Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Star Trek Economy

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 240 posts

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#201

Post by EliAndrewC »

ItendToDisagree wrote: post #141
EliAndrewC wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> War-like cultures would still exist even if the Federation believes they themselves have moved beyond that type of thing. An alternate take compatible with patio11's irreverent theory: war-like cultures exist only in the sense that some cultures have different LARP preferences. Supporting evidence: how did the Klingon Empire (who are not actually part of the Federation) make it through their nuclear age without blo…

Oh agreed on all counts. Was just pointing out you need to have at least a like minded set of people to 'do battle' with the other LARPers! Also I thought the Klingons were part of the Federation at one point during DS9 era? Or perhaps that was just an alliance...

> Also I thought the Klingons were part of the Federation at one point during DS9 era? Or perhaps that was just an alliance...

There was indeed a military alliance between the Federation and Klingon Empire against the Dominion. A friend of mine (uncharitably) referred to the war against the Dominion arc as the writers, "exploring what Star Trek could be... if it was more like Babylon 5."

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#202

Post by belorn »

WalterBright wrote: post #182
belorn wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such implied statement. Capitalism is not the logical opposite to socialism and communism. Assuming that what is true for one is automatically false for the other is a logical fallacy.

In context of the rest of the parent post, it is listed as a characteristic of capitalism but omitted from socialism and communism, which is a clear implication it is not a characteristic common to all three.

That is not how I read the parent post. It said that greed and cheating is serious flaw of capitalism - it reward greed and cheating.

Is every flaw of capitalism implied flaws of socialism and communism and vise verse? Every flaw of communism also a flaw in capitalism?

That is true only if one say that capitalism and communism and socialism is all the exact same ism.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#203

Post by landryraccoon »

msandford wrote: post #193
greenbeethree wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand Basic income as providing equal wealth to everyone... That is not the goal. The point is to provide the bare minimum amount of money required for someone to survive. You would base the amount of money each person gets on the cost of living where they live, just like how wages very from place to place today. The amount of Basic income wouldn't be the same everywhere. Basic Income isn't socialism, peo…

> You misunderstand Basic income as providing equal wealth to everyone... I can see how you might think that, but I disagree. What I am trying to do is show that the idea that a basic income can provide without distorting prices isn't grounded in reality. What is the bare minimum amount of money required for someone to survive? And who defines what "surviving" is? If you're married with six kids (four currently of th…

The point of the article was that this applies to a nearly post scarcity society. For example, suppose we lived in an Asimov style world where autonomous robots could produce enough food, clothing and housing to sustain everyone on Earth even if Every Single Person decided to never work again. In such a society, the basic income can be determined by what the robots can produce. I think it's interesting to think about what could be possible in a future society, as opposed to just the fact that this probably won't work today.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#204

Post by toomuchtodo »

ap22213 wrote: post #99
thaumaturgy wrote: post #10

So, 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…

What is 'work', anymore? In context of capitalism/communism (and the old industrial economy), 'work' had basically meant a 'worker' getting paid to do some tangible, quantifiable task. E.g. I pay you $5 to move those 100 widgets. Or, maybe you get a loaf of bread if you move those 100 widgets. But, in terms of the modern, knowledge economy, work means something different. I don't need someone to move widgets. What I…

Please post this in /r/BasicIncome on reddit. Its a wonderful post.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#205

Post by toomuchtodo »

whatevsbro wrote: post #195
bluntly_said wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point of the article. Pretty much entirely.

Well that was bluntly said. I'm not sure it's accurate though, and besides, I was just talking about the nature of economies and Capitalism, which is certainly relevant to an article talking about, well, economies. But if you see a problem with what I said, perhaps you'd like to tell me what it is?

The problem is, the whole part of the article was post-scarcity. You identify that earth resources are scarce. What if they're not? What if all of our energy is renewable? What if we close the loop for mined materials so we recycle in-system and no longer consume additional materials from the earth? If we're wired around scarce resources, we will need to adapt when scarcity no longer occurs.

Today's Atlas would say, "Give me enough energy and mass, and I'll move the universe." With enough energy, anything is possible.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#206

Post by dredmorbius »

The fundamental problem with any post-scarcity economy is that it presumes a world in which resources aren't fundamentally constrained. It's been argued that this is in fact one of the limitations of orthodox / neoclassical economics, in that it assumes that unlimited growth it possible.

That's a view that's championed, interestingly, by both the far Left (Marxist and Socialist economists) and the Right (business lobbies, various cornucopian ideologues, putatively much of the Koch-backed propogandasphere, and their Libertarian sycophants). Curious bedfellows.

I've only recently run across an essay of Garrett Hardin's (of "Tragedy of the Commons" and "Lifeboat Ethics", with whom I've long been acquainted), "The Feast of Malthus" (http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles_pdf/feast_of_ma...) which explores this idea further. He notes specifically:

I think that a single overarching view accounts for these and many other invectives put forward by Marxists and liberals during the past century and a half: this is the tightly held denial of limits in the supply of terrestrial resources. Friedrich Engels, Marx's collaborator and financial supporter, asserted baldly that "The productivity of the land can be infinitely increased by the application of capital, labour and science."

Much of the essay continues on to discuss population. The upshot being: you can accept unconstrained consumption (but limits on population), or unrestricted procreation, with severe restrictions on individual consumption.

There is no universal freedom.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#207

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

ap22213 wrote: post #99
thaumaturgy wrote: post #10

So, 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…

What is 'work', anymore? In context of capitalism/communism (and the old industrial economy), 'work' had basically meant a 'worker' getting paid to do some tangible, quantifiable task. E.g. I pay you $5 to move those 100 widgets. Or, maybe you get a loaf of bread if you move those 100 widgets. But, in terms of the modern, knowledge economy, work means something different. I don't need someone to move widgets. What I…

> Labeling things as capitalism/communism

It's very important to realize that Karl Marx coined the term "capitalism." Pooling resources to pursue a profitable venture is not an "ism", it's just something that inevitably happens.

It's also not a social system. A free enterprise economy is intimately bound up with cultural values.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#208

Post by fixedd »

patio11 wrote: post #138
kybernetikos wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because Jean Luc Picard is a Federation citizen, and he wouldn't be happy as other than a starship captain. There are strong hints in Iain M Banks' Culture series that a significant portion of the mission of Contact and Special Circumstances is giving humans with a pathological need for conflict and excitement something to do to keep them happy.

Thanks for this recommendation -- I'm a quarter of the way into the first book now and mostly enjoying it.

They're fantastic. I got (selfishly) really sad when Mr Banks died as it meant he'd have no more fantastic stories to tell.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#209

Post by gaius »

bdunbar wrote: post #164
gaius wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then the Borg show up... The analogy breaks down because the Federation is still resource constrained. Why bother with planets if you can build Dyson spheres? Because they can't, they still need to find new planets and colonize.

Perhaps they don't build Dyson spheres because living _in_ one would be really boring. The sun is always in the same spot. It's always day. You can't see the _stars_. Give me the surface of a planet, anyday.

If you have the technology to build a Dyson sphere, you could probably put some transparent aluminium windows in it :-)

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#210

Post by jotm »

kr4 wrote: post #154
thaumaturgy wrote: post #10

So, 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…

If we can implement following two rules of living, we can move in the direction of achieving post-scarcity economy: 1) Cap every individual at a maximum he can earn for private use – if he earns beyond this, it'll redistributed amongst the society (as basic income). The cap could be say $500000/$1000000, which is high enough to encourage a part of the population to create wealth and enjoy it. At the same time, it dis…

1) Most wealthy people have their money in their ventures - not directly available for private use, like cash in a bank account. I don't see how a cap would help in this case, as they can spin off multiple ventures, all still controlled by them. It would help to keep the economy going, but not by much.

2) People will find ways to hide their wealth - taking away their money when they die is an obvious threat to them and their children. It may work in the long term with the right control and incentives, but corruption (i.e. bypassing the law) will be extremely high in the beginning.

Post reply on HN