6 ms·

The technologies I’d like to see tracked include post-scarcity economics, resource-based distribution, and needs-based allocation systems.

g-mork 1y ago
I think The Expanse did a much better job of modelling the reality of future economics than trek ever got close to. Everyone living on hand outs is the road to hell
- bitmasher9 1y ago
  They depict two very different economies. If food, energy, medical care and transportation was as cheap as it is in Trek then it might actually make it to post scarcity. One thing that makes Star Fleet such a successful organization is combination meritocracy and diversity. I think any organization that nails that will be very successful. In The Expanse the economies are much more relatable ones of exploitation, poverty, and extreme scarcity. Specifically watching the nationalist Martian society collapse was very interesting and felt realistic.
- delichon 1y ago
  I agree, and one reason is that it didn't dally with the post-scarcity fantasy.
- XorNot 1y ago
  The Earth of the Expanse has a much higher standard of living then the Earth of today. This is similar to when people call The Sprawl a dystopia: conditions in it are far better then what most people live in today.
  - insane_dreamer 1y ago
    That's because today's Earth poor are the Outers in the Expanse -- and they're as bad off or worse than today
    - bnpxft 1y ago
      Yes, the economy of Earth in The Expanse is an extractive colonial one not unlike what we have now in the US. It is the logical extrapolation of the current neo-liberal economic model we have now projected into space. The people of Earth live relatively cushy lives at the expense of the belters. The UN and corporations extract resources from the belt, they overthrow democratically elected leaders to prop up corrupt puppet leaders to do Earth's bidding. All the while, the belters see little of the riches that they're force to extract. Also, unfortunately for the poor of Earth, that wealth also doesn't trickle down to them. It is a pretty accurate analogy of the current state of affairs of Earth today, but the divide is between the Global North and the Global South. The people of Global North live relatively cushy lives at the expense of the belters. The governments and corporations of the Global North extract resources from the belt, they overthrow democratically elected leaders to prop up corrupt puppet leaders to do Global North's bidding. All the while, the working class of the Global South see little of the riches that they're force to extract. Also, unfortunately for the poor of Global North, that wealth also doesn't trickle down to them. The Earth of The Expanse is a warning, not an aspiration.
    - fragmede 1y ago
      Ish. We haven't figured out a way to charge people for breathing yet. Existing in general, sure, but air's still free.
      - insane_dreamer 1y ago
        we're already trying[0] and if air quality worsens now that the EPA decided climate change isn't real, it paves the way for more entrepreneurs of this kind ("see? economic growth!!") [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-vitality-air-sales-update-bottled-air-1.5073762 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-vitality-air-...
  - gmuslera 1y ago
    That is a 1st world country point of view. Reality is that we don't have an unified, global living standard now, and neither probably by the Expanse point of time. And if a critical amount of people decided to try luck working on asteroids, it might mean that they didn't had a comfortable way of life down here at the start of the process, and probably by the end of it too.
- dinfinity 1y ago
  > I think The Expanse did a much better job of modelling the reality of future economics than trek ever got close to. That is because The Expanse does a lot of "the stuff that happen(s)(ed) on Earth, but in space!". Don't get me wrong, it also does a lot of great scifi stuff, but the factions and people are quite one-dimensional unimaginative analogues of known factions. This approach makes it relatable (and commercially more successful) but not necessarily more realistic. It's like predicting flying horse carriages and flying cars versus helicopters, planes, and rockets. Related: IMHO, one of the worst things about the 'relatable extrapolation of the present' aspect is that it limits popular scifi enormously. There's usually some special space carved out for humans or very human-like creatures doing very human things with the environment pretty magically being incredibly Earth-like all the time for hundreds or thousands of years in the future, even though the lives of humans today are already incredibly alien compared to those of humans just 200 years ago.
baal80spam 1y ago
> needs-based allocation systems This one is a fantasy, which communism (that I lived in) had shown many times.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Your communism didn't include replicators and cheap energy to run them.
- anonzzzies 1y ago
  Communism was never post scarcity; if there is basically infinite of whatever we need, nothing that we have seen before applies anymore.
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    If there’s infinite of whatever you need, you don’t need needs-based allocation. It can be entirely wants-based.
lotsofpulp 1y ago
Why do you need these >resource-based distribution, and needs-based allocation systems. if you have this >post-scarcity economics
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Land, labour and dilithium crystals are still scarce in the Star Trek universe. And AFAICT even energy and material goods are scarce in the economic sense. The replicator can replicate replicators so that and any goods that a replicator can create seem not scarce, but the replicator still requires energy to run. Energy is crazy cheap and abundant in Star Trek, but it's not unlimited.
  - mandmandam 1y ago
    > Land, labour and dilithium crystals are still scarce in the Star Trek universe. Land can't be that scarce. How many times did we see an entire planet colonized by like 200 people? Also, it seems like very few cities in the future have put hard caps on building height. People have their own replicators, as you say; and cheap abundant energy. The need for labour is vastly reduced. And dilithium, while 'rare' is not an essential commodity for anything except space travel. > even energy and material goods are scarce in the economic sense. Sure; but they are abundant enough that 'fair distribution' hardly matters, which I think was the OP's point.
    - bryanlarsen 1y ago
      Land is still rare in Star Trek universe for the same reason some land in the US sells for $10/acre and others for hundreds of millions per acre. If you want land in the middle of nowhere it's cheap, but travel still takes significant time between star systems so land on significant planets is still quite valuable.
    - bryanlarsen 1y ago
      > fair distribution hardly matters I'm not so sure. In most of the US if people only used water for drinking and bathing then water would be so abundant fair distribution wouldn't matter. But when it's free-ish then people abuse it and we have water shortages.
bnpxft 1y ago
We'll never be Star Trek without these because the tech of Trek will just be used by the powerful to exploit and repress us.

g-mork 1y ago

I think The Expanse did a much better job of modelling the reality of future economics than trek ever got close to. Everyone living on hand outs is the road to hell

bitmasher9 1y ago
They depict two very different economies. If food, energy, medical care and transportation was as cheap as it is in Trek then it might actually make it to post scarcity. One thing that makes Star Fleet such a successful organization is combination meritocracy and diversity. I think any organization that nails that will be very successful. In The Expanse the economies are much more relatable ones of exploitation, poverty, and extreme scarcity. Specifically watching the nationalist Martian society collapse was very interesting and felt realistic.
delichon 1y ago
I agree, and one reason is that it didn't dally with the post-scarcity fantasy.
XorNot 1y ago
The Earth of the Expanse has a much higher standard of living then the Earth of today. This is similar to when people call The Sprawl a dystopia: conditions in it are far better then what most people live in today.
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  That's because today's Earth poor are the Outers in the Expanse -- and they're as bad off or worse than today
  - bnpxft 1y ago
    Yes, the economy of Earth in The Expanse is an extractive colonial one not unlike what we have now in the US. It is the logical extrapolation of the current neo-liberal economic model we have now projected into space. The people of Earth live relatively cushy lives at the expense of the belters. The UN and corporations extract resources from the belt, they overthrow democratically elected leaders to prop up corrupt puppet leaders to do Earth's bidding. All the while, the belters see little of the riches that they're force to extract. Also, unfortunately for the poor of Earth, that wealth also doesn't trickle down to them. It is a pretty accurate analogy of the current state of affairs of Earth today, but the divide is between the Global North and the Global South. The people of Global North live relatively cushy lives at the expense of the belters. The governments and corporations of the Global North extract resources from the belt, they overthrow democratically elected leaders to prop up corrupt puppet leaders to do Global North's bidding. All the while, the working class of the Global South see little of the riches that they're force to extract. Also, unfortunately for the poor of Global North, that wealth also doesn't trickle down to them. The Earth of The Expanse is a warning, not an aspiration.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    Ish. We haven't figured out a way to charge people for breathing yet. Existing in general, sure, but air's still free.
    - insane_dreamer 1y ago
      we're already trying[0] and if air quality worsens now that the EPA decided climate change isn't real, it paves the way for more entrepreneurs of this kind ("see? economic growth!!") [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-vitality-air-sales-update-bottled-air-1.5073762 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-vitality-air-...
- gmuslera 1y ago
  That is a 1st world country point of view. Reality is that we don't have an unified, global living standard now, and neither probably by the Expanse point of time. And if a critical amount of people decided to try luck working on asteroids, it might mean that they didn't had a comfortable way of life down here at the start of the process, and probably by the end of it too.
dinfinity 1y ago
> I think The Expanse did a much better job of modelling the reality of future economics than trek ever got close to. That is because The Expanse does a lot of "the stuff that happen(s)(ed) on Earth, but in space!". Don't get me wrong, it also does a lot of great scifi stuff, but the factions and people are quite one-dimensional unimaginative analogues of known factions. This approach makes it relatable (and commercially more successful) but not necessarily more realistic. It's like predicting flying horse carriages and flying cars versus helicopters, planes, and rockets. Related: IMHO, one of the worst things about the 'relatable extrapolation of the present' aspect is that it limits popular scifi enormously. There's usually some special space carved out for humans or very human-like creatures doing very human things with the environment pretty magically being incredibly Earth-like all the time for hundreds or thousands of years in the future, even though the lives of humans today are already incredibly alien compared to those of humans just 200 years ago.

baal80spam 1y ago

> needs-based allocation systems This one is a fantasy, which communism (that I lived in) had shown many times.

bryanlarsen 1y ago
Your communism didn't include replicators and cheap energy to run them.
anonzzzies 1y ago
Communism was never post scarcity; if there is basically infinite of whatever we need, nothing that we have seen before applies anymore.
- sokoloff 1y ago
  If there’s infinite of whatever you need, you don’t need needs-based allocation. It can be entirely wants-based.

lotsofpulp 1y ago

Why do you need these >resource-based distribution, and needs-based allocation systems. if you have this >post-scarcity economics

bryanlarsen 1y ago
Land, labour and dilithium crystals are still scarce in the Star Trek universe. And AFAICT even energy and material goods are scarce in the economic sense. The replicator can replicate replicators so that and any goods that a replicator can create seem not scarce, but the replicator still requires energy to run. Energy is crazy cheap and abundant in Star Trek, but it's not unlimited.
- mandmandam 1y ago
  > Land, labour and dilithium crystals are still scarce in the Star Trek universe. Land can't be that scarce. How many times did we see an entire planet colonized by like 200 people? Also, it seems like very few cities in the future have put hard caps on building height. People have their own replicators, as you say; and cheap abundant energy. The need for labour is vastly reduced. And dilithium, while 'rare' is not an essential commodity for anything except space travel. > even energy and material goods are scarce in the economic sense. Sure; but they are abundant enough that 'fair distribution' hardly matters, which I think was the OP's point.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Land is still rare in Star Trek universe for the same reason some land in the US sells for $10/acre and others for hundreds of millions per acre. If you want land in the middle of nowhere it's cheap, but travel still takes significant time between star systems so land on significant planets is still quite valuable.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    > fair distribution hardly matters I'm not so sure. In most of the US if people only used water for drinking and bathing then water would be so abundant fair distribution wouldn't matter. But when it's free-ish then people abuse it and we have water shortages.

bnpxft 1y ago

We'll never be Star Trek without these because the tech of Trek will just be used by the powerful to exploit and repress us.