this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
140 points (91.2% liked)

TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name

3740 readers
722 users here now

/c/TenFoward: Your home-away-from-home for all things Star Trek!

Re-route power to the shields, emit a tachyon pulse through the deflector, and post all the nonsense you want. Within reason of course.

~ 1. No bigotry. This is a Star Trek community. Remember that diversity and coexistence are Star Trek values. Any post/comments that are racist, anti-LGBT, or generally "othering" of a group will result in removal/ban.

~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen both on lore and preferences. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.

~ 3. Use spoiler tags. This applies to any episodes that have dropped within 3 months prior of your posting. After that it's free game.

~ 4. Keep it Trek related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.

~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love Star Trek stuff but 3-4 posts in an hour is plenty enough.

~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.

~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon'

~ **8. Political commentary is allowed, but please keep discussions civil. Read here for our community's expectations.

Fun will now commence.


Sister Communities:

!startrek@lemmy.world

!memes@lemmy.world

!tumblr@lemmy.world

!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world

Want your community to be added to the sidebar? Just ask one of our mods!


Honorary Badbitch:

@jawa21@startrek.website for realizing that the line used to be "want to be added to the sidebar?" and capitalized on it. Congratulations and welcome to the sidebar. Stamets is both ashamed and proud.


Creator Resources:

Looking for a Star Trek screencap? (TrekCore)

Looking for the right Star Trek typeface/font for your meme? (Thank you @kellyaster for putting this together!)


founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

It's not even a very hard argument to make.

Any honest examination of the economics of the very wealthy will reveal that there is a fundamental upper limit to the quantity of goods and services that any single individual will consume, on average.

Once you accept the idea that consumption is bounded, then the cost the post scarcity utopia becomes finite. It is not infinite. Once you accept that the cost is finite, then you're only arguing about orders of magnitude.

It is certainly true that the natural consumption limit of humans appears to exceed the per capita GDP of any country in 2024. But this is a show about the future, and about a society that has mastered energies far above our own

[–] BeefPiano@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We make enough food on this planet to feed 10 billion people. In the US we have 10 empty houses for everyone that’s experiencing homelessness.

We have enough for everyone but under capitalism it doesn’t get distributed to everyone who needs things. Replicating more food or homes wouldn’t solve the problem.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I don't know about the 10 billion number. But if it's true, then we only have a 25% margin on food (10/8), and to my engineering mind that's not enough. We gotta pump those numbers up.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

Pretty sure they’re only talking about food being thrown out as well.

Acts like swapping to a vegan diet and ending the obesity epidemic would free up a lot more food for humanity.

[–] TheMongoose@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

But if it’s true, then we only have a 25% margin on food (10/8), and to my engineering mind that’s not enough. We gotta pump those numbers up.

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, we should make sure everyone gets enough food first, then work on increasing production. What's the point in getting to a 50% or even a 100% margin on excess food production if people are still starving to death because we can't get it to them?

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It’s almost like artificial scarcity means we could progress without having profit as a driving factor, and it’s not like people wouldn’t ever work. Hell productivity is to a point that 10hours a week can do what we did sixty years ago in a 40.

Some wouldn’t work but everyone would get bored eventually and learn for fun or go try 52936729362 different jobs.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Some wouldn’t work

Very few wouldn't

UBI enough to have enough, then any wages on top of it. More than enough would gladly work 20/hrs a week doing the necessary tasks so their lives can be nicer.

We'd also see crime drastically drop. Who would risk jail when they have a decent life to lose?

[–] skweetis@kbin.social 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Also, if employers know that you could quit tomorrow and have housing, food, and health care while you look for another job, they would be incentivized to make it not so shitty to work there.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Nah.

No UBI, no “ethical” capitalism nonsense.

We can just provide for people without attaching strings or propping up consumerism.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There's be nothing better for consumerism than UBI...

The bottleneck in our economy is that people don't have enough to spend. Literally the only thing propping us up right now, is Americans keep spending and economists are openly admitting they don't know why.

If every American tried to save 5k in the bank right now, our economy would grind to a halt and there'd be massive layoffs, followed by the few with jobs still saving even more. Jobs plummetting their wages due to increased labor supply, now people are still saving, it's just taking longer.

We are so fucking close to a depression and everyone keeps pretending we're fine just because fossil fuels drilling is at record level and we're importing lots of cheap consumer goods from overseas.

Unregulated capitalism like this isn't sustainable

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Let me simplify this for you further.

Consumerism is bad.

Capitalism is bad.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Welp, before I block you, I might as well clarify for everyone else:

If consumerism was important to the rich, then they'd support UBI.

They don't make their wealth off consumerism anymore, that shit is decades old.

It's like getting mad at horse drawn carriages are overpriced.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If you’re going to block people for being anti-capitalist, you’re going to have to block the majority of Lemmy.

Our planet cannot survive consumerism, and we don’t need to seek fleeting happiness through novelty of purchasing a product.

[–] Stamets@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

For real... I've never understood the obsession with trying to line everything up with reality. Like I get trying to ground it but I mean it's the future. Who the fuck knows how things are gonna change?

That's why I loooooove Trek so much. Does remind me of one of my favorite Trek scenes.

Who watches the watchers?

[–] GuyFleegman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Thermianism can be fun, it's the selectivity that gets me. The fact that so many Trekkies will more readily accept FTL than a moneyless society is... something.

[–] Stamets@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

You know I never really thought of it from that perspective before. That is kind of insane. I guess not super surprising. With every Trek and something new people get really upset about something that is different than what they're used to. Why wouldn't that apply to certain parts of the whole core concept? Does seem like it requires some loopy cognitive dissonance to get to that.

[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

There's a few reasons why the advanced technology might be easier to accept without question than the society without money.

  1. FTL and other advanced technologies are core elements that are essential to the premise and genre, things which you are asked to accept right up front. Those same elements might very well be hard to accept if they weren't part of the show from the beginning, and therefore were not part of your expectations. You would probably have a lot of people get pissed if they showed up in a Lord of the Rings movie or a typical police procedural, just like you would probably piss off a lot of people introducing real magic, ghosts, and angels in Star Trek.

  2. Advanced technology is in every episode. Trekonomics is not. Something that is constant is probably going to become tolerated and/or ignored fairly quickly, or it's likely to drive me away and I probably don't become a fan. Something that pops up occasionally stands out that much more because it is only there occasionally.

  3. The average person is going to find it easier to have nerdy delight in robots, spaceships, and pew pew lasers, rather than economics. We are much more accepting of the things we like.

  4. Most people have very little personal, hands on experience with space travel and the obstacles to FTL. But the audience generally does have experience dealing with other people, including the types of interaction that involve money, labor, goods, services, favors, bartering and so on. Accepting something that goes against what you know on a purely intellectual level is a lot easier than accepting something that you feel contradicts your lived experience.

  5. They talk about trade and commerce all the time, which can seem contradictory to the whole lack of money thing. Bones says he has money in Star Trek 3, but as soon as Kirk can't pay for pizza in Star Trek 4, we don't have money in the future. But we still visit alien worlds and buy things at markets, negotiate trade agreements, and so on. It's similar to how I can accept a seemingly endless stream of ridiculous sci-fi concepts in Stargate SG-1, but I can't just accept the lack of explanation for why everyone speaks English, because they have a linguist on the team and keep drawing attention to the fact that there are also alien languages.*

  6. Because the science behind the advanced technologies is very soft, mostly handwaved with technobabble, and therefore there isn't much substance to pick at. Ships go really fast because they do, and there's no larger implications to that because communication is instantaneous somehow, as are sensors I guess. Any nitpicks that come up beyond that can be handwaved away with more random nonsense pretending to mean something, the technobabble giveth and the technobabble taketh away. Because money, trade, labor and the distribution of goods and services touches almost everything in one way or another, the complexities of civilization as a whole are there for a critic to work with and extrapolate from. Replicators solve many problems, but there's still jobs that must be done which are unpleasant and which few people would find fulfilling. The federation has not relied on robots for most such tasks, and when such things do come up, it's almost always presented in a negative light. Why does the Picard family get a whole vineyard, and who decides how land can be used and who gets to live where? Is there really no conflict over any of this? And even if we just accept that humans have "evolved" beyond such things, what about immigrants from other worlds with other cultures? If earth is such a paradise, one would expect a lot of people on other worlds to want to move there. There's only so much room on the planet, especially if we want to leave nature intact.... and I could go on.


* Start Trek isn't immune to the language thing either, even with the universal translator. Why do Klingons switch in and out of Klingonese, even when on their homeworld, at their official hearings surrounded by their own people?

[–] negativenull@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

That is a fascinating observation. FTL, replicators, transporters, etc. DS9 kind of ruined the illusion since they toyed with latinum so much with the Ferengis

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

As far as I am aware, the lack of money is specific to Earth. Not the entire federation. Starfleet personnel get per diems as mentioned in DS9 when stationed somewhere other than Earth. You think Quark is letting everyone use the holosuites and eat and drink for free? If they want free food, they have the replimat. Even that isn't "free;" you have rations because even replicated food costs energy (the idea being very prevenlent in Voyager).

What gets me is that they have also mentioned that putting things back in the replicator to be broken down somehow replenishes a bit of that energy... Wouldn't it take a shitton of power simply to turn the material back into elemental particles? 🤔

[–] MudMan@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I have mostly chalked that up to DS9 being pretty bad at being a Star Trek show. Seriously, if they wanted to make Babylon 5 they should have just made Babylon 5.

Voyager dealing with scarcity makes sense for their premise, but the point is Trek society is supposed to be post-scarcity, at least on the Federation side. If they can use matter/energy conversion to cook and travel then it just doesn't make sense to assume any limits to consumption. Trek society isn't just not capitalist, it simply can't be capitalist. They had to come up with some reeeal stretchy garbage to justify DS9 having a currency and people paying it for stuff like drinks and entertainment in a world where they are still beaming themselves around.

I mean, they have a perfectly good planet right there, let alone a wormhole that is supposed to make them a commerce hub. And they aren't going anywhere, they literally just need to keep the lights and replicators going to be self-sustainable indefinitely, as opposed to flying around at faster than light speeds by warping the fabric of spacetime. Somebody explain to me how come Quark gets to charge people for a cup of tea in that context.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Somebody explain to me how come Quark gets to charge people for a cup of tea in that context.

Simple.

He's a greedy Ferengi and not part of the Federation.

Also: The Bajorans down on the planet you speak of exchange currency. The planet doesn't have the infrastructure to be post-scarcity... That's, like, the entire premise for the show. They're getting assistance from the Federation to help rebuild after the Cardassian occupation while also petitioning to join the Federation.

The most flimsy explanations are actually just how Earth operates a currency-less society. They trade. They barter. They simply don't have money. Most every race that isn't capable of producing a resource they want trades. And some of those races also happen to value currency in the form of liquid metal wrapped in gold. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–] MudMan@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago

No, that's not simple. He has replicators. He owns replicators. We see him use them. Alright, so we know some stuff like food or latinum doesn't replicate well and you can tell the difference, and presumably post-scarcity you put a huge premium on that because what else are you gonna do, but how doess that sustain an entire species of greedy interstellar traders? What are they greedy for, even? Everybody can still talk to their wall and get new pants and a sandwich.

And why does Bajor not have the infrastructure? What weird-ass priorities does the Federation have that in seven years they somehow manage to keep around a warship with transporters, replicators a FTL warp engine and a cloaking device but can't get the planet set up for post-scarcity? They have transporters and replicators, what's taking so long? None of it makes sense.

The answer is somebody wanted to do Casablanca in spaaaaace and they weren't going to let the rules of the setting get in the way. DS9 should not be canon. People get mad at nuTrek's tone changes, but DS9 breaks the lore completely.

[–] ineffable@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The image got cut off, I'm interested in hearing the remainder of this 4,000 word rant...

[–] GuyFleegman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 months ago

Paraphrased from something I got hit with on /r/DaystromInstitute, years ago

I could go find it but... reddit 🤮

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

The Ferengi are capitalist as hell