just feed their children, and their children, and their children, until that population hits some type of a pivotal point where everything becomes great, they become independant, responsible, have a self-sustaining economy, government, start having only 1.4 children, etc.
The chances of it all going horribly wrong is very high, but why not balloon the population of the world, and have all those new soles competing over limited resources.
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#93>The big challenge here is how does society get someone to do the menial jobs that cannot be done in an automated manner. Are there examples of menial jobs in the Star Trek universe? I would imagine by then there simply are no menial jobs. I'm not sure what menial job examples there are that can't be automated. The jobs left over are interesting jobs. I'd imagine the motivation to do so are on par with the same motiv…
Google the Chief O'Brien At Work comic series for a laugh.
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#94communism is already a big part of our lives. When you sit at the dinner table and ask for the salt, you get it. When are at work and you ask for a code review and the person gives it to you. If the need is great enough, or the obstacles to ability are small enough, people do things.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Our economy is firmly based on communist actions and the capitalists exploit this.
but the way that people talk about communism, as a centrally planned economy, shows great ignorance of both the literature and a blindedness to "already occurring communism"
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Capitalism rewards not just work and the investment of capital but also greed and cheating. That implies that socialism and communism do not reward greed and cheating, which is hard to believe.
In fact by concentrating strict monopolies on political, military, judicial and economic power in a narrow party elite, it pretty much guarantees it will be rewarded. I realize Communism and Socialism as abstract principles don't require this, but that seems to be the way it works out as they have been put into practice historically by actual Communists and Socialists. There's nothing about capitalism that demands th…
It depends on what you mean by capitalism. If by capitalism, you mean a market-based economy, like that adam smith guy, then yeah, we should have anti-trust laws to guard against private anti-competitive behavior. If you mean lack of government interference at all costs (which is more a political program than an economic program, really), then no, monopolies and/or cartels will actually be the end state of many industries if you don't have laws preventing that behavior.
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a job someone doesn't want to do pays well enough, it becomes a job someone wants to do. See: Working in $expensiveCity, banker, lawyer, jobs requiring lots of travel, etc. If the lack of available workers pushes the pay up, more people consider the previously undesirable job desirable again and start learning the requisite skills if applicable, increasing the candidate pool and pushing pay back down - in this way…
Cities are generally expensive because they are desirable places to live; that there are jobs available is only part of that.
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#97Re: The Star Trek Economy
#98So, economic models are more or less based on, or at least constrained by, human psychology, right? Communism and socialism don't work because peoples' brains aren't wired to do lots of work for little or no or unequal reward. This isn't restricted to just people, either, it's been observed in monkeys ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKhAd0Tyny0 -- it…
> Capitalism rewards not just work and the investment of capital but also greed and cheating. That implies that socialism and communism do not reward greed and cheating, which is hard to believe.
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#99So, economic models are more or less based on, or at least constrained by, human psychology, right? Communism and socialism don't work because peoples' brains aren't wired to do lots of work for little or no or unequal reward. This isn't restricted to just people, either, it's been observed in monkeys ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKhAd0Tyny0 -- it…
But, in terms of the modern, knowledge economy, work means something different. I don't need someone to move widgets. What I need is more content, better design, more aesthetics, more culture, more entertainment, more research and development. None of these are quantifiable or fungible.
Work today should be viewed more like a potential to produce some value. In the startup world, we give lots of money to lots of companies, with the understanding that most will fail. We hope that a few will succeed and produce a new products or services that will work. But, we don't know. We have to spread the money around to get those results.
I have a sister who makes probably a few thousand a year. She's a very high-IQ person, who just happened to take some wrong turns in life. She's gifted and very crafty and creative. But, 95% of her time is taken up by the logistics of life - trying to pay the bills, keep the water running, etc. I would much rather have her be able to focus on creating things and inventing. But, as her brother, I'm not willing to fund her completely, because even with her innate creativity and intelligence, I'm unsure what will result. It's too much risk, for this one individual.
But, on the other hand, everyday, the majority of the value that I get is from things that are 'free': product reviews, blog articles, questions answered on IRC, people posting cat videos. There is a shit ton of work being done, but it's not quantifiable. How much is it worth for someone to read a book and edit a wikipedia page? We're certainly not willing to pay people to do that type of work. But, in aggregate, it's incredibly valuable.
Anyway, my thought is that if we can give people basic freedom from the inane logistics of life, they will free themselves up to do other things. Very few people will do nothing. I can't even imagine nothing. Even the stereotypical images of bums drinking 40oz out of bags - it's not nothing. They're creating something - new words, new art, conversation that ripples. Maybe they go to the library and post their thoughts online - that turn into other ideas. But, of the hours a day that they do things, we can't quantify that value.
Labeling things as capitalism/communism, left/right doesn't seem to do much to help the problem. We should all agree that we're past the 20th century, past the 19th century. We need new ways of thinking about these issues.
We need a system where people who have been born with the competitive gene, and who want to conquer and acquire trophies, are free to compete and be rewarded for it. But, we should also recognize that most people don't have that gene, and that it can't be taught easily. But, those other people should be given some basic income to allow them to explore the infinite space of Human knowledge and creativity.
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#100You can add all sorts of political systems on top of capitalism, but it never goes away. The only thing you end up doing is hurting people.
I liked this article because it's an example of fiction learning from reality, then scientists trying to learn from fiction. There's a wonderful feedback loop at work between fiction and science that's neat to watch.
But this post-scarcity nonsense is tripe. I trade with you, not only because I need to eat or have shelter, but because you have something I want. And I have something you want. It is our _desires_ that cause the trade, nothing else. And I don't want to live in a world where humans stop wanting stuff. Sounds horribly stagnant and/or medicated.
So I liked the writing style, loved the theme, and kudos to the author for having such a good grasp of Trek lore. But from a rational-thinking standpoint, this guy ain't hitting on much. The quality of analysis itself is what's missing.