4 ms·

You're absolutely missing the point. This is _my_ fantasy world, not bound by the history of Star Trek; the show itself in later series got ruined by awful wri

by csydas 4y ago

You're absolutely missing the point. This is _my_ fantasy world, not bound by the history of Star Trek; the show itself in later series got ruined by awful writers who couldn't figure out how to make a sci-fi utopia fun to watch and instead made a faux-military/action drama for no reason. I want no part in that future. Second, I think you actually miss the point of these episodes; the challenge in the Cardassian border wars and issues was "how does a space utopia exist with a (comically) fascist regime?" Debatably, the actions of the Maquis and other border colonies were persons stuck in a land ownership mindset which is exactly what I think we need to avoid. Data even proved this in the episode with the Sheliak to convince the people of Tau Cygni V that a place is just a place. I have no idea what you're referring to about a trailer in a desert, but in actual Star Trek, everyone had a home, had food, had a place to live. Regarding luxury apartments and vineyards, I must ask: why would you care? If you have a spacious and great apartment that meets your absolute every need for you and your family, why would you care if someone has more square meters or a higher floor on a high-rise? In a world where transporters and shuttlecraft and replicators exist, why would you care where your home is located except that it meets your personal vision of a perfect home? You can live in the middle of the alps and have every modern convenience at your fingertips and just enjoy the snow. As for the vineyard, again, I think you're looking at this from a very current perspective; in a world with replicators and synthehol where only a few specific snobs care about real alcohol versus replicated alcohol, owning a vineyard and manually tending to it likely is just something where everyone goes "right, have fun with that." (Also, Picard didn't own the vineyard, his brother did. I guess in the Picard series he controlled it also? But never watched it) I really cannot take the comment seriously as I think you both miss the point of the episodes regarding property/land and also are not considering how people might view apartment sizes and such in a world when transportation, knowledge, information, energy costs, food, basically everything is already taken care of. Remember, even humble Scotty thought he was being given an admiral's treatment in TNG when he got a _basic_ quarters for his stay. Try to imagine that's what your normal life looks like, and then ask yourself how much you would care if someone has a few extra square meters.

philwelch 4y ago
You can have whatever fantasy world you want, but it’s still fundamentally incompatible with human nature. Even in the absence of material constraints, human beings will still compete for relative status. If you live in the United States today, you are incalculably wealthier than even the aristocrats of old, but this has not managed to alleviate envy. Also, class difference has been decoupled from material wealth for centuries already. Just like a prosperous burgher from an Italian city-state in the early modern period was never considered the equal of an aristocrat who held a fraction of his wealth, a successful arctic fisherman, electrical lineman, or oil field worker is still in a lower social class than a less wealthy Ivy League graduate.
- csydas 4y ago
  Not in the least. A future where the baseline minimum isn't homelessness and suffering in the street simply has not been done before. Remove the need to struggle for a basic comfortable life, a new world has a chance to thrive. The past has the burden of dealing with the fact that the difference between a day-labourer and a wealthy elite is the former has to struggle to meet basic survival and participation in society is eliminated the the basic day-to-day is already met. Human nature will adjust, just like it did to the industrial revolution, to the digital revolution, and so on. Hundreds of thousands of data entry specialists were replaced by digital automation; even more land-laborers were replaced by farm automation. The difference with the future I want is that there is a guarantee of a good and basic living, whereas the past had no ability to guarantee this. Human nature doesn't enter into it; when anyone can travel anywhere, can replicate the same food or goods the wealthy elite currently enjoy exclusively, there is no practical separation between them. It becomes a non-issue; just like some years ago emoji were a status symbol (remember, you used to need to _pay_ for stupid emojis), they're a standard now. The world can be better, we see this everywhere even today with municipal and community efforts, with OSS, and so on. It's already here in many spheres, it's just a matter of accepting that there's no harm in a percentage of society taking advantage of such a system. The points you make have no relevance in a world where you don't need oil workers, arctic fisherman, day laborers, and so on.
  - 4y ago

by csydas 4y ago

philwelch 4y ago

You can have whatever fantasy world you want, but it’s still fundamentally incompatible with human nature. Even in the absence of material constraints, human beings will still compete for relative status. If you live in the United States today, you are incalculably wealthier than even the aristocrats of old, but this has not managed to alleviate envy. Also, class difference has been decoupled from material wealth for centuries already. Just like a prosperous burgher from an Italian city-state in the early modern period was never considered the equal of an aristocrat who held a fraction of his wealth, a successful arctic fisherman, electrical lineman, or oil field worker is still in a lower social class than a less wealthy Ivy League graduate.

csydas 4y ago
Not in the least. A future where the baseline minimum isn't homelessness and suffering in the street simply has not been done before. Remove the need to struggle for a basic comfortable life, a new world has a chance to thrive. The past has the burden of dealing with the fact that the difference between a day-labourer and a wealthy elite is the former has to struggle to meet basic survival and participation in society is eliminated the the basic day-to-day is already met. Human nature will adjust, just like it did to the industrial revolution, to the digital revolution, and so on. Hundreds of thousands of data entry specialists were replaced by digital automation; even more land-laborers were replaced by farm automation. The difference with the future I want is that there is a guarantee of a good and basic living, whereas the past had no ability to guarantee this. Human nature doesn't enter into it; when anyone can travel anywhere, can replicate the same food or goods the wealthy elite currently enjoy exclusively, there is no practical separation between them. It becomes a non-issue; just like some years ago emoji were a status symbol (remember, you used to need to _pay_ for stupid emojis), they're a standard now. The world can be better, we see this everywhere even today with municipal and community efforts, with OSS, and so on. It's already here in many spheres, it's just a matter of accepting that there's no harm in a percentage of society taking advantage of such a system. The points you make have no relevance in a world where you don't need oil workers, arctic fisherman, day laborers, and so on.
- 4y ago