Star Trek XI Teaser Poster
Credit: Paramount Pictures | ©Paramount Pictures
Anyone who has known me for nearly any length of time will know that I am what qualifies as a gigantic Star Trek fan; whether it is the Original Series with Kirk and Spock, The Next Generation with Picard and company, or Voyager with Captain Janeway. With the upcoming release of the next Star Trek feature film, Star Trek XI (okay, in December 2008, but I'm already counting down), I thought I would devote a little blog space to the economics of Star Trek. Of course, Star Trek as a franchise is big money for Paramount Pictures, but I am here concerned with the internal economics of the fictional Star Trek Universe. Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, used his fictional universe as a way of putting forward his own Utopian ideals about what an ideal human society would be like at some unspecified future date. But does Roddenberry's vision of the Star Trek Utopia make a plausible candidate for a desirable direction for our species to take?
While occasionally the Star Trek characters use "Federation credits" or "gold-pressed latinum" to make purchases, it has been explicitly stated in Star Trek (such as Picard's statement in Star Trek: First Contact) that money does not exist anymore in the 24th century, and that humans had advanced beyond the drive for material wealth and possessions. Aside from the practical implausibility of this ever coming to fruition, it is worth asking if this should even be the abstract ideal (something along the lines of the idealized society in Plato's Republic) for human society.
While occasionally the Star Trek characters use "Federation credits" or "gold-pressed latinum" to make purchases, it has been explicitly stated in Star Trek (such as Picard's statement in Star Trek: First Contact) that money does not exist anymore in the 24th century, and that humans had advanced beyond the drive for material wealth and possessions. Aside from the practical implausibility of this ever coming to fruition, it is worth asking if this should even be the abstract ideal (something along the lines of the idealized society in Plato's Republic) for human society.
Comments
star
(Guest)
(Guest)
12/11/2009
Did you ever think that the reason theres no money in star trek is because they have replicator and a unlimited supply of cheep energy (aka anti-matter). couple that with transporter which further lowers the cost of doing things. The whole reason for having money is based on scarcity. In Star Trek is a post-scarcity society. Why would need money in a society where everybody basic needs could be meet at very low cost and at a touch of a button. Personally i dont think seeing how the world is today. I could hardly believe that money dose not lead to some kind of evil.
Rick
(Guest)
(Guest)
08/12/2009
I fully agree with Michael
I would add that a world without money might be as hard to imagine for some of us now, as a caveman might find that a world in which people dont spend most of their daytime hunting prey and scavanging for roots a utopian fantasy.
Imo a world without money's only obstacle is educational and political(vested interest in the present system have more leverage to prevent this next step in human development). We already have the technical means to accomplish such a system within a few years if enough people knew about it.
I realize its very hard to imagine cold turkey based on our present education/media and our system frame of reference which perpetuates the status quo, I personally also did not think it practical for sometime but the more you study it the more plausible and desirable it becomes. You could have a point system based on participation that would act as money at some basic levels, but you would not need them to get just about anything you nee
Michael
(Guest)
(Guest)
07/29/2009
Interesting article, but the argument that money is 'moral neutral' is false.
Money, by its nature gains interest from itself in a bank account, which favors the rich. That is why the rich always get richer, unless they're horrible spenders.
Money in the stock markets favors rich individuals who can afford to invest (read gamble) in the market lottery.
Please read more on economists like Silvio Gessell or the Worgl experiment in Austria.
Cheers!
Adan Fule
(Guest)
(Guest)
08/23/2007
Speaking from a purely inquisitive Trek-fan, Mr. Fruhling, do you think Roddenberry should have engineered a sense of human evolution in order to make this whole absence of money work? I mean, if we all bred out or evolved ourselves into something beyond human-nature, would that work?
Hypothetical.
Good article - while I was writing for Star Trek: Next Generation & Deep Space Nine, something producers always warned incoming writers of was this "Roddenberry notion of Humanity overcoming finacial gain" With DS9, the Ferengi were created, whose society was so structured around profit, comedic plot devices flowed quite freely.
In ST: First Contact: "No money? You mean you don't get paid?" Lily asks Picard who answers "Acquisition of wealth is no longer a driving force in our lives. We wish to better ourselves & the rest of humanity." Sounds good, dear Captain, but who exactly pays for your luxurious trips to pleasure planet Risa?
Interesting. :)
uh oh, i thought there`was a quota for star trek fans. :)
Comments 1 - 7 (of 7)
|
|